Predestination

[enegue]

Howdy,

Previous posts:

1. First defect in Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God
2. Fundamental Categories of men

The second defect in a Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God relates to their misunderstanding of his law.

I will try to illustrate:
My son drops an object and as it falls from his hands he lets fly an expletive. I say, "Hey! What's that all about?"

This is the third occasion I have spoken to him about his language. The first time I just cautioned him, asked him not to use such expressions, and suggested alternatives. The second time I expressed annoyance and disappointment, and said next time it happened I would have to punish him. This third time, I said nothing and just imposed the punishment.

Whether or not you agree with my method is immaterial, I use it only as a means of illustrating the purpose of God's law.

Considering the three categories of men from my previous post, my son is not a naturally righteous man. Even though he has lived within the family for his entire life, he has not observed that neither I nor my wife use such language, and when it was drawn to his attention he was unable to exercise self-control.

So, a law was needed. What was it's purpose? To inflict my will upon him? Certainly not. The purpose of the law was to *enable righteous behaviour*. To give him a means of choosing to continue our walk together, by doing what was right in my sight.

If he never again used such language, or slipped up only on the odd occasion with an immediate apology, I would know that I had his love and respect. The law would have achieved its purpose.

That would then put him in the same position as my daughter who had never uttered such things or even imagined to do so. They are both righteous children. Whether my son constrains himself because he doesn't want to offend me, or because he fears the imposition of the punishment, is immaterial. The law had enabled him to do what by nature he could not do. He had overcome.

However, if it was his choice to continue to offend me by not refraining from the use of profanity, I would persevere with love and patience in an endeavour to draw him to me, but while he persisted he would remain cut off from the many "good things" for which I am the source. My sovereignty over those things is totally unaffected by his choice to act outside my will.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[oworm]

Howdy,

Previous posts:

1. First defect in Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God
2. Fundamental Categories of men

The second defect in a Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God relates to their misunderstanding of his law.

I will try to illustrate:
My son drops an object and as it falls from his hands he lets fly an expletive. I say, "Hey! What's that all about?"

This is the third occasion I have spoken to him about his language. The first time I just cautioned him, asked him not to use such expressions, and suggested alternatives. The second time I expressed annoyance and disappointment, and said next time it happened I would have to punish him. This third time, I said nothing and just imposed the punishment.

Whether or not you agree with my method is immaterial, I use it only as a means of illustrating the purpose of God's law.

Considering the three categories of men from my previous post, my son is not a naturally righteous man. Even though he has lived within the family for his entire life, he has not observed that neither I nor my wife use such language, and when it was drawn to his attention he was unable to exercise self-control.

So, a law was needed. What was it's purpose? To inflict my will upon him? Certainly not. The purpose of the law was to *enable righteous behaviour*. To give him a means of choosing to continue our walk together, by doing what was right in my sight.

If he never again used such language, or slipped up only on the odd occasion with an immediate apology, I would know that I had his love and respect. The law would have achieved its purpose.

That would then put him in the same position as my daughter who had never uttered such things or even imagined to do so. They are both righteous children. Whether my son constrains himself because he doesn't want to offend me, or because he fears the imposition of the punishment, is immaterial. The law had enabled him to do what by nature he could not do. He had overcome.

However, if it was his choice to continue to offend me by not refraining from the use of profanity, I would persevere with love and patience in an endeavour to draw him to me, but while he persisted he would remain cut off from the many "good things" for which I am the source. My sovereignty over those things is totally unaffected by his choice to act outside my will.

Cheers,
enegue

Your analogy fails in that it assumes a relationship with the father from the start. It would only hold together if you were arguing from the assumption that all are God's children(Im sure you are not!)

 

[Erinwilcox]

Howdy,

Previous posts:

1. First defect in Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God
2. Fundamental Categories of men

The second defect in a Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God relates to their misunderstanding of his law.

I will try to illustrate:
My son drops an object and as it falls from his hands he lets fly an expletive. I say, "Hey! What's that all about?"

This is the third occasion I have spoken to him about his language. The first time I just cautioned him, asked him not to use such expressions, and suggested alternatives. The second time I expressed annoyance and disappointment, and said next time it happened I would have to punish him. This third time, I said nothing and just imposed the punishment.

Whether or not you agree with my method is immaterial, I use it only as a means of illustrating the purpose of God's law.

Considering the three categories of men from my previous post, my son is not a naturally righteous man. Even though he has lived within the family for his entire life, he has not observed that neither I nor my wife use such language, and when it was drawn to his attention he was unable to exercise self-control.

So, a law was needed. What was it's purpose? To inflict my will upon him? Certainly not. The purpose of the law was to *enable righteous behaviour*. To give him a means of choosing to continue our walk together, by doing what was right in my sight.

If he never again used such language, or slipped up only on the odd occasion with an immediate apology, I would know that I had his love and respect. The law would have achieved its purpose.

