Posted on 04/03/2010 9:50:37 AM PDT by betty boop
His irresistible grace IS sufficient for salvation per Eph. 2:8-9. Since He works within time, so does His grace.
But the evidence is not there that He creates men for hell and only creates some men for Heaven.
It is there for all to see. For example:
Life for all men is like the two thieves crucified with the Lord: [Luke 23:39-43]
I agree, but there is nothing there supporting or refuting free will. It showed the heart of the "good" thief, but said nothing of how it got that way.
FK: I don't think of it as one will dominating or competing with another. One will is God's Holy standard. The other is His plan within a time filled with sinful creatures. .........
One thing that is evidence against this argument is God's repeated expressions of exasperation and despair over the Bible at His seeming inability to get the Jews to accept Him and His Commandments for longer than overnight. Is that simply playacting?
Actually, I would say this to support my argument. He wasn't playacting, but rather demonstrating how His "two wills" co-exist together. Omnipotent God does not get frustrated due to His own inability. Rather, He shows His permissive will and that He allows this because He has bigger overall plans. God chose to allow sin to be in the world and to be everywhere. If He wants to interact with the world, then He will also be interacting with sin to accomplish His plan. Of course dealing with sin goes against His perfection and so on the one hand it IS a kind of frustration. The big picture, though, is overriding.
Sure. Typically at the beginning of every sermon our Pastor will introduce the theme and then refer to what amounts to the "passage(s) of the week". They come from every corner of the Bible. I consider this to be "the reading" and for this we stand every week. Now, during the sermon he will invariably refer to other supporting scriptures for this or that point, and for those we do not stand. So, if I gave the impression that we were up down up down up down the whole time, then I apologize. :) My real point was that when we do stand every week for "the reading", it does not matter whether it is from the Gospels, the OT or Revelation, etc. We treat it all equally as God's word.
Well, I sure didn't have to look far to find an example of what I mean:
So, the money question is: is everything after "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:" from God and perfect or from Cyrus and subject to error? I say the quote came literally from what God told him and Cyrus was simply repeating what he was told. Therefore, it is God's word and not subject to error. God did not simply plant a suggestion in his ear and Cyrus took it from there. Everything in the statement is exactly what God wanted said and for specific reasons.
Close enough, but BY GEORGE I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT! :) Of course your hammer deserves no credit. It is a piece of wood with a chunk of metal on the end. The one wielding it deserves the credit. Likewise, as you said the men who wrote the Bible were human, and thus subject to error. If God wanted His gift to us to be perfect then He needed to take control and direct the hammer personally.
FK: Nothing God wished was omitted and nothing extraneous to God's plan was included.
Then why do we have so many different canons?
Well, I suppose anyone can create a canon. The correct one would be the one accepted by God's Church. Of course there is disagreement on who populates that Church. :)
FK: Jesus speaks of more than that: Luke 24:44-45 : 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
Luke's verse has no credibility as something Jesus would have uttered for several reasons: ......
Well, if even the Gospels can't be trusted, then that leaves nothing left. :) How would we ever know what TO trust Jesus as having ever said? What would be the anchor?
As I quoted, Jesus Himself says: "Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.".
Children couldn't possibly "understand" how much greater God is than the adults.
In humility they can accept what they are told by their parents, even if they don't understand everything. As we become adults we should accept what God teaches us with the same humility.
Why should we unconditionally trust him? Why gives us reason only so we can blindly accept things?
We should unconditionally trust Him because He is truth and He loves His elect. We trust those we know love us. We were created to give glory to Him and that involves trusting in Him. ----- A humble, childlike faith is not blind. For those things that are understandable, logic and reason support them. For other things it is reasonable to trust the one true God who loves us.
I am not sure kids unconditionally trust their parents. Abused children don't trust their parents; they are scared to death of them.
Well sure, but to even make the loosest comparison we must assume loving and good parents.
Who said anyone was above self-contradiction? :)
Then stop crediting the "hammers!" Take all those names of human "authors" out of the Bible. The didn't write a single dot!
How would we ever know what TO trust Jesus as having ever said? What would be the anchor?
Blind faith, FK, simple child-like blind faith. :)
Maybe the Jewish children in the 1st century Palestine were "humbled" by their parents. That doesn't mean children in general are "humble" by nature. If left to their "sin nature" they will boast; they will seek attention; they are self-absorbed (ego centric), cruel and inconsiderate or very much capable of all of it.
In short, left to their "sin nature," instead of being good for heaven they are guilty and only good for hell according to so many Protestant theologians. Apparenly Jesus did not buy into the Augustinian and Protestant idea of the "original sin."
In humility they can accept what they are told by their parents, even if they don't understand everything. As we become adults we should accept what God teaches us with the same humility./
They don't accept Santa Claus in humility but because they don't know anything, and adults can (and do) dupe them. This is like saying the fish "humbly" take our bait and get hooked. :)
As we become adults we should accept what God teaches us with the same humility
Why?
We should unconditionally trust Him because He is truth and He loves His elect.
Unquestioning acceptance is a matter of blind belief, FK.
Well sure, but to even make the loosest comparison we must assume loving and good parents.
That is our cultural bias.
Who cares. The scribes who penned the NT Gospels did not identify themselves by name.
The Gospels did not just appear out of nowhere. They are implicitly identified (to the satisfaction of the Apostolic Church I might add) and the original readers certainly knew and gave them weight on that basis.
Besides, if you believe there is nothing in the Bible that was not according to God's will, then leaving their names unknown was God's will that was violated when the Church added their names.
