Wounded?

[Reformationist]

Shelb5 . . I found your post to be confusing. . are you saying that Don doesn't compare human relationships with God's sovereign choice? Or are you telling me not to compare human relationships with God's sovereign choice?

If the later, then I would have to beg to differ with you on this . . Jesus Himself compares our relationship with God with human relationships, specifically that of a father and his son . . here is an example . .

[/size]

In Luke it is related this way:




It is very appropriate to use the human father/parent-child relationship to compare to how God relates to us . .
[/size]

Obviously something happened in this thread . . I was gone the rest of the day so I have no idea what . .



Peace in Him!

I'm not trying to debate but I would like to clarify that these verses you quote relate to God's relationship to His children. Now, I know that Catholics view all of mankind as God's children but the reason I think it prudent to steer clear of these types of quotes is because I don't believe Scripture represents all people as being God's children.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I can help you out with where he is coming from and if I am incorrect I am certain he will fix my misrepresentation, but in short we are not all born God's children so when you ask if God would save one child while letting another go unsaved he does not see it that way.

He does see God saving all His children, the ones who go unsaved aren't His children. You only become a child of God when you are "born again" and that can only happen by God's sovereign choice. God chooses who is his children and those are the children that Christ died for.

I don't see any misrepresentation. Thank you for clarifying.

And nothing happened in the thread. Jeff just closed it for a little while.

Ah...I see.

God bless

 

[thereselittleflower]

Theresa,

I do not disagree with you at all but I have raised the same points to ref many a time myself that you did and he more or less dismisses the relationship we have as parents with our children as a way to compare the relationship God has with his creation.

I can help you out with where he is coming from and if I am incorrect I am certain he will fix my misrepresentation, but in short we are not all born God's children so when you ask if God would save one child while letting another go unsaved he does not see it that way.

He does see God saving all His children, the ones who go unsaved aren't His children. You only become a child of God when you are "born again" and that can only happen by God's sovereign choice. God chooses who is his children and those are the children that Christ died for.

And nothing happened in the thread. Jeff just closed it for a little while.

Hi Shelb5

Thank you for the reply and insight.

I wondered if that might be the case, and I also am familiar with that concept . . I had been taught this at one point too but it was never something that seemed right to me . . it portrays a God who is calloused towards one group while indulging another . .

If God withholds Grace from those to whom He knows will not respond, and judges them as unworthy of heaven and being His children, then He judges them on what would have been "if" He had given Grace to them and they rejected it, but not on actually rejecting it, for how can someone actually reject something that was never offered them?

This is very much like the belief, that some hold to, that babies go to hell or heaven based on what they would have done "if" they had lived . .

I find that some of this discussion is tied up in our understanding of who God is as Father . . His nature being Love, and how many christians do not experience God as "daddy" but as a father figure who is distant, aloof, stern, though loving . . I know that personally, my own relationship with my earthly father impacted my ability to enter into this "abba" "daddy" relationship with God . . and no matter what I tried over almost 3 decades, I could not do it - I could not move from a relationship of knowing God loved me, but not being able to approach Him on His throne as a little child who demands the undivided attention of her daddy . . I was always standing aside, knowing He loved me, knowing He knew I was there, but there were more important issues He had to deal with . .

Then, God provided the avenue to open that place in my heart to flood it with Himself in this way . . and the next time I prayed and said "abba" suddenly I was a little girl, a toddler sitting at the feet of my Father, telling Him anything and everything I wanted to, having His full and indulgent attention. Then I crawled up on His lap, and started playing with His beard and His eyes were completely on me and dancing with smiles and delight, and I was perfectly content knowing I had my Father's total love and attention . . My image of God had been healed after years and years of longing . .

It is not possible that my Heavenly Father, my Abba, that LOVE Himself, would hold out His arms to me but not to someone else. If I hold out my arms to one child, but not to another, I will cause the other to reject me because they will clearly see I rejected them first . . God does not reject us first.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

I'm not trying to debate but I would like to clarify that these verses you quote relate to God's relationship to His children. Now, I know that Catholics view all of mankind as God's children but the reason I think it prudent to steer clear of these types of quotes is because I don't believe Scripture represents all people as being God's children.

