Norman Giesler and what he says about Calvinism

[bling]

How can God quench his own desire?This makes Gods will contrary to his desire. The suppression of desire denotes a conflict of the will. Does God suffer from the inner conflict of desires that battle against his will?

From Christ’s actions and words prior to going to the cross and being tortured, I would say it was not Jesus’ desire to be tortured and killed, but it was God’s will that it happen. God being one with Jesus would not “desire” to have Christ go to the cross but it was God’s will.
It is like our not desiring our children to fall while learning to ride a bike, but we do allow it to happen for their overall good.

The text you quoted actually demonstrates the view that you are opposing. If God did not desire that the man was born blind why does Jesus plainly state that the man was born blind so that Gods work might be demonstrated in him.

The same reason I do not “desire” anyone to be born blind. I do realize I and others need opportunities, so unfortunately people are born blind to provide those opportunities.
A rock glorifies God to some extent by being a rock, so is that the glory the Bible is talking about? Or could someone not cease the opportunity presented them and thus not bring glory to God by their actions?
Is God glorified by you when you do not cease the opportunity God has provided for you, such as in the Good Samaritan story, did the priest and the Levi bring Glory to God by their actions?

 

[oworm]

From Christ’s actions and words prior to going to the cross and being tortured, I would say it was not Jesus’ desire to be tortured and killed, but it was God’s will that it happen. God being one with Jesus would not “desire” to have Christ go to the cross but it was God’s will.
It is like our not desiring our children to fall while learning to ride a bike, but we do allow it to happen for their overall good.

The same reason I do not “desire” anyone to be born blind. I do realize I and others need opportunities, so unfortunately people are born blind to provide those opportunities.
A rock glorifies God to some extent by being a rock, so is that the glory the Bible is talking about? Or could someone not cease the opportunity presented them and thus not bring glory to God by their actions?
Is God glorified by you when you do not cease the opportunity God has provided for you, such as in the Good Samaritan story, did the priest and the Levi bring Glory to God by their actions?

Whenever we say things like "I would say this or that about the biblical text we have moved into what I call anthropocentric conjectural conclusions. Basically we make the text mean what we want it to mean.

God didn't allow the crucifixion to happen for the overall good. It was a deliberate action according to his definite plan.

Just because we don't desire something to happen doesn't mean God doesn't! When we start saying things like "I wouldn't desire this or that to happen therefore God wouldn't" We turn everything around and make Him subject to human tendencies.

The above is demonstrated perfectly by using the parable of the good Samaritan to demonstrate a point by turning the parable into an allegory. The Priest and the Levite did not bring Glory to God because they are fictitious characters within a fictitious story told to make a point about how we should treat our enemies. They have no bearing on the point of the parable except to show that by negative example we are not to be like them in the treatment of our enemies. But even if they were real characters they would serve to bring glory to God by demonstrating by negative example to Gods people how we are not to behave to our enemies.

An actual example of this would be Pharaoh of whom it was said that he was raised up in order to bring Glory to God. We all know Pharaoh wasn't a worshiper of God, he was an enemy of God and yet he brings glory to God in the salvation of Israel from bondage to Egypt. Another actual example would be Pontius Pilate who thinks he has the power to take or deliver Jesus from death until he is informed by our Lord that he has no power apart from God. Both Pilate and Pharaoh glorified God by their actions even though they were sinful actions. I could go on and tell of Josephs brothers who sold him into slavery with the intention of harming him but later in the story we are told that what they meant for evil God meant for good. Josephs brothers actually brought Glory to God by their sinful actions.

I am hoping that readers of this thread are getting the point here.




​

 

[bling]

God's requiring a "should" of us is not the same as implying God should or should not do anything.

If a “should” is required than it is a “must”. There are things that “will” happen and there are thinks that “should” happen, but are there thing that must should happen?

I'm not sure what went with that discussion. I've been away. The consistency of other attributes dictates that consistency include all attributes in some way. We may even think that makes one attribute inconsistent; it isn't the case.

I am in full agreement with: everything God does being consistent. I do not have any issue with the God of the Bible being: able to do all things that are possible to do, having all knowledge that can be known, being totally just, being righteous, being sovereign and having selfless/agape/Godly Love.

The problem only occurs if you say: “God is self seeking”.

God's designed people to want what they do.