It is not a matter of God not wanting anyone to know the names. More likely it was obvious in the beginning who the authors were and it was God's will that the names be added later for our (those who came later) sakes. At some point reading became independent of the direct or semi-direct oral history. God knew this and provided for that eventuality according to His plan.
FK: Only God has the authority to say what the faith is and He chose some at the beginning to transmit it.
But the Church decided which books to include and who the scribes were.
We have an honest disagreement about that. Rather than give all credit and honor to men for the creation and assembly of God's word, I give all credit and honor to God for God's word. That seems only fair, or it shouldn't be called God's word.
So, that means that the Lord really did say it? Gees...That sounds like "it must be true, I saw it written in the New York Times!" or much better, as one of our Russian assistants once observed "It must be troo, it's in the kopyutor." :)
Well, yes, that means that the Lord really did say it (or literally give the words to the person). Based on its claims, I can't imagine any Christian having the slightest use for the Bible if he or she thought it was a collection of personal opinions and fictitious stories. If the Lord really did not say it in those examples, then the Bible would be so filled with lies it would be impossible to discern any "truth" from it that was not completely made up by the individual.
Oh, I never said it was the CHURCH that was antiChrist. LOL! But seriously, here you are mixing faiths to come up with a contradiction. If we DID give credit to the men of the Apostolic Church for the Bible and the other things you mentioned then you would be right that there is hypocrisy. But we don't. We give all that credit to God.
Kosta: But the Church decided which books to include and who the scribes were.
Mark: The Church had and has the authority. The Protestants tacitly acknowledge it, yet publicly repudiate it. Else, the aforementioned rulings of the Church would have been long rejected by these same folks.
No, we do not tacitly acknowledge it, but we do publicly repudiate it. :) We have no rule saying that if the Apostolic Church believes something then it must be wrong. :) God's Church was given the correct canon and accepted it both according to God's timetable. The Apostolic Church (as part of God's Church) was then correct to accept it as well. The Apostolic Church (technically it was the Latin Church) then later erred by adding extra-canonical or dueterocanonical books on its own. (The Orthodox Church is not guilty of the errors of Trent, even though it agrees with some of its holdings.)
I think yuou ouwld have to provide some evidence that it was God's will, and not just something the Church decided to do.
No, it could be that the person thought that;s what God told him...But just because someone believes it doesn't mean it's true. :)
The whole (undivided, catholic and apostolic) Church of the first millennium accepted the "extra" books that were listed in in the (local) Council of Carthage (Third African Council) at the end of the 4th century. The Greek side did not accept Revelation (which is not an "apocryphal" book) of John until the 9th century.
does not say that irrestible grace is sufficient for salvation.
Hardening hearts does not mean that that God has condemned that individual to hell. I can find no Scripture to corroborate that idea.
Actually, I would say this to support my argument. He wasn't playacting, but rather demonstrating how His "two wills" co-exist together. Omnipotent God does not get frustrated due to His own inability. Rather, He shows His permissive will and that He allows this because He has bigger overall plans.
This is a bunch of craziness. God has two minds, and two wills, and two predestinations? God indicated frustration a number of times. Are you claiming that that frustration is only on one level and not on another? Counselor, you are overreaching, methinks.
God chose to allow sin to be in the world and to be everywhere. If He wants to interact with the world, then He will also be interacting with sin to accomplish His plan. Of course dealing with sin goes against His perfection and so on the one hand it IS a kind of frustration.
What?
Fascinating. The Chronicler is treated as equal to God?
I said that Ezra in the Book of Ezra never prophesied from God. This is from our conversation of whether Jesus and Ezra stood side by side, whether Jesus was worthy of more attention than Ezra and, I believe, you waffled on that.
But there are many who do, right here on FR, many of whom are your Reformed believers and allies.
If we DID give credit to the men of the Apostolic Church for the Bible and the other things you mentioned then you would be right that there is hypocrisy.
Obfuscation. The Church went into locked rooms to debate over a century and a half and came out with the NT Scripture.
No, we do not tacitly acknowledge it, but we do publicly repudiate it. :) We have no rule saying that if the Apostolic Church believes something then it must be wrong. :)
What else would you call it?
God's Church was given the correct canon and accepted it both according to God's timetable.
Can you describe the methodology and the process please?
The Apostolic Church (technically it was the Latin Church) then later erred by adding extra-canonical or dueterocanonical books on its own. (The Orthodox Church is not guilty of the errors of Trent, even though it agrees with some of its holdings.)
Trent merely confirmed what the entire Catholic Church had held from Apostolic times.
I don't know about that. I actually remember a time when I had "done the math" but still believed because my parents said so. It was a great "deal" for me regardless so I wasn't motivated to make a federal case out of it. And of course it helped me to learn good lessons about giving, etc. I don't feel like my parents "duped" me. The "spirit of the idea of Santa" is certainly real, and Christian.
FK: As we become adults we should accept what God teaches us with the same humility.
Why?
Because very often it is hard for us to accept things if we can't explain every detail and every angle about them. We should show humility by being content with being given all we need to know as opposed to all there is to know.
That stifles inquiry. It also leads to conclusions that promiscuous women cause earthquakes! Now if you think this is only something Muslims are capable of, take for instance Pat Robertson said that the January earthquake in Haiti was caused by the "pact Haitians made with the devil in order to throw off French rule in the 18th century."
That's what happens when the Bible becomes all you need to know...and the source of all answers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.