Posted on 02/07/2013 12:06:49 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Hmmmm...I find that to be an odd statement.
On the Reformed side is a God who reveals Himself to us, cares for us and watches over us; wanting us to feast with Him at His wedding feast. There are those who don't wish to submit to His will and He will execute His judgment on them. But these vessels of wrath would rather "reign in hell than serve in heaven". God will give them what is due them.
On the reverse side, is a God who will grant those who make the right choice and live a life dedicated to Him to come join Him in heaven. Those who reject His calling will be throw into eternal torment for all eternity for making a poor choice within their limited life span.
Now which seems more loving?
To say that Dr. Palmer was a Calvinist's Calvinist might be somewhat of an understatement.
While I would disagree with some of his views, he was a great man and the one man most responsible for the NIV Bible, which I think is easily the best "thought for thought" version.
You might find it interesting to know that Calvin did not teach some things that many Calvinists now believe, and that Arminius did not teach what Calvinists claim he taught. I think it would be fair to say that the reverse is also true.
Sorry, but you've given here only a brief summary of the doctrine of foreknowledge -- upon which there's very little disagreement among denominations -- and the doctrine of election.
You're not claiming (by silence) that God has less elective power than, say, you're average American voter, are you?
I don't see where grace is conditioned upon election; election IS grace.
But no grace or faith for the non-elect. I think you've only attempted to solve the conflict by redefining election. Bottom line is still: no-election, no grace/faith/salvation and it is election that conditions everything else. Hence, salvation by election.
Isn't "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved?" a promise? Is God less sovereign for making such a promise? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
My point is that Calvinists tend to view God through Greek lenses, while the whole of scripture describes Him through Hebrew lenses. Thus, “omnipotent” is a Greek concept which the Bible eschews in favor of “King of kings who bows to meet His people.”
This is rather an odd statement. Could you please provide examples for I find it to be exactly the opposite. For example in Ruth we find the blessed Naomi state:
Amo 4:7 And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.
Dan 4:36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Greek idea is not an omnipotent, all sovereign God. Rather Greek theology was one where gods strive with men, other gods and demons. This is reflected in some denominations in which their eschatology states one big battle in which God and Satan duke it out. It is reflected in God pleading with men to accept Him. It is reflected in people believing a loving God would not inflict punishment or judgment on us. This is not only Greek thought but it is Renaissance thought where man is the center and God is somewhere else.
Now if you have specific examples it would be interesting to review.
You might want to read this sermon from the great Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon. It will give you a great deal of insight.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm
Yet this doesn't comport with Scripture: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:3)
Who gets the credit for salvation? Jesus dying on the cross for our behalf, and the Holy Spirit enlightening/illuminating us via the gift of faith...or man's marvelous "choosing" ability???
Sorry, the Bible doesn't "major" very much in elaborating upon man's great "choices"...hence, "decision theology" doesn't represent the Bible.
In fact, may I suggest you study up on the spiritual bondage that pre-empts men from making great choices? (Ephesians 2:1-3; John 8:34; most of Romans 6...where Paul was writing to a city that was about 1/3rd slaves...they knew the spiritual slavery parallels Paul was talking about).
Even with the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness, they couldn't be "on the loose" until God set them free via His miracles and His agent, Moses.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Could you be a little more specific? You might find it interesting that I haven’t read very much of Calvin. His name just happens to be stuck with Reformed theology much the way Arminias name is stuck on the Semi-Pelagius side.
Have you read through the Protestant’s Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith? I find that Protestants don’t really seem to have a clue about the founding fathers of Protestantism or what Protestant is all about. The TULIP was recent development but is not nearly as comprehensive as the confessions.
Is not the implantation of faith a "condition?" If we are "pregnant" with the "condition" of faith -- and God the Father draws us (John 6:44); Jesus chooses us (John 15:16); Holy Spirit gives it to us (1 Cor. 12:3); we still have to "give birth" ... and thus be born from above... right?
Not everybody has this gift, right?
Probably the toughest thing for us to explain is that 'free will' bit.
I think it undercuts the whole system. If true, then Jesus's ministry doesn't make sense: "Why is he exhorting me, it's His choice not mine." And our everyday experience is an illusion. Building on this leads us to, quoting Chesterton, "thought that kills all thought." If it's true there no purpose in us thinking or discussing this any further. And..
If man is being controlled, then how could we all possibly be "without excuse"
Which calls into question justice. Certainly, speaking for myself, I pray for mercy more than justice; however, both are nonsensical if we have no free will choices in the most important matters.
We believe there are times and places in which people are steered directly by God
Without a doubt there are times when God calls people for His purposes. They are still free to object (as Moses and others did) and free to say no.
Pharoah's heart was hardened
Yes it was, but my heart has been hardened as well; thankfully, it doesn't mean I am incapable of repentance and responding to God's love and grace.
Hmmmm - guess He gave me those words to write... or did He?
Well put!
If I am trying to make my will His will, then what is mine and what is His?
I think Calvinism is an honest attempt that ends up in a very wrong result with a wrong view of God. But I think it is good and pleasing to God that we care enough to try to know Him through this and other ways.
In the end, perhaps we could say: God is omnipotent; He created man with free will; the rest is speculation.
thanks again...
That may very well be but I'm very familiar with the OSAS view. Either Dr. Palmer didn't completely understand the difference between OSAS/POTS or he probably made a poor post on an Internet site somewhere. Trust me, it happens. OSAS and POTS are not the same.
No, but where there IS salvation it is by grace. God's choice to save souls (whomever they are) IS grace.
Excuse me for being "nitpicky" about that word "choice," but it's really NOT a Biblical concept.
(See post #88).
Even a pastor-author coming from a tradition where preachers oft used Revelation 3:20 as part of their "decision theology" (Michael Cocoris) conceded in his book on Evangelism that it was a misused verse...given that Jesus' invite there was to people inside a given church...not outside of it...
Beyond that, the other verse oft cited by decision theology types is Joshua's "choosing" whom he would serve...a message given inside the camp of the "chosen" people of God -- the Israelites.
What many don't want to face up to is that spiritually dead people (Ephesians 2:1: "you were DEAD in your transgressions and sins..."; cf. Luke 9:60)...
...who are in bondage to sin (John 8:34), in bondage to Satan, in bondage to the fear of death...
...aren't exactly in an "empowered" state to be making "the right choices"...
...unless and until, God's initiative in their lives quickens (enlivens) them via illumination of the Gospel.
No there is no condition. God implants where He wills.
we still have to "give birth"
We don't give birth. We are the ones who are born. Remember "the wind blows where it wills" (John 3). Those who are born again are only consequences of that wind blowing; we don't decide where it blows.
He knows who He will save. (Comment: He knew this before creation).
He knows who will reject him. (Comment: Again, He knew this before creation).
Sorry, but the Bible speaks of "representative" language...Christ was our representative in serving out the curse's penalty on the cross (one for all)...Adam was our representative in jumpstarting that curse in the garden...'tis all there in Romans 5.
Adam & Eve had "free will." Since then, perfect "free will" and mortal sovereignty went by the wayside.
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. (Jesus, Matthew 15:19)
Our heart isn't simply corrupted by the sin we allow into our lives; no, Jesus says that it's our heart that spills over into enacted sin...
Let's go back to Jewish theological thought from a long time ago:
* Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)
* Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward... (Psalm 58:3)
That -- faith -- is in itself a "condition" of distinction...even if God is 100% responsible for it...
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.