Who’s choice is it?

[Reformationist]

My one rebuke to you would be in the form of a commendation, it seems you have it all sown up, in fact your theological understanding appears so sown up, it is almost without join. Is this a reasonable observation or have i misjudged you?

What does it mean to be "without join?"

God bless

 

[thinbo]

Ok, here are some ideas to reject.
1. God chooses his ministers. (Preordination)

2. By virtue of being chosen, his ministers are somewhat predestined to being recipients of salvation (limited Predestination)

3. God is love (Agape). (1 John 4:8)

4. love(Agape) is.. 1 Cor13:4 ...patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

5. God is ... patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

6. Jesus will be the final judge of mankind.

7. He will judge the world according to love.

8. He will judge, in the same manner as he judged the people he met in his earthly ministry. (i.e. it's probably better to die a harlot, than a pharisee)

9. The world judges acts, God judges the heart.

10. Our (ministry) job is to prepare the world for his judgement.

11. The best way to prepare them, is to introduce them to Jesus.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Boy, do I start good topics...

 

[thinbo]

without join:

It's essentially a phrase made up of two words

(Courtesy of Merriam Websters Online Dictionary)
Main Entry: without
Pronunciation: wi-'[th]aut, -'thaut
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English withoute, from Old English withutan, from with + utan outside, from ut out -- more at OUT
Date: before 12th century
1 : OUTSIDE
2 -- used as a function word to indicate the absence or lack of something or someone <fight without fear> <left without him> <looks without seeing>

(Sense 2. - in this case)

(Also Courtesy of Merriam Wesbsters Online Dictionary)

Main Entry: join
Pronunciation: 'join
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French joindre, from Latin jungere -- more at YOKE
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 a : to put or bring together so as to form a unit <join two blocks of wood with glue> b : to connect (as points) by a line c : ADJOIN
2 : to put or bring into close association or relationship <joined in marriage>
3 : to engage in (battle)
4 a : to come into the company of <joined us for lunch> b : to associate oneself with <joined the church>
intransitive senses
1 a : to come together so as to be connected <nouns join to form compounds> b : ADJOIN <the two estates join>
2 : to come into close association or relationship: as a : to form an alliance b : to become a member of a group c : to take part in a collective activity <join in singing>
- join·able /'joi-n&-b&l/ adjective
synonyms JOIN, COMBINE, UNITE, CONNECT, LINK, ASSOCIATE, RELATE mean to bring or come together into some manner of union. JOIN implies a bringing into contact or conjunction of any degree of closeness <joined forces in an effort to win>. COMBINE implies some merging or mingling with corresponding loss of identity of each unit <combined jazz and rock to create a new music>. UNITE implies somewhat greater loss of separate identity <the colonies united to form a republic>. CONNECT suggests a loose or external attachment with little or no loss of identity <a mutual defense treaty connected the two nations>. LINK may imply strong connection or inseparability of elements still retaining identity <a name forever linked with liberty>. ASSOCIATE stresses the mere fact of frequent occurrence or existence together in space or in logical relation <opera is popularly associated with high society>. RELATE suggests the existence of a real or presumed logical connection <related what he observed to what he already knew>.

(Sense 1a in this case)

Combined in context: the basic idea is of a garment that is woven in one piece, i.e. fully integrated, complete, lacking any need for stitching. A perfect fit, without any unsightly theological gaps, or imprecise tailoring.

 

[Reformationist]

Ok, here are some ideas to reject.
1. God chooses his ministers. (Preordination)

2. By virtue of being chosen, his ministers are somewhat predestined to being recipients of salvation (limited Predestination)

3. God is love (Agape). (1 John 4:8)

4. love(Agape) is.. 1 Cor13:4 ...patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

5. God is ... patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude, is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

6. Jesus will be the final judge of mankind.

7. He will judge the world according to love.

8. He will judge, in the same manner as he judged the people he met in his earthly ministry. (i.e. it's probably better to die a harlot, than a pharisee)

9. The world judges acts, God judges the heart.

10. Our (ministry) job is to prepare the world for his judgement.

11. The best way to prepare them, is to introduce them to Jesus.

What's your point in all of this? Are you trying to change the topics of the thread?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

without join:

It's essentially a phrase made up of two words

(Courtesy of Merriam Websters Online Dictionary)
Main Entry: without
Pronunciation: wi-'[th]aut, -'thaut
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English withoute, from Old English withutan, from with + utan outside, from ut out -- more at OUT
Date: before 12th century
1 : OUTSIDE
2 -- used as a function word to indicate the absence or lack of something or someone <fight without fear> <left without him> <looks without seeing>

(Sense 2. - in this case)

