- Sep 18, 2010
- 7,479
- 2,671
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
We have some at my house. . .y'all come!
Speaking of "If the creek don't rise."I'll be along directly, Clare, the good Lord willing and the creek don't rise.
Definition of "rain check"
There are many of those sayings. I like the one, 'if you need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm, and if you look, you will find another one to help someone else."In heaven the man complained to God and asked why God didn't take care of him. God replied "I did. I sent you a 4x4, a boat and a helicopter. What more could I do?"
Actually, I was referring to the Biblical difference between divine foreknowledge
The "right" to become children of God here refers to adoption, whereby the adopted (born again) have the same rights, are co-heirs (Romans 8:17) to the inheritance of Jesus Christ, as the natural born.
What "both"?Even still both are still to as many as receive Him TO THEM GAVE HE THE POWER(AUTHORITY) TO BECOME THE CHILDREN OF GOD. That who the elect are, whosoever calls upon His name will be saved, future tense; whosoever will, thank God.
I am confident we agree that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord by faith, will be saved, and once in the everlasting age this topic may never be brought up. Have a great day everyone that knows they know the Lord by grace through faith in the Beloved.
I agree, but evil is in the intention and not the act. God is causatively responsible for harm without being morally culpable when the "evil" is either necessary for a greater good, or intended for a good outcome. In Calvinism, there is no such possibility instead the evil that exists is simply because God's capricious whim.That is how I am reading your posts.
I believe that God created all things, good and evil however things work together for the Glory of God.
The notion that God may do anything is not logically coherent, as it denies that God has created an objective reality. What limits we place on God are a direct result of His nature, but they are real limits and actual impossibilities. God cannot do anything and everything, while they are limited by His nature those limits create real restrictions on what is and is not possible. In that, it is entirely coherent to believe that God may in some sense desire something that is impossible. The only other alternative is to either deny that God desires to save all(which contradicts explicit Scripture) or deny that any will be lost(which also denies Scripture.) The Calvinist view is untenable, and appealing to an impossibility doesn't rescue it.As for man's free will, Zoider desired chocolate, wanted chocolate but chose vanilla, but we have no ice cream today.
What man can desire, (which is want, God is not wanting),
what man can will is a very limited set of immediately available choices and is subject to God's will. (If the good Lord's willing and the creek don't rise)
Well saidI agree, but evil is in the intention and not the act. God is causatively responsible for harm without being morally culpable when the "evil" is either necessary for a greater good, or intended for a good outcome. In Calvinism, there is no such possibility instead the evil that exists is simply because God's capricious whim.
The notion that God may do anything is not logically coherent, as it denies that God has created an objective reality. What limits we place on God are a direct result of His nature, but they are real limits and actual impossibilities. God cannot do anything and everything, while they are limited by His nature those limits create real restrictions on what is and is not possible. In that, it is entirely coherent to believe that God may in some sense desire something that is impossible. The only other alternative is to either deny that God desires to save all(which contradicts explicit Scripture) or deny that any will be lost(which also denies Scripture.) The Calvinist view is untenable, and appealing to an impossibility doesn't rescue it.
If Evil existed because of God's "capricious whim" then the devil would be sneaking into the Garden to do whatever took his fancy rather than acting as an agent of God.In Calvinism, there is no such possibility instead the evil that exists is simply because God's capricious whim.
Calvin spoke out of both sides regarding evil. The issue with Calvinism's denial of human freedom is quite simple.If Evil existed because of God's "capricious whim" then the devil would be sneaking into the Garden to do whatever took his fancy.
Calvin did not admit to an independent devil or man, both of whom are extremely capricious and either are or tend to evil.
The fact that everything is subject to God's will means that all things worked together for the Glory of God because He retained control and made it happen. Otherwise, this world would be a tale told by an idiot (man). What rational, loving God would turn the Devil and man loose with unrestricted free will? Picture That!
The idea that God may do anything is a reality. Limiting God so He fits in your shoe is to deny that God is God. What is not God? What can't God do?
"Limited by His nature" is anthropomorphism at its' finest and makes God subject to limitations placed on Him by anyone wanting to protect Him or whittle him down to size. As I said, blame shifting is brushing aside God's skirts lest He be dirtied or tainted by evil. Protecting God from evil? Regular hero, what?
a) Trees existSo Calvinism doesn't simply attribute causation of evil to God, but places its moral character within Him making Him its author.