That would then put him in the same position as my daughter who had never uttered such things or even imagined to do so. They are both righteous children. Whether my son constrains himself because he doesn't want to offend me, or because he fears the imposition of the punishment, is immaterial. The law had enabled him to do what by nature he could not do. He had overcome.

However, if it was his choice to continue to offend me by not refraining from the use of profanity, I would persevere with love and patience in an endeavour to draw him to me, but while he persisted he would remain cut off from the many "good things" for which I am the source. My sovereignty over those things is totally unaffected by his choice to act outside my will.

Cheers,
enegue

Amen to what Oworm said, but I have another question for you: First, if your daughter doesn't ever use such language, does she need the law? What does that law do for her? And second, why does your son need the law if he is righteous? And is it sin when he breaks the law? In that case, he wouldn't exactly be righteous (unless he was saved and then fell into sin and repented of it).

 

[cygnusx1]

Howdy,

Previous posts:

1. First defect in Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God
2. Fundamental Categories of men

The second defect in a Calvinist's understanding of the Sovereignty of God relates to their misunderstanding of his law.

I will try to illustrate:
My son drops an object and as it falls from his hands he lets fly an expletive. I say, "Hey! What's that all about?"

This is the third occasion I have spoken to him about his language. The first time I just cautioned him, asked him not to use such expressions, and suggested alternatives. The second time I expressed annoyance and disappointment, and said next time it happened I would have to punish him. This third time, I said nothing and just imposed the punishment.

Whether or not you agree with my method is immaterial, I use it only as a means of illustrating the purpose of God's law.

Considering the three categories of men from my previous post, my son is not a naturally righteous man. Even though he has lived within the family for his entire life, he has not observed that neither I nor my wife use such language, and when it was drawn to his attention he was unable to exercise self-control.

So, a law was needed. What was it's purpose? To inflict my will upon him? Certainly not. The purpose of the law was to *enable righteous behaviour*. To give him a means of choosing to continue our walk together, by doing what was right in my sight.

If he never again used such language, or slipped up only on the odd occasion with an immediate apology, I would know that I had his love and respect. The law would have achieved its purpose.

That would then put him in the same position as my daughter who had never uttered such things or even imagined to do so. They are both righteous children. Whether my son constrains himself because he doesn't want to offend me, or because he fears the imposition of the punishment, is immaterial. The law had enabled him to do what by nature he could not do. He had overcome.

However, if it was his choice to continue to offend me by not refraining from the use of profanity, I would persevere with love and patience in an endeavour to draw him to me, but while he persisted he would remain cut off from the many "good things" for which I am the source. My sovereignty over those things is totally unaffected by his choice to act outside my will.

Cheers,
enegue

this is nothing like the Biblical Law that God introduced .

God's Law doesn't just warn , it Kills .... it was never given to make men acceptable , Holy or Righteous , rather it was given to "INCREASE SIN" To show that all men , even religious men like the Jews were sinners.

It was also a temporary measure over the house of God until Christ should come with a New Covenant .
The Old Covenant kills , The New Covenant makes alive!

 

[TruthMiner]

this is nothing like the Biblical Law that God introduced .

God's Law doesn't just warn , it Kills .... it was never given to make men acceptable , Holy or Righteous , rather it was given to "INCREASE SIN" To show that all men , even religious men like the Jews were sinners.

It was also a temporary measure over the house of God until Christ should come with a New Covenant .
The Old Covenant kills , The New Covenant makes alive!

Yes, only since the New Covenant has been in effect can people be born again to this new life.

But people in the OT were quite able to believe and obey God weren't they?

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes, only since the New Covenant has been in effect can people be born again to this new life.

But people in the OT were quite able to believe and obey God weren't they?

There is only one Church ............ all it's members both Old and New TESTAMENT Saints were born again.

that is why old Nicodemus was rebuked ....... he should have known better , but alas often religious men cannot see what stares them in the face.

 

[oworm]

Are you paranoid delusional or something?

It may be a good idea to refrain from ad hominem statements like these. Discussions tend to disintegrate, warnings get issued and valuable threads get closed down as a result!

 

[TruthMiner]

There is only one Church ............ all it's members both Old and New TESTAMENT Saints were born again.

No, that is just another unfounded assertion designed to suit your creed and nullify Scripture for the sake of your tradition.


Future tense: "I WILL build my church" not "I WILL add to my church."

that is why old Nicodemus was rebuked ....... he should have known better , but alas often religious men cannot see what stares them in the face.

No, Nicodemus should have known because he was a leader of Israel and he should have known the prophesies that were foretold.

Use your head cyg. Do you really think a teacher of Israel would have been ignorant of people being born again if indeed it was occuring all around him?

And that's why "the Kingdom is near," into which people are born again, was only now being preached.

Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh

 

[cygnusx1]

No, that is just another unfounded assertion designed to suit your creed and nullify Scripture for the sake of your tradition.


Future tense: "I WILL build my church" not "I WILL add to my church."

"THE LORD ADDED TO THE CHURCH"
Acts 2:37-47

 

[dennis777]

On Judgement Day, how will we explain to the non-elect that Calvin's God is Love, and is not Partial?

How will the non-elect feel about the situation?

Will they Praise and Love God?

What will they say about Calvin's God who flippantly, arbitrarily, and randomly rejected them, for no reason?


***********

I feel Love for ALL people, including my enemies and the non-elect.

Calvin's God loves the Few and Hates the Many.

In obedience to the Holy Commandment, I love all people and ALL my enemies and ALL the non-elect.

So,......... I'm more Loving than Calvin's God.
I'm more Righteous than Calvin's God.
I'm im-partial.
He is Partial.

Calvin's Jesus ministered through-out the Holy land, Samaria, Gaza, the Decapolis, etc
And He Hated the Many and loved the Few.
He preached "Love ALL people. Love your enemies."
And He didn't practice what He preached.
He Hated more people than He loved.

Why did He love Lazarus, Mary and Martha?
No reason, at all.
Calvin's Jesus is random and flippant. He is Arbitrary and reason-less in His Love.

It was Happen-stance that Calvin's Jesus loved those 3 people.

dennis777

 

[enegue]

Your analogy fails in that it assumes a relationship with the father from the start. It would only hold together if you were arguing from the assumption that all are God's children(Im sure you are not!)

Hey, Oworm. I'm not a Calvinist. The analogy works perfectly for me. And yes, I believe ALL men are God's children. Prove to me from scripture that they are not. My proof: they are offspring of his offspring, and he knows the names and deeds of them all:
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
-- Revelation 20:11-13

First, if your daughter doesn't ever use such language, does she need the law? What does that law do for her?

No, she doesn't need the law. The naturally righteous man has no need of the the law:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
-- 1 Timothy 1:9-10

And second, why does your son need the law if he is righteous? And is it sin when he breaks the law? In that case, he wouldn't exactly be righteous (unless he was saved and then fell into sin and repented of it).

Because his natural inclination is counter to mine, he will need the assistance of the law. Without the law he has no power to behave in a righteous manner, but with the law he is confronted with a *choice*. A choice between his love and respect for me and his natural inclinations.

Establishing the law is a loving response to *enable my son* to walk with me in the same way my daughter does, so that they both can continue to enjoy the "good things" for which I am the source.

Sin *is* breaking the law - that's it's definintion. So yes, it is sin. Repentance is a positive response to the law. It is the response of an overcomer.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[oworm]

Hey, Oworm. I'm not a Calvinist.

I gathered that from reading your posts

The analogy works perfectly for me. And yes, I believe ALL men are God's children.

So you are a universalist then? You believe all people will go to heaven?

Prove to me from scripture that they are not.

John 8:39-48 Where Jesus is disputing with the Pharisees provides sufficient scriptural warrant that not "ALL men are Gods children" more specifically in verse 44 where He says" You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires."

My proof: they are offspring of his offspring, and he knows the names and deeds of them all:

The passage you quote from below provides no evidence that "ALL men are Gods children" The context that you are quoting from is in relation to the final judgement!

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works

-- Revelation 20:11-13

 

[oworm]

I'm sorry, but I have a real hard time buying into that view when Jesus proclaimed all those whom the Father has given to Me will hear My voice, and I will not lose even one.

Well it's a biblical view!



John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

 

[Dmckay]

Well it's a biblical view!



John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

I don't think you quite got the jist or the context of what I wrote. Perhaps you should look again at what I was responding to.

 

[TruthMiner]

I don't think you quite got the jist or the context of what I wrote. Perhaps you should look again at what I was responding to.

Don't sweat it. Sometimes the words look the same but the concepts behind them are different.

Some people like to attach whatever concepts they like to words they see.

 

[oworm]

I don't think you quite got the jist or the context of what I wrote. Perhaps you should look again at what I was responding to.

Sorry I was looking for punctuation where there was none. My mistake

 

[enegue]

Hi Oworm,

enegue: The analogy works perfectly for me. And yes, I believe ALL men are God's children.
oworm: So you are a universalist then? You believe all people will go to heaven?

Isn't perception an amazing thing? You see what you want to see, I guess. I wrote in a previous post about the "the naturally wicked". It is these who will not go to heaven. They don't want to go to heaven. They have no desire to know God, and refuse to walk with him, and refuse to do what is right in his sight, regardless of any effort to draw them.

enegue: Prove to me from scripture that they are not (ALL men being God children).
oworm: John 8:39-48 Where Jesus is disputing with the Pharisees provides sufficient scriptural warrant that not "ALL men are Gods children" more specifically in verse 44 where He says" You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires."