There is a great deal of design work in each individual, including the design of just the right free will in order to allow the individual to accept or reject God’s Love and the free will needed to Love like God.

Paul did want to do what he was doing, when he found out about coveting?

Could a sovereign ruler that did not want to remove the free will from his subjects still be sovereign and the subjects have free will?

"Should not" is not the same as "does not". The correction of error to a "should" is termed "punishment". It is not a correction or improvement of the person. It's an offense that needs to be rectified.

How does this relate to discipline?


I still do not understand?

Actually, I meant to by pointing out, God's love is not what common English usage communicates by "love". English "love" is generally kindness, protection, and familial love. None of these is particularly the central point of the Greek "agapae".

So the questions are equivocal. What do you wish to ask?

Is God’s Love (agape) not defined by Christ’s words and actions?

How was Christ self seeking?

We seem to agree that we are to be selfless, so if Christ was selfish or self seeking is Christ a poor example and one we should not follow?

The Bible defines agape or Godly type Love even without using Christ, so where does it say God’s Love is different from these definitions of Love that define it as selfless?

Christ could have portrayed the father in the story of the prodigal son anyway he wanted, but to portray him as being like the best earthly example He could (not to mislead us or deceive) of an earthly representation of God as father, Jesus presents a very unique father especially for that time. Does Christ do an excellent job of presenting God’s Love in the unconditional, selfless Love of the Father?

 

[heymikey80]

If a “should” is required than it is a “must”.

Um, it isn't a "should", then. "Should"s are conditional. If they're required they're required in order to or prerequisite to or in consequence of another condition. That condition being universal, they would be "is".

There are things that “will” happen and there are thinks that “should” happen, but are there thing that must should happen?

Sure. Why would someone tell us to do something that must happen, though?

I am in full agreement with: everything God does being consistent. I do not have any issue with the God of the Bible being: able to do all things that are possible to do, having all knowledge that can be known, being totally just, being righteous, being sovereign and having selfless/agape/Godly Love.

The problem only occurs if you say: “God is self seeking”.

Ps 91:14, Is 42:8, 43:7, Is 52:5-6, Jr 7:12, 34:15,16, Ez 20:9,14,22, Mal 1:11.

There is a great deal of design work in each individual, including the design of just the right free will in order to allow the individual to accept or reject God’s Love and the free will needed to Love like God.

Find a Scripture that says so. It's simply not the case that each person is tuned to have "just the right free will" for allowing the individual to be the critical component in accepting or rejecting God's love.

Paul did want to do what he was doing, when he found out about coveting?

Yes. He was simply doing as he wanted, until he found out differently. Then he pressed up against his own inability to avoid coveting, even knowing it was wrong.

Could a sovereign ruler that did not want to remove the free will from his subjects still be sovereign and the subjects have free will?

The issue's an ambiguity in the term "free will". But now, certainly, a sovereign ruler can permit free will.

A creator of that will cannot create something independent of his creation, no.

How does this relate to discipline?

Discipline is a redeeming action. Punishment need not be, it need only be a just action.

Is God’s Love (agape) not defined by Christ’s words and actions?

All His actions, sure.

How was Christ self seeking?

"He came to His own", He did what would ultimately end in His Personal glorification, He claimed special relation to God in ways that scandalized people who would reject the idea out of hand.

We seem to agree that we are to be selfless, so if Christ was selfish or self seeking is Christ a poor example and one we should not follow?

No. We operate in a different status from Christ, the Son of God. I can't heal paralytics. Can you? If so, I have a list ....

The Bible defines agape or Godly type Love even without using Christ, so where does it say God’s Love is different from these definitions of Love that define it as selfless?

To demand absolute selflessness is well beyond the terms defining agapae love.

Christ could have portrayed the father in the story of the prodigal son anyway he wanted, but to portray him as being like the best earthly example He could (not to mislead us or deceive) of an earthly representation of God as father, Jesus presents a very unique father especially for that time. Does Christ do an excellent job of presenting God’s Love in the unconditional, selfless Love of the Father?

I assert that's not exactly what even this parable displays on an absolute scale. In the parable, whose inheritance is the father using to lavish on the younger son? Is that selflessness?

 

[bling]

My theology is informed by biblical truth. The perspicuity of Scripture in its entirety requires me to come to my theological conclusions.




