Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
see this post also (linked): predestinedThen God does not know the future...?
God Bless!
Do you mean the Old Covenant Law? If so, how? -- after all Paul wrote about Saul keeping it. (An aside, Paul didn't kill, but instead delivered over to persecution, even unto death).He perverted the Law.
He perverted the Law.
They were similar in one aspect. Both were condemned sinners in need of God's Grace.
This was after Paul was converted.
They all had one thing in common....condemned before a Holy God by the one sin of Adam and their own sins.
.
As you can see from the above, this is Biblical. Meaning drawing out the truth from Scriptures.
The human argument against this is obviously "well that's not fair." If that be the case any objections should be addressed to God and His will, purpose and decrees. Not to Reformed theology.
.............The wicked, impure, and unstable distort this decree to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
Do you mean the Old Covenant Law? If so, how? -- after all Paul wrote about Saul keeping it.
Same thing.(An aside, Paul didn't kill, but instead delivered over to persecution, even unto death).
Paul had a different view:Later in Acts 22 --
Then Paul said: 3“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors. I was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. 4I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished."
If you mean instead what Paul called the Law of Christ (Gal 6), then yeah, Saul wasn't keeping that yet.
Which amounts to addressing "this is not fair." Sugarcoating.we have different Churches with different theology.
The Westminster Confession is the product of 140+ Protestant theologians meeting over some 10 years of deliberation. Their goal was to say in simple terms exactly what the scriptures teach on these subjects when all of scripture is considered and none are taken by themselves.As you can see from the above, this is Biblical. Meaning drawing out the truth from Scriptures. The human argument against this is obviously "well that's not fair." If that be the case any objections should be addressed to God and His will, purpose and decrees. Not to Reformed theology.
I think I pointed that out? It's Biblical and puts the sovereignty of God above all other things.The question is why you choose to believe this theology. Why?
He knows everything that is knowable. The question is: if the future doesn't exist yet, is it knowable?Then God does not know the future...?
God Bless!
have you got a better explanation? Are you saying that the decisions you make now does not determine your future?I would consider that theological fiction.
Which amounts to addressing "this is not fair." Sugarcoating.
The Calvinist position is that sinful man, in his natural state, will always choose against God unless the Holy Spirit intervenes and gives the person the ability to choose for Christ. This is why the greatest prayer warriors were Calvinists, because they knew that the only way to get souls saved was, and still is, to get before God and intercede for them.Here is the dictionary definition of arbitrary.
Definition of arbitrary
1a : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will an arbitrary choice When a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary.— Nehemiah Jordan
b : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something an arbitrary standard take any arbitrary positive number
2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority an arbitrary government
b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power protection from arbitrary arrest and detention
3 law : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law The manner of punishment is arbitrary.
Some of those parameters do apply to election.
It does "seem" to be random and capricious. It does " seem" to be unreasonable.
But - when seen in the "meaningful context" of the scriptures it is experienced as meaningful.
Some of the definition is, of course, absolutely correct. God is not restrained by any one or anything other than His own nature and He does things for His own convenience.
But our election is not from necessity. God was perfectly happy without us in His Kingdom.
It is true that He exercises election by His own discretion.
But no one in Calvinism says that He is a tyrant for doing so.
When anti-Calvinists describe the Calvinist God as being arbitrary and capricious - they are saying that He would be a tyrant if election is true.
But Calvinists affirm that God has a good purpose for everything He does and that, although it may "seem" random and purposeless, it is not.
Calvinists do state, however, that there is nothing found in us that deserves such grace as our election and calling.
While Arminians say that God's calling and election is because of our reception of Him and His will - Calvinists recognize that no one can come to the Son in the first place without that calling, election, drawing and special enlightenment.
As the Lord says: "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in Heaven."
I think I pointed that out? It's Biblical and puts the sovereignty of God above all other things.
An expository and systematic approach. Most wise indeed and how the apostles approached the OT.Their goal was to say in simple terms exactly what the scriptures teach on these subjects when all of scripture is considered and none are taken by themselves.
Indeed this is the systematic approach and by extension systematic theology. Harmonizing and having Scriptures interpret Scriptures is key.In the Protestant tradition - they took the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, from which all theological reflection must be based.
Yes, and as you mentioned earlier ensuring there was no doctrinal "fratricide" by creating 'self-made contradictions." Once again a pillar of consistency with regards to systematic theology.They were required to show all the scriptures which come to play on any particular doctrine and on which they based their conclusions.
Right, we always examine doctrinal statements with Scriptures.That in itself does not guarantee the accuracy of their conclusions.
Astute observations. You are spot on. The Reformers were exegetes and systematically approached all revealed doctrines in Holy Scriptures. They drew out the truth of the texts (exegesis) and went from there.Never the less - I am often struck by so many opinions on these matters which contradict their conclusions while being based only on portions of the scriptures and, amazingly, on the opinions of men as to what is and isn't fair on the part of God.
Yes because that is what the Scriptures reveal...Because it puts the sovereignty of God above all else is a reasonable answer.
Why?Because it's Biblical really isn't, because you can't know, only believe it's Biblical.
Is this a partial Open theism view? I know there are different shades of open theism.He knows everything that is knowable. The question is: if the future doesn't exist yet, is it knowable?
Yes because that is what the Scriptures reveal...
Why?
This is what I'm saying:have you got a better explanation? Are you saying that the decisions you make now does not determine your future?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?