(Also Courtesy of Merriam Wesbsters Online Dictionary)

Main Entry: join
Pronunciation: 'join
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French joindre, from Latin jungere -- more at YOKE
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 a : to put or bring together so as to form a unit <join two blocks of wood with glue> b : to connect (as points) by a line c : ADJOIN
2 : to put or bring into close association or relationship <joined in marriage>
3 : to engage in (battle)
4 a : to come into the company of <joined us for lunch> b : to associate oneself with <joined the church>
intransitive senses
1 a : to come together so as to be connected <nouns join to form compounds> b : ADJOIN <the two estates join>
2 : to come into close association or relationship: as a : to form an alliance b : to become a member of a group c : to take part in a collective activity <join in singing>
- join·able /'joi-n&-b&l/ adjective
synonyms JOIN, COMBINE, UNITE, CONNECT, LINK, ASSOCIATE, RELATE mean to bring or come together into some manner of union. JOIN implies a bringing into contact or conjunction of any degree of closeness <joined forces in an effort to win>. COMBINE implies some merging or mingling with corresponding loss of identity of each unit <combined jazz and rock to create a new music>. UNITE implies somewhat greater loss of separate identity <the colonies united to form a republic>. CONNECT suggests a loose or external attachment with little or no loss of identity <a mutual defense treaty connected the two nations>. LINK may imply strong connection or inseparability of elements still retaining identity <a name forever linked with liberty>. ASSOCIATE stresses the mere fact of frequent occurrence or existence together in space or in logical relation <opera is popularly associated with high society>. RELATE suggests the existence of a real or presumed logical connection <related what he observed to what he already knew>.

(Sense 1a in this case)

Combined in context: the basic idea is of a garment that is woven in one piece, i.e. fully integrated, complete, lacking any need for stitching. A perfect fit, without any unsightly theological gaps, or imprecise tailoring.

So it was a compliment? If that is the case then thank you for the encouragement. As for the accuracy, well, while I know and believe much of reformed theology I would have to say that what I understand is far from a "perfect fit."

God bless

 

[thinbo]

Note: I only said 'in the form of a compliment'

I am almost bound to misjudge you.

Honestly, not intending to change the thread, just attempting to explore it, a bit.

The bottom line: I think traditional reformed theology (Calvinism/Lutherism etc.) has generally lost more through it's explanations, than it ever gained though it's insights. (Though I am indebted to it, for its insights)

 

[Reformationist]

Note: I only said 'in the form of a compliment'

I am almost bound to misjudge you.

Sorry, I still can't tell whether or not you are complimenting me or only appearing to compliment me. What's the purpose of offering a comment in the form of a compliment? Why not just say what you actually mean?

Honestly, not intending to change the thread, just attempting to explore it, a bit.

I'm certainly not opposed to that. I guess I just didn't understand the point you were trying to make. Are you saying you think those things should be rejected or were you just offering topics for consideration?

The bottom line: I think traditional reformed theology (Calvinism/Lutherism etc.) has generally lost more through it's explanations, than it ever gained though it's insights. (Though I am indebted to it, for its insights)

I am not sure what you feel it has lost but I would say that I think that traditional reformed theology has preserved a higher, more godly view of God than any other form of worship and belief. Reformed theology has, like every other denomination, sought to understand God and His Word and, as far as I can tell, done the best job of maintaining a view that God is God, not some impotent, reactionary, emotionally unbalanced, frustrated, arbitrary ruler.

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what you think reformed theology has lost.

God bless

 

[orthedoxy]

llllllllll

 

[Terri]

Boy, do I start good topics...

Yes, you most certainly do Reformed!!

 

[FreeinChrist]

FreeinChrist, this is purely semantics.

I thought that about your responses back a few pages.

• 1. Is God omnipotent?
  

Yes. I have not come close to saying He isn't. Just because He allowed sin into the world, doesn't mean He is not in control and not omnipotent. That he is omnipotent does not mean He can't let us make choices.

• [*]2. Does being omnipotent mean that He could stop any particular thing from happening, without exception?
  [*]

Absolutely - but this is actually off the topic. That he can stop anything does not mean He has to stop any bad choices mankind makes, or must force one to believe.

• [*]
  3. Why wouldn't God stop something from happening that He can stop from happening?

That is for God to decide, and probably beyond our understanding at this time.
Isa 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.Isa 55:9 "For {as} the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Who are we to decide what God's actions must be? That is what I see Calvinism doing as they use their human reasoning.

Why can't an omnipotent God allow men to make the bad choices and still accomplish all His purposes? He is also omniscient - meaning He knows all, knew the end at the beginning , and can move in the world to bring His purpose to fulfillment (which is His glory).