Gods demonstrations of Love bring glory to Him primarily. We as the recipients of that Love should bring to glorify him.

I think it may be a semantic issue that we are at odds with in our understanding of Gods self glorification. Human glorification is sinful but Gods glory in himself is perfect.

If the statement that God is totally selfless is true then that would be a denial of everything that God is and does and it would also be a denial of the witness of scripture and what he says about himself there. See quotes above

We agree that man is to be selfless and this is also the definition given for agape (Godly type Love), but where does scripture say God’s Love is not selfless or is different than the definition given us?
Like the Father in the prodigal son, His “glory” is in His selflessness, which Christ was teaching us is God’s glory? Did Christ mislead us about God in presenting this Father in the prodigal son?


This is good because it does point out how I use the word “sake” to mean for the benefit and pleasure of and the Bible uses “sake” to mean in keeping with the character or nature of. In these cases God is doing the most beneficial action He can for the individuals involved not as a result of their character, but as the result of His character.

Is shows the “selfless” sake of God (Love), so His doing for us out of Love (really for our sake [benefit]) is for His sake since He is Love. You can see this in the father of the prodigal son that had mercy on his son for the Father’s sake, since that is the way the father is and not for the sake of what the young son had done, but is it did work for the good of the young son.
OK, back to the original question but stated without using the word “sake” (to avoid the confusion with definitions): How is God benefiting others (and who are they) and showing Godly type Love (selfless mercy), by allowing individuals to go to hell?
When did Jesus show selfishness or is He our example of selflessness?

Again I will say. Our human understanding of selflessness has sinful connotations by virtue of our fallen nature. God calls us to selflessness because we need that, by virtue of the sinful tendency to human self glorification and all that goes along with such a heinous disposition. God on the other hand is perfectly satisfied in himself and does all things for his own gratification.






It wasn't a selfless act when God gave over His son. It was a self giving act. He was not being self-less He was being self giving. He was doing something that is totally in keeping with his nature and character as the one who gives himself to sinners.

I do not agree with John Piper on “God does everything
to uphold and magnify his own supremacy”

. Again Jesus presents it much better than I can with the story of the prodigal son. In the story the Father is selfless toward the younger son and older son, but that brought no “glory” to the sons and all the glory goes to the Father even though the younger son is exalted by the Father to a place of honor. How was the father “self giving” toward the younger son and does it appear in anyway the father is trying to get something for himself out of this?

 

[bling]

Whenever we say things like "I would say this or that about the biblical text we have moved into what I call anthropocentric conjectural conclusions. Basically we make the text mean what we want it to mean.

God didn't allow the crucifixion to happen for the overall good. It was a deliberate action according to his definite plan.

Just because we don't desire something to happen doesn't mean God doesn't! When we start saying things like "I wouldn't desire this or that to happen therefore God wouldn't" We turn everything around and make Him subject to human tendencies.

[Do we have a “good” definition of “agape” (Godly type Love) from Christ and scripture?

If we see things happening that an “agape” Loving individual would not desire to be happening, can we also conclude God would not desire that to happen either?


Did things happen that Jesus did not desire to happen?

The above is demonstrated perfectly by using the parable of the good Samaritan to demonstrate a point by turning the parable into an allegory. The Priest and the Levite did not bring Glory to God because they are fictitious characters within a fictitious story told to make a point about how we should treat our enemies. They have no bearing on the point of the parable except to show that by negative example we are not to be like them in the treatment of our enemies. But even if they were real characters they would serve to bring glory to God by demonstrating by negative example to Gods people how we are not to behave to our enemies.

An actual example of this would be Pharaoh of whom it was said that he was raised up in order to bring Glory to God. We all know Pharaoh wasn't a worshiper of God, he was an enemy of God and yet he brings glory to God in the salvation of Israel from bondage to Egypt. Another actual example would be Pontius Pilate who thinks he has the power to take or deliver Jesus from death until he is informed by our Lord that he has no power apart from God. Both Pilate and Pharaoh glorified God by their actions even though they were sinful actions. I could go on and tell of Josephs brothers who sold him into slavery with the intention of harming him but later in the story we are told that what they meant for evil God meant for good. Josephs brothers actually brought Glory to God by their sinful actions.​

I am hoping that readers of this thread are getting the point here.​

​

​

If you use the definition of “glory” to include a rock bringing glory to God by being a rock.[/

We can use the word “praise” and talk about bringing praise to God or not bringing praise to God, by our actions.