God bless

Hi Reformationist

I know Shelb5 already spoke to your viewpoint, but thank you for clarifying here as well . .

I understand what you are saying, but the reason I used those scriptures was just to illustrate that we can use the earthly comparison of the father/child relationship to help us describe and understand our relationship with God . . that those particular verses regarding how us, being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, how much moreso will God give to those who ask, are speaking of God's children in one sense I agree with you. It was not meant to make a direct comparision . .

But I do believe that in the same way that God causes the sun to shine, and the rain to fall, on the just and unjust alike, He causes His Grace to "shine" or "fall" on the just and unjust alike . . and I think Shelb5 did a good job of expressing how we see this as true . . one can close themselves off to this grace or open themselves to it, but there is always enough grace available to each and every person ensure that they can respond if they choose to . ..

Peace in Him!

 

[Reformationist]

Hi Reformationist

I know Shelb5 already spoke to your viewpoint, but thank you for clarifying here as well . .

No problem. I had actually not noticed that Michelle had posted that or I would have just seconded her explanation.

I understand what you are saying, but the reason I used those scriptures was just to illustrate that we can use the earthly comparison of the father/child relationship to help us describe and understand our relationship with God . . that those particular verses regarding how us, being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, how much moreso will God give to those who ask, are speaking of God's children in one sense I agree with you. It was not meant to make a direct comparision . .

I see. Again, I think it's a good comparison. I just have a different understanding of who God's children are.

But I do believe that in the same way that God causes the sun to shine, and the rain to fall, on the just and unjust alike, He causes His Grace to "shine" or "fall" on the just and unjust alike

I think that the verses which speak of God causing the rain to fall, and the sun to shine, on the just and the unjust alike means that He causes His grace to shine or fall on the just and the unjust. However, I don't think "alike" means "in the same way." I think it means exactly what you said, that God extends His grace to all people. Where I think we differ is that you seem to believe that God extends the same kinds of grace to all people whereas I think that the form God's grace takes varies depending on what it is that God is purposing it to accomplish.

Shelb5 did a good job of expressing how we see this as true . . one can close themselves off to this grace or open themselves to it, but there is always enough grace available to each and every person ensure that they can respond if they choose to . ..

Peace in Him!

Okay. Thanks again.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Hi Shelb5

Thank you for the reply and insight.

I wondered if that might be the case, and I also am familiar with that concept . . I had been taught this at one point too but it was never something that seemed right to me . . it portrays a God who is calloused towards one group while indulging another . .

If God withholds Grace from those to whom He knows will not respond, and judges them as unworthy of heaven and being His children, then He judges them on what would have been "if" He had given Grace to them and they rejected it, but not on actually rejecting it, for how can someone actually reject something that was never offered them?

This is very much like the belief, that some hold to, that babies go to hell or heaven based on what they would have done "if" they had lived . .

I find that some of this discussion is tied up in our understanding of who God is as Father . . His nature being Love, and how many christians do not experience God as "daddy" but as a father figure who is distant, aloof, stern, though loving . . I know that personally, my own relationship with my earthly father impacted my ability to enter into this "abba" "daddy" relationship with God . . and no matter what I tried over almost 3 decades, I could not do it - I could not move from a relationship of knowing God loved me, but not being able to approach Him on His throne as a little child who demands the undivided attention of her daddy . . I was always standing aside, knowing He loved me, knowing He knew I was there, but there were more important issues He had to deal with . .

Then, God provided the avenue to open that place in my heart to flood it with Himself in this way . . and the next time I prayed and said "abba" suddenly I was a little girl, a toddler sitting at the feet of my Father, telling Him anything and everything I wanted to, having His full and indulgent attention. Then I crawled up on His lap, and started playing with His beard and His eyes were completely on me and dancing with smiles and delight, and I was perfectly content knowing I had my Father's total love and attention . . My image of God had been healed after years and years of longing . .