Your absurdity is noted, but it does not alter the central point. Calvinism presents no explanation for evil except that it is part of God's moral character. It makes God the author of evil, and no amount of word games can change that fact and neither do absurd attempts such as what you've presented here.a) Trees exist
b) in Calvinism, only God's will is effective
If a and b are true, Trees can only come from within God's will. After all, Tree's will is entirely ineffective and everything is God's decree. So Calvinism doesn't simple attribute causation of Tree to God but places it's (trees) moral character (essence ?) within Him making God the author of Tree.
However, God is not Tree. Tree is not God
Both thatWhat "both"?
As best as I can tell, I misread the first part of your statement, but see that you only made one point, as I have stated before, which you may not have seen, one fine man said whenever you lay an egg, step back admire it and move on, I am moving on, sorry about that, knowing you will forgive the old man. You may remember this saying when we were very young, sleep tight and hope the bed bugs don't bite!What "both"?
It is not word games. God is the author of the Book. Evil exists. Trees exist, we exist, all of us are authored by God.Calvinism presents no explanation for evil except that it is part of God's moral character. It makes God the author of evil,
As I said earlier, Calvin spoke out of both sides of his mouth on God's role in evil. God as the author of evil in a moral sense comes as a logical consequent of Calvinist doctrine, Calvinists simply refuse to own the logical entailments of their doctrine. And when I speak of Calvinism I am not, strictly speaking, of what Calvin wrote in his institutes but of the theological system that developed around the soteriology. What others say on the matter is immaterial, because what I am strictly dealing with is what you and Mark have espoused in this thread and the logical consequences of such belief. Denying the efficacy of human wills necessarily makes God morally culpable for evil, since human wills are supposedly ineffective.It is not word games. God is the author of the Book. Evil exists. Trees exist, we exist, all of us are authored by God.
That does not make God an evil tree with a man's trunk.
God has complete control over evil. In fact, several hostile websites have claimed that Calvin assigned evil to the devil and man alone, disavowing it from God. So from the hostiles, I am getting two different stories, both of them unlikely.
If you cite any relevant texts from Calvin to support the view that Calvin attributed evil to God as "moral character" please do so.
Also, classically, God does not have "moral character." God has attributes and essence undivided. As Calvin, Aquinas and Augustine all held to the doctrine of Divine Simplicity, it is unlikely Calvin would amend the doctrine of Divine Simplicity as you state to add evil as either essence or attribute.
CONTRAIRE. . .
He showed favoritism to Israel out of all the nations, which they did not earn nor deserve.
God shows no favoritism in his justice, which he owes to everyone--to give them their due, what they have earned.
We all know what we are due as enemies of God--wrath (Romans 5:9-10).
God owes no one love, and is free to dispense it as he pleases.
correct calvinism shows favoritism, not God.The Scriptures are clear throughout, of which quotes I provided, that God shows no favoritism are partiality.
Regarding Salvation, God shows no favoritism or partiality, but judges each person by how they respond to His grace.
See: Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Jeremiah 18:1-10; Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:5-11; Romans 10:10-13; Romans 11:30-32; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:23-25; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:17-19; 2 Peter 3:9; James 2:9
You can write "CONTRAIRE," but God has the first and the last word.
God may choose a person or nation to fulfill his plans, but God chooses according to a person's faith or sinful dispositions. God does not make anyone evil or faithful. Not in Scripture.
Regarding our salvation or damnation, God shows no favoritism or partiality. That is God's Word.
The multiple references to “both Jews and gentiles” in those chapters and throughout Romans contradicts that view.The clear background of Romans 8-11 is Jewish history especially prophetically, and so how the Jews understood the references must be resolved to understand what is meant.
This is shown with the nations of Israel and Edom, which those who know the history of will recognize that God blessed Edom with lands of their own despite Esau's rejection of his birthright.
"Faith reckoned (imputed) as righteousness," and "righteousness imputed (reckoned) through faith"
are one and the same thing.
It's the clear word of God in the Scriptures. . .can you share what is your reservation regarding it?
Is the word of God in Scripture regarding it authoritative for you?
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?