I would say things like: “It was not God’s desire that Adam and Eve sin, but it was understood by God that they would and thus became part of His plan (will). Would you say it was God’s desire for Adam and Eve to sin and use desire synonymous with will?

 

[bling]

Heymikey80 said:
Ps 91:14, Is 42:8, 43:7, Is 52:5-6, Jr 7:12, 34:15,16, Ez 20:9,14,22, Mal 1:11.

These verses do not present a “self seeking” God, but one that is protecting people and lifting people up and serving the Israel nation. God by His nature is selfless so in doing things out of his “sake” is doing stuff for the best interest of others.

Heymikey80 said:

Find a Scripture that says so. It's simply not the case that each person is tuned to have "just the right free will" for allowing the individual to be the critical component in accepting or rejecting God's love.

The fact that God commands people to do stuff and they do not do it shows, they have free will.


Adam and Eve were not perfect like Christ because they were made beings, but they were made in God’s image and made very good so did they have free will?


Does Godly type Love require free will and would an instinctive type of love not be a lower form of love than a Love as the result of a choice (would you prefer to have a spouse love you instinctively [programmed] or because she/he choose to Love you)?


We agree that “God is Love” and we can also agree that not everyone is going to heaven. What we do not agree on is the determining factor that causes some people to go to hell. I am saying the determining factor is man’s free will acceptance or rejection of God’s Love in the form of accepting or repeated rejection of God’s forgiveness (Love, grace, mercy, charity, and Love). If man does not accept God’s Love as it was given (as charity=unconditional and undeserving) than the transaction is not completed and Love does not pass to that person. If the person accepts forgiveness they will automatically Love in proportion to the amount they relies they have been forgiven of “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…”

Heymikey80 said:
Yes. He was simply doing as he wanted, until he found out differently. Then he pressed up against his own inability to avoid coveting, even knowing it was wrong.

In Romans 7:7-25 tells us Paul did what He did not want to be doing at the time he learned about coveting.

Heymikey80 said:
The issue's an ambiguity in the term "free will". But now, certainly, a sovereign ruler can permit free will.

A creator of that will cannot create something independent of his creation, no.


I am a little confused here, so help me. Are you saying: “God could permit free will, but God could not “create” free will in independent agents?”

If free will in created beings was needed for God to accomplish His objective, what would keep Him from creating free will in other agents?

Heymikey80 said:
"He came to His own", He did what would ultimately end in His Personal glorification, He claimed special relation to God in ways that scandalized people who would reject the idea out of hand.

John 8: 54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

Did Christ do it to be glorified or did He do it out of Love that would result in Him being glorified?

Is it not glorious to be selfless and why would that not also apply to God?

Heymikey80 said:
No. We operate in a different status from Christ, the Son of God. I can't heal paralytics. Can you? If so, I have a list ....

Silver and gold have I none, but what I do have I can give to others. If people can accomplish more by being healed and if there is a way to heal them with other alternatives than God had to do it (we do not want to replace faith with science [knowledge]) they will be healed. Most of the time, the physical healing is not what they need, but they do need to see Christ in you, to hold and be there for them.

We today can do (allow to be done through us) even greater works since Christ has gone on. We can allow Christ to work though us to provide the indwelling Holy Spirit to others.

Heymikey80 said:
To demand absolute selflessness is well beyond the terms defining agapae love.

Paul says: “Not self seeking” so is that not selflessness?

Do we have examples of Paul being selfish and not correcting his actions?


Peter was rebuked by Paul for his selfish (prideful) act, so where and when is selfishness allowed praise worthy?

Heymikey80 said:
I assert that's not exactly what even this parable displays on an absolute scale. In the parable, whose inheritance is the father using to lavish on the younger son? Is that selflessness?

For the son to “ask” for his inheritance before the death of the father is the same as saying: “I wish you were dead”! The son had no right to the inheritance until the death of the father; it was not the sons to take at that time. The father (like any wonderful wise father) would have known what the son would do with the money. The father’s objective is to do all He can to provide both his sons with the best opportunities to grow up to be like he is (which is like God is and what God is trying to do with us). The father (like God) does not take the free will ability away from his sons, since that is needed to be like he is (in Love). The “money” is insignificant to the objective of the father. The objective of the sons is to become like the wonderful father (with his Love). The father gives practically everything to the younger son (out of Love) to help him reach the point he will truly accept his Love and thus love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much…). The older son just looks upon the example of Godly type Love and must decide if that is the “Love” he wants to share in.