It is not possible that my Heavenly Father, my Abba, that LOVE Himself, would hold out His arms to me but not to someone else. If I hold out my arms to one child, but not to another, I will cause the other to reject me because they will clearly see I rejected them first . . God does not reject us first.


Peace in Him!

I agree with you, you’re preaching to choirs here sister. But it was a good post.

 

[Benedicta00]

I'm not trying to debate but I would like to clarify that these verses you quote relate to God's relationship to His children. Now, I know that Catholics view all of mankind as God's children but the reason I think it prudent to steer clear of these types of quotes is because I don't believe Scripture represents all people as being God's children.

God bless

He created all mankind didn't He? It isn't all mankind's fault Adam sinned, so Why would He not want to save all mankind?

 

[thereselittleflower]

. . ..


I think that the verses which speak of God causing the rain to fall, and the sun to shine, on the just and the unjust alike means that He causes His grace to shine or fall on the just and the unjust. However, I don't think "alike" means "in the same way." I think it means exactly what you said, that God extends His grace to all people. Where I think we differ is that you seem to believe that God extends the same kinds of grace to all people whereas I think that the form God's grace takes varies depending on what it is that God is purposing it to accomplish.

Hi again Reformationist . . it might be surprising to you, but Catholics also believe there are different kinds of grace and they are not extended equally to all . .


The Catholic Church differentiates between "actual" grace and "Sanctifying" Grace . . . Sanctifying Grace belongs only to the believer . . "actual" is given to all, to believers and unbelievers alike in various ways and degrees . . some are ordinary (some of which are given to all men, like the sun shining or the rain falling) and some are extraordinary, given to whom God chooses to give them to . .

Teh best way I know how to put it is that one must respond to actual grace to be able to come to Jesus, and once he/she does, God gives them His Sanctifying Grace . . and whether or not one responds to the actual grace given is up to them . . what happens next is a result of their choice.



Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Let me give you an example of what I mean that I just thought of . .

I was listening to a program where an agnostic (a well known author0 was speaking of his spiritual life . . he recounted a time in Italy (I beleive it was Italy) where he had entered a Catholic Church . . there he had a real spiritual encounter with God . . there was no doubt in his mind, it was a strong and undeniable, even overwhelming experience . . he left there in a quandry over what to do . . here God had revealed His existance to him . . but he had a choice to make . .to return to his life as it was before, or to become a Christian . . he chose to return to his life and to ignore this experience because of what it would cost him, how could he explain it to his agnostic/atheist friends, etc . .

Yet he knows he cannot deny it was real, and to this day he knows he encountered God as someone knowable and experiencable . .

This was actual grace being given in an extraordinary way, but he still had the choice to resspomnd to it . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Reformationist]

He created all mankind didn't He?

Yes.

It isn't all mankind's fault Adam sinned, so Why would He not want to save all mankind?

Are you asking me if it was "all mankind's fault Adam sinned" or are you telling me it wasn't all mankind's fault that Adam sinned?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Hi again Reformationist . . it might be surprising to you, but Catholics also believe there are different kinds of grace and they are not extended equally to all . .


The Catholic Church differentiates between "actual" grace and "Sanctifying" Grace . . . Sanctifying Grace belongs only to the believer . . "actual" is given to all, to believers and unbelievers alike in various ways and degrees . . some are ordinary (some of which are given to all men, like the sun shining or the rain falling) and some are extraordinary, given to whom God chooses to give them to . .

Teh best way I know how to put it is that one must respond to actual grace to be able to come to Jesus, and once he/she does, God gives them His Sanctifying Grace . . and whether or not one responds to the actual grace given is up to them . . what happens next is a result of their choice.



Peace in Him!

Thanks.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Let me give you an example of what I mean that I just thought of . .

I was listening to a program where an agnostic (a well known author0 was speaking of his spiritual life . . he recounted a time in Italy (I beleive it was Italy) where he had entered a Catholic Church . . there he had a real spiritual encounter with God . . there was no doubt in his mind, it was a strong and undeniable, even overwhelming experience . . he left there in a quandry over what to do . . here God had revealed His existance to him . . but he had a choice to make . .to return to his life as it was before, or to become a Christian . . he chose to return to his life and to ignore this experience because of what it would cost him, how could he explain it to his agnostic/atheist friends, etc . .