Now I read the rest of your post and it conflicts with some of what what you previously posted, IMHO. Or perhaps others who seem to support your point of view. That conflict being a belief that God must give the Spirit to a person before they can be brought to a belief in Him. And that God does not allow a man to make the choice to believe or not. And that God must make all things happen, as opposed to 'allowing' some events and decisions to happen. It is a significant matter of semantics if it leads to a belief that man has no choice in whether he believes or not, that salvation is only offered to some, and never offerred to others.

I'd be interested in knowing if John Calvin himself ever wrote anything that stated that Jesus only died for some. I asked some Calvinists once, and never got a reference that was Calvin's, just some later followers of his.

 

[Arc]

Man's heart is changed by the Word of God when he hears the Gospel. The part people don't like to hear however is that once someone's heart is changed, and they know the truth and believe in Christ (because their heart of stone is replaced) they can still fall into unbelief and perish. They will not be dragged into heaven.

Hebrews 10:
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings,
33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated.
34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.
35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
37
FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE,
HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY.
38
BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH;
AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

God's soveriegn grace does not negate the responsibility of man. This is a constant throughout the entire Bible. If a man is truly saved, he resonds in obedience, he walks in the Spirit. As baptism signifies, man dies to his old sinful ways. If he "rebuilds what he destroys, he proves he's a law-breaker".

Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

 

[arnold777]

That is purely illogical. Do you "freely" choose not to be able to jump 30 feet into the air? Of course not. "Free," in the biblical sense, does not mean free to make any choice. It means free to make any choice available to you. The problem is that we are limited in so many different ways that the whole idea of our will being "free" is incongruous. The reason Adam couldn't choose not to eat the fruit isn't because God either removed his natural ability to make the choice or because God forcibly made him eat the fruit. He couldn't choose not to eat the fruit because his greatest desire when presented with the temptation of eating the fruit was to actually eat the fruit.

God created man to choose not to fall, he could've chose not to fall.

As I said, God's divine act of ordaining something to come to pass doesn't make Him responsible for the creation making a particular choice. God is causal in all things that He ordains. Every Christian who has ever had conversations with athiests about God's plan will have heard the question, "If God knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil why did He put it where they could get to it in the first place?" Or, "if He was going to put it there why didn't He just make it lawful for them to partake of it?" The reason He put it there was because His plan always included the Fall of man. God did not force Adam and Eve to disobey Him. He did know, however, that when faced with the temptation of the serpent and the fruit, they would willingly forego the council of their Creator and partake of the unlawful fruit.

God put the tree so that Adam and eve could show love.

Think about all the things that had to come to pass for Jesus to be crucified. Herod could have decided that killing all the male children in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, was a bad thing, but he didn't. Was it because God made him want to do it? Of course not. Regardless of that, God's Will was being brought to fruition through the ungodliness of Herod. Think of Judas Iscariot. Did He become one of the original Twelve by coincidence? Of course not. This had to come to pass. God had ordained that it would come to pass and He ensured, by sovereignly and providentially providing every little thing necessary, that the Son of God would be brutally sacrificed on the Cross, to include Judas' appointment as one of the Apostles. There had to have been a betrayer. God saw to it that there was. God did not change Judas' nature. He just did not give him the grace to desire that this evilness not come to pass. Is it God's fault that Judas was evil and desired to serve his flesh? Of course not. God is under no obligation to make us better than we are. Was Judas "free" to choose otherwise? He was "free" in the sense that the choice to not betray Christ was a real option but he was not "free" in the sense that he, like all of us, are incapable of choosing contrary to his nature. We are not "free" to choose contrary to our nature. If a person is unregenerate then their nature is to serve their flesh. Everything they do, aside from reflex, is predicated by this desire. Nothing they do is in an effort to serve God in obedience.

So, Adam "freely" chose to disobey God but he was not free from his sinful desire to do so.

This is called foreknowledge. Judas was chosen but he rejected

It seems like you are trying to draw a parallel between the grace of salvation, which no one has ever earned, and the responsibility for sinning, which everyone does. God "gets the credit" for our salvation because it is the monergistic work of God that causes it to be manifested. Don't you see? Your salvation, if you are saved, is the product of a transaction between the Godhead. Jesus offered Himself to the Father to appease His righteous wrath against the sin of man. His death was acceptable to the Lord God and so Christ's propitiation was sufficient. The point is, the only manner in which you were involved is as a recipient of the benefits of Christ holy work on the Cross. As for Adam and Eve's sin, well, mankind is responsible because it was mankind, through Adam and Eve, that committed that sin.



Because that's the Truth of the mercy and grace of God shown in His Word.