The Pharisees that are being addressed directly in this parable as the older son, do not like what they see in the father’s actions toward the prodigal son. The parable is left not stating the final actions of the older son, since the Pharisees are left to really finish the parable. The Pharisees understood enough scripture to realize the father being described was God like, so the truth cut deep and they did not say: “you are present a false God.”

 

[oworm]

I am noticing a trend whereby people will take a word and attribute a meaning to it which is much narrower than how it is used in scripture.

The word AGAPE is being defined on this forum as the kind of love which is selfless or self sacrificial love. but there are at least three examples from scripture where the word is used in a different context to demonstrate anything but godly love.

* 2 Timothy 4:10 "...for Demas has forsaken me, having loved [agape] this present world...."


* John 12:43 "for they loved [agape] the praise of men more than the praise from God."


* John 3:19 "but men loved [agape] darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."


Agape is indeed used to describe a form of love which is removed from other definitions of Love in scripture. But the same word in its verbal form is also used to demonstrate a love for the world,for self aggrandizement and sin. If we say that Agape is the form of the word for love which describes only self sacrificing love then we are engaging in eisegesis.

 

[heymikey80]

These verses do not present a “self seeking” God, but one that is protecting people and lifting people up and serving the Israel nation. God by His nature is selfless so in doing things out of his “sake” is doing stuff for the best interest of others.

If the definition of doing things for one's own sake is identical to being selfless, then "selfless" is meaningless, in which case it should be discarded as a definition of God, because God is not meaningless.

 

[bling]

If the definition of doing things for one's own sake is identical to being selfless, then "selfless" is meaningless, in which case it should be discarded as a definition of God, because God is not meaningless.

Thank you for helping me think about defining “unselfish”.

If I was totally unselfish and did something that benefited you, I would get satisfaction out of what I did, because that is my unselfish nature, so in that respect selflessness is somewhat confusing. The motivation though cannot be self seeking or it would not be Loving. God is always doing stuff at some sacrifice to Himself for the benefit of others and not just for His benefit.

It is the problem Adam and Eve had with God’s unselfish Love being extended to them prior to sinning, they would only recognize God’s actions as a wonderful loving parent’s love for wonderful children and why would He not love them like that? God’s selfless Love would have the appearance of being self seeking, since God did not have to sacrifice anything.

A selfless act is doing what is in the best interest of others at some cost to yourself. You could have some personal satisfaction in the selfless act, but the cost exceeds the any personal satisfaction. This would be like the “Good Samaritan” or the father in the “Prodigal Son” sacrifice for another. God allowing Christ to go to the cross shows the extent of His unselfishness.

 

[bling]

I am noticing a trend whereby people will take a word and attribute a meaning to it which is much narrower than how it is used in scripture.

The word AGAPE is being defined on this forum as the kind of love which is selfless or self sacrificial love. but there are at least three examples from scripture where the word is used in a different context to demonstrate anything but godly love.

* 2 Timothy 4:10 "...for Demas has forsaken me, having loved [agape] this present world...."


* John 12:43 "for they loved [agape] the praise of men more than the praise from God."


* John 3:19 "but men loved [agape] darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."


Agape is indeed used to describe a form of love which is removed from other definitions of Love in scripture. But the same word in its verbal form is also used to demonstrate a love for the world,for self aggrandizement and sin. If we say that Agape is the form of the word for love which describes only self sacrificing love then we are engaging in eisegesis.

Very good, I do not like using “agape” exclusively to mean “Godly type Love” and try to capitalize the “L” in love to stand for Godly type Love or type our God’s Love or Godly type Love. “Agape” in the Greek at Jesus’ time had lost its meaning and was used many ways and not used much at all. Jesus defined the word in His use of it. Jesus was selfless and described Godly type Love with examples of selfless behavior, so that defines Godly type Love. I have been saying God defines (especially through Jesus) Godly type Love and not the word “agape” or the use of agape describing non Christ like people.
Do you agree we are to be selfless?
Does Jesus describe any righteous person as being selfish?
When was Jesus selfish?