Yet he knows he cannot deny it was real, and to this day he knows he encountered God as someone knowable and experiencable . .

This was actual grace being given in an extraordinary way, but he still had the choice to resspomnd to it . .


Peace in Him!

So why do those who respond by submitting to His Lordship do so? Is it just because they choose to? Without desiring a debate, don't you think that would require that we do a bit of boasting, like, "I am a follower of God because I was smart enough to see the wisdom in submitting to Him," or, "I'm so holy that once I encountered God submitting to Him seemed like the only correct thing to do?"

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

So why do those who respond by submitting to His Lordship do so? Is it just because they choose to? Without desiring a debate, don't you think that would require that we do a bit of boasting, like, "I am a follower of God because I was smart enough to see the wisdom in submitting to Him," or, "I'm so holy that once I encountered God submitting to Him seemed like the only correct thing to do?"

God bless

I told you, we don’t know. Only God knows why. I can tell you this, sin blinds a parson. If you start out knowing good from bad and you keep choosing the bad over good knowing what you are doing eventually you will be blind if you keep closing your self off to the light that God shines for you.

Here is the deal, once a person falls into mortal sin God always calls the person to repent but He may not go beyond that measure. It will be up the person’s free choosing to repent and God’s call is sufficient but te person is blind so how can he choose? This is why we run from mortal sin because God is not obligated to give us special grace on top of special grace to return to Him, if he does, it was due to the prayers and sacrifices of others or because of some other plan of His. Get it?

And if we boast like that, I can safely say the person is no more saved then the man on the moon with that kind of pride. The ONLY way one CAN come to believe is if he is humble enough to see that he is only lovable because of God, not because he is smart or because he is good looking or other. We are worthy because we are made by God, not because of anything thing we can do, anything we can do comes from God anyway.

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes.



Are you asking me if it was "all mankind's fault Adam sinned" or are you telling me it wasn't all mankind's fault that Adam sinned?

God bless

It wasn’t mankind’s entire fault that Adam sinned, was it? No it wasn’t. So why wouldn’t God want to save all of mankind?

You don’t have to answer, you get my point I’m sure.

 

[Reformationist]

It wasn?t mankind?s entire fault that Adam sinned, was it? No it wasn?t.

Okay. You ask a question and then you answer it in a forum in which I can't debate. I'll just say, "Whatever you say Shelb5."

So why wouldn?t God want to save all of mankind?

Well, I would tell you that it's spelled out clearly in Romans 9 but, of course, you think that chapter is about Jews so it would do no good.

You don?t have to answer, you get my point I?m sure.

I get your point. I'm not sure it's the one you were trying to make but, yes, I get your point.

God bless

 

[thereselittleflower]

So why do those who respond by submitting to His Lordship do so? Is it just because they choose to?

Yes, reformationist, it is an act of their will . .

Without desiring a debate, don't you think that would require that we do a bit of boasting, like, "I am a follower of God because I was smart enough to see the wisdom in submitting to Him," or, "I'm so holy that once I encountered God submitting to Him seemed like the only correct thing to do?"

God bless

Not at all!

It has nothing to do with "smarts" or being so "holy" . . . it has to do with being willing to surrender to God's revelation . . it results in humility, not prideful boasting . . "there, but for the grace of God, go I."


Peace in Him!

 

[Benedicta00]

Well, I would tell you that it's spelled out clearly in Romans 9 but, of course, you think that chapter is about Jews so it would do no good.

1 [9:1-11:36] Israel's unbelief and its rejection of Jesus as savior astonished and puzzled Christians. It constituted a serious problem for them in view of God's specific preparation of Israel for the advent of the Messiah. Paul addresses himself here to the essential question of how the divine plan could be frustrated by Israel's unbelief. At the same time, he discourages both complacency and anxiety on the part of Gentiles. To those who might boast of their superior advantage over Jews, he warns that their enjoyment of the blessings assigned to Israel can be terminated. To those who might anxiously ask, "How can we be sure that Israel's fate will not be ours?" he replies that only unbelief can deprive one of salvation.