This is clearly a metaphor since "the devil" as no capacity to produce offspring. He neither has the power to create or procreate. You have a lot more work to do to prove that ALL men are not God's children.

enegue: My proof: they are offspring of his offspring, and he knows the names and deeds of them all
oworm: The passage you quote from below provides no evidence that "ALL men are Gods children" The context that you are quoting from is in relation to the final judgement!

Yes, it does. AND; Yes, it is. ALL the names of God's children are in the books. The Book of Life is the equivalent of my last will and testament, on which are written the names of my children who, out of love and respect have chosen to walk with me, and do what is right in my sight. They will inherit all of the "good things" over which I am sovereign. The names in the other books are those who have chosen otherwise, and they will have no share in these "good things".

Cheers,
enegue

 

[oworm]

You have a lot more work to do to prove that ALL men are not God's children.

I don't have any work to do and I have nothing to prove in the context of this discussion with you. Suffice to say that I will let scripture speak for itself:

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.


1 John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

The scriptural evidence is conclusive and irrevocable.

Im posting this only for the benefit of those who will read the scripture and not be swayed by things that are taught of men.




I won't bother to respond to the rest of your post as I can clearly see it would be a waste of valuable time and effort.

 

[enegue]

Hi Oworm,

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
-- Romans 9:6-8

Paul expands:
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
-- Galatians 4:22-23

It is clear that Abraham had two sons, so what do you make of this?
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
-- Genesis 22:1-2

God is here instructing Abraham to take Isaac, his *only son*, and make a sacrifice of him. He uses this expression twice more in the chapter, at verse 12 and again at verse 16. Is this a mistake? Is it a contradiction? How can such a thing be reconciled?

Well, it just so happens that 'disowning' a son was common practice among the Jews in those days, as I think it still is still today. There is a scene in the film "The Jolsen Story" where Jolsen's father, a Jewish cantor by the name of Rabinowitz, is standing in the synagogue with a friend on Yom Kippur. Realising that his son no longer values his Jewish heritage, and has no desire to follow in his footsteps as a cantor, he shouts at his friend, "I no longer have a son!"

The idea of 'disowning' a son represents a decision to blot him out of the family album. To consider him never to have been born. To cut him off from the inheritance that would have been his. Paul says:
Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
-- Galatians 4:30-31

ALL men are children of God, but not all men are children of the promise.

Concerning 1 John 3:10, the "children of the devil" bit is a metaphor because the devil has neither the power to create nor the power to procreate. The "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God" is an example of the Jewish practice of 'disowning' a son.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[cygnusx1]

On Judgement Day, how will we explain to the non-elect that Calvin's God is Love, and is not Partial?

How will the non-elect feel about the situation?

Will they Praise and Love God?

What will they say about Calvin's God who flippantly, arbitrarily, and randomly rejected them, for no reason?


***********

I feel Love for ALL people, including my enemies and the non-elect.

Calvin's God loves the Few and Hates the Many.

In obedience to the Holy Commandment, I love all people and ALL my enemies and ALL the non-elect.

So,......... I'm more Loving than Calvin's God.
I'm more Righteous than Calvin's God.
I'm im-partial.
He is Partial.

Calvin's Jesus ministered through-out the Holy land, Samaria, Gaza, the Decapolis, etc
And He Hated the Many and loved the Few.
He preached "Love ALL people. Love your enemies."
And He didn't practice what He preached.
He Hated more people than He loved.

Why did He love Lazarus, Mary and Martha?
No reason, at all.
Calvin's Jesus is random and flippant. He is Arbitrary and reason-less in His Love.

It was Happen-stance that Calvin's Jesus loved those 3 people.

dennis777

God's universal Love ..........


I guess it all depends on our definition of love , we are given a definition in Scripture , Love is :



13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have
not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I
could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.

13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I
give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing.

13:4 Love suffers long, and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not
itself, is not puffed up,

13:5 Does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinks no evil;

13:6 Rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

13:7 Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things,
endures all things.

13:8 Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away.


Now if we can see any of these qualities clearly spoken about towards men who God's Righteous Heart hates , then we may find that God indeed does have a Love for all mankind ......

even those who reject His most treasured possession , who spit upon Jesus and strike him down and laugh and show only their own depravity , yes , even here instead of a Demonstration of Anger (see Sodom and Gommorah) God is revealed as Love incarnate , and what is more , because it is God's patience and temporal witholding of judgment that is revealed , the sinner is even more exposed as not only a Hater of God , but a hater of Divine Love.

It is bad enough to despise God's law , but just how bad is it to despise God's Love ?

There are degrees of Love to be sure , yet even God's "Lowest" Love is immensily Higher than man's best love.... Longsuffering proves this...

Greetings Cygnus