No, but not because God gave him no other option. Adam's, and thus mankind's, fall from grace was the product of Adam's sinful desire to usurp the power of God in the rulership of his life.




Um...okay. Be sure to let Him know you think that when you stand before Him on the day of your judgment.

When I say God I'm saying your definition of God

Why would God punish Adam for fulfilling Gods desire? He should reward him.

God's desire was to bring glory to Himself. This was accomplished through the Fall of mankind and the subsequent redemption of a people He had set apart unto His Son. The mistake you're making is in assuming that God's plan was to bring glory to mankind.


That level of arrogance astounds me every time I hear people utter such blasphemy. Are you actually saying that if God isn't contained in the box that you put Him in that He's not worthy of your worship? Just because you don't fully understand how God can ensure something comes to pass without being responsible for the actions that bring it to pass doesn't mean that it is not the Truth. I think that the problem you are having is with your misunderstandings of God's sovereign control, not the fact that God is sovereign.

If God was the devil then he is not worthy of my worship.

God is first causal in all things. Either you must acknowledge that God is omnipotent and, therefore, could stop anything from coming to pass, to include those things He does not stop from coming to pass or you believe there are things outside of God's control. If it's the former then you must then acknowledge that if He does not stop something from coming to pass then, in some measure, it was His desire for it to come to pass. If it was His desire for it not to come to pass He would have just ensured that it didn't. If, however, you believe the latter, well, I guess I'd have to say that a God who can't control His own creation and ensure His own plan comes to pass isn't really God.

That is not the same as causing evil. God always punish evil.

You are obviously too emotional to address this topic maturely but I will respond as best I can. Terrible events, like the one you mention, are terrible to us because of our finite perspective when viewing them. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that such an event would be tragic. However, and this is purely hypothetical, what if that same child were to grow up and be a person whom the Lord has providentially graced with the ability to comfort other rape victims. In fact, imagine how her testimony may help others and may even be the catalyst for their relationship with God. Is that event as tragic. It may still seem like a terrible thing for that person to have to endure but God does not view suffering as we do. As a matter of experience I know that I have considered it suffering when I didn't have enough money to buy a new monitor for my computer. Is that really suffering in comparison to a family who has so little money that each member must pick a day of the week that they want to eat on because the family can only afford to feed one of them one day a week? I think not. As terrible as many things are we cannot assume that we see the entirity of their effect on history. The death of a child is the means by which the Lord has brought many to know Him. Is that death so tragic if it leads people to embrace the Gospel? We may think it does, in a temporal, finite sense but how do you compare the pain of a young child's corporeal death with the joy of a person's eternal life in Christ?

after reading this Hitler didn't sound so bad.
By the way are you an attorney ?because Saddam Hussein is looking for someone like you to convince the world.

First, He's not the One who committed the sin. Second, I'm not under the illusion, as you seem to be, that the virtue of something is limited to my perspective of it.



He is all loving, to those whom He loves.

so then what makes one evil and not loving? I'm sure even Hitler loved his family

Exactly Dr. Watson.



I could make my guesses but that's all they'd be. Would you like to hear them?




You do it, right? It's not like He's condemning you for sinning when you didn't sin. As for His choice, the thing that I want to stress upon you is that His choice ISN'T ABOUT YOU OR YOUR GLORY. It's about His glory.




Why do you keep bringing up infants? Did your child die? I certainly hope you have not had to endure such a thing. Either way, this is in no way a parallel to the Fall or the redemption of God's elect or His sovereign control over creation.



I would personally wonder why this person was putting infants into the pool.





Sure. If I thought about the Gospel from a man centered perspective.

First off, God was under no obligation to create any of us. So, our lives our the product of His majesty and grace. Secondly, we are His creation created for the purpose of bringing Him glory. Your story about the infant in the pool is irrelevent because we are capable of creating nothing. I'll give you an example. Let's say you build a wooden playset for your children. Then, because it pleases you, you burn it to the ground. Who has the right to question your authority to do with your creation as you see fit? Do I? Of course not.

The Gospel isn't about you. It's about Christ.

You compare people to objects because like an object you have no choice.
What if it was your own son if you burn him to the ground, do we have the right to question your authority?
The question still stand If God ordained before we make a choice you can't escape the fact that he is responsible and not man. If Adam had only one choice and that is to eat from the tree then how can he be responsible?
Where did you get what sovereign mean? God could be in control of the world without irresistible grace.
Can you tell me what is the deferent between your view of man and a preprogrammed robot?
When we sin is it because God desires us to sin? If so the next time you get tempted sin.

 

[Reformationist]

FreeinChrist and Arc, if you'll oblige me I would like to respond to you, though not right now.

arnold777, I'm done with you, though I certainly hope the moderators aren't.

God bless,
Don