2 [1-5] The apostle speaks in strong terms of the depth of his grief over the unbelief of his own people. He would willingly undergo a curse himself for the sake of their coming to the knowledge of Christ (Romans 9:3; cf Lev 27:28-29). His love for them derives from God's continuing choice of them and from the spiritual benefits that God bestows on them and through them on all of humanity (Romans 9:4-5).

3 [5] Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all." However, Paul's point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah.

4 [10] Children by one husband, our father Isaac: Abraham had two children, Ishmael and Isaac, by two wives, Hagar and Sarah, respectively. In that instance Isaac, although born later than Ishmael, became the bearer of the messianic promise. In the case of twins born to Rebecca, God's elective procedure is seen even more dramatically, and again the younger, contrary to Semitic custom, is given the preference.

5 [13] The literal rendering, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," suggests an attitude of divine hostility that is not implied in Paul's statement. In Semitic usage "hate" means to love less; cf Luke 14:26 with Matthew 10:37. Israel's unbelief reflects the mystery of the divine election that is always operative within it. Mere natural descent from Abraham does not ensure the full possession of the divine gifts; it is God's sovereign prerogative to bestow this fullness upon, or to withhold it from, whomsoever he wishes; cf Matthew 3:9; John 8:39. The choice of Jacob over Esau is a case in point.

6 [14-18] The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected, nor does this principle mean that God is unfair in his dealings with humanity. The instruction concerning divine election is a part of the gospel and reveals that the gift of faith is the enactment of God's mercy (Romans 9:16). God raised up Moses to display that mercy, and Pharaoh to display divine severity in punishing those who obstinately oppose their Creator.

7 [18] The basic biblical principle is: those who will not see or hear shall not see or hear. On the other hand, the same God who thus makes stubborn or hardens the heart can reconstruct it through the work of the holy Spirit.

8 [19-29] The apostle responds to the objection that if God rules over faith through the principle of divine election, God cannot then accuse unbelievers of sin (Romans 9:19). For Paul, this objection is in the last analysis a manifestation of human insolence, and his "answer" is less an explanation of God's ways than the rejection of an argument that places humanity on a level with God. At the same time, Paul shows that God is far less arbitrary than appearances suggest, for God endures with much patience (Romans 9:22) a person like the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

9 [25] Beloved: in Semitic discourse means "preferred" or "favorite" (cf Romans 9:13). See Hosea 2:1, which is transposed after Hosea 3:5 in the NAB.

10 [30-33] In the conversion of the Gentiles and, by contrast, of relatively few Jews, the Old Testament prophecies are seen to be fulfilled; cf Romans 9:25-29. Israel feared that the doctrine of justification through faith would jeopardize the validity of the Mosaic law, and so they never reached their goal of righteousness that they had sought to attain through meticulous observance of the law (Romans 9:31). Since Gentiles, including especially Greeks and Romans, had a great regard for righteousness, Paul's statement concerning Gentiles in Romans 9:30 is to be understood from a Jewish perspective: quite evidently they had not been interested in "God's" righteousness, for it had not been revealed to them; but now in response to the proclamation of the gospel they respond in faith.

11 [32] Paul discusses Israel as a whole from the perspective of contemporary Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah. The Old Testament and much of Jewish noncanonical literature in fact reflect a fervent faith in divine mercy.

 

[Reformationist]

Yes, reformationist, it is an act of their will . .


Not at all!

It has nothing to do with "smarts" or being so "holy" . . . it has to do with being willing to surrender to God's revelation . . it results in humility, not prideful boasting . . "there, but for the grace of God, go I."


Peace in Him!

Theresa, before I respond, do you also think Romans 9 is about Jews?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

1 [9:1-11:36] Israel's unbelief and its rejection of Jesus as savior astonished and puzzled Christians. It constituted a serious problem for them in view of God's specific preparation of Israel for the advent of the Messiah. Paul addresses himself here to the essential question of how the divine plan could be frustrated by Israel's unbelief. At the same time, he discourages both complacency and anxiety on the part of Gentiles. To those who might boast of their superior advantage over Jews, he warns that their enjoyment of the blessings assigned to Israel can be terminated. To those who might anxiously ask, "How can we be sure that Israel's fate will not be ours?" he replies that only unbelief can deprive one of salvation.

2 [1-5] The apostle speaks in strong terms of the depth of his grief over the unbelief of his own people. He would willingly undergo a curse himself for the sake of their coming to the knowledge of Christ (Romans 9:3; cf Lev 27:28-29). His love for them derives from God's continuing choice of them and from the spiritual benefits that God bestows on them and through them on all of humanity (Romans 9:4-5).

3 [5] Some editors punctuate this verse differently and prefer the translation, "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all." However, Paul's point is that God who is over all aimed to use Israel, which had been entrusted with every privilege, in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah.

4 [10] Children by one husband, our father Isaac: Abraham had two children, Ishmael and Isaac, by two wives, Hagar and Sarah, respectively. In that instance Isaac, although born later than Ishmael, became the bearer of the messianic promise. In the case of twins born to Rebecca, God's elective procedure is seen even more dramatically, and again the younger, contrary to Semitic custom, is given the preference.

5 [13] The literal rendering, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," suggests an attitude of divine hostility that is not implied in Paul's statement. In Semitic usage "hate" means to love less; cf Luke 14:26 with Matthew 10:37. Israel's unbelief reflects the mystery of the divine election that is always operative within it. Mere natural descent from Abraham does not ensure the full possession of the divine gifts; it is God's sovereign prerogative to bestow this fullness upon, or to withhold it from, whomsoever he wishes; cf Matthew 3:9; John 8:39. The choice of Jacob over Esau is a case in point.

6 [14-18] The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected, nor does this principle mean that God is unfair in his dealings with humanity. The instruction concerning divine election is a part of the gospel and reveals that the gift of faith is the enactment of God's mercy (Romans 9:16). God raised up Moses to display that mercy, and Pharaoh to display divine severity in punishing those who obstinately oppose their Creator.

7 [18] The basic biblical principle is: those who will not see or hear shall not see or hear. On the other hand, the same God who thus makes stubborn or hardens the heart can reconstruct it through the work of the holy Spirit.

8 [19-29] The apostle responds to the objection that if God rules over faith through the principle of divine election, God cannot then accuse unbelievers of sin (Romans 9:19). For Paul, this objection is in the last analysis a manifestation of human insolence, and his "answer" is less an explanation of God's ways than the rejection of an argument that places humanity on a level with God. At the same time, Paul shows that God is far less arbitrary than appearances suggest, for God endures with much patience (Romans 9:22) a person like the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

9 [25] Beloved: in Semitic discourse means "preferred" or "favorite" (cf Romans 9:13). See Hosea 2:1, which is transposed after Hosea 3:5 in the NAB.

10 [30-33] In the conversion of the Gentiles and, by contrast, of relatively few Jews, the Old Testament prophecies are seen to be fulfilled; cf Romans 9:25-29. Israel feared that the doctrine of justification through faith would jeopardize the validity of the Mosaic law, and so they never reached their goal of righteousness that they had sought to attain through meticulous observance of the law (Romans 9:31). Since Gentiles, including especially Greeks and Romans, had a great regard for righteousness, Paul's statement concerning Gentiles in Romans 9:30 is to be understood from a Jewish perspective: quite evidently they had not been interested in "God's" righteousness, for it had not been revealed to them; but now in response to the proclamation of the gospel they respond in faith.

11 [32] Paul discusses Israel as a whole from the perspective of contemporary Jewish rejection of Jesus as Messiah. The Old Testament and much of Jewish noncanonical literature in fact reflect a fervent faith in divine mercy.

Michelle, are these explanations from your Catholic Bible?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Michelle, are these explanations from your Catholic Bible?

Thanks,
God bless

Sure are, so as you can see discussing this would be kind of a waste of time because you come from one view and I come from another. What we could do, however, is discuss where we each received our views form and on who’s authority do we speak?