Results 2201 - 2220 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2201 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13977 | ||
Norrie: One other thing reagrding your first paragraph. Was your drug-induced kill spree part of God's moral will? Absolutely not! I agree. Was the opportunity to sin and the sin itself part of God's sovereign will? If it was not, then it would not have occurred. That does not mean that God made you sin. And, of course, if you were slipped some drugs and acted out of a lack of control, I don't know if that would be classified as sin in the first place, anyway. --Joe! |
||||||
2202 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13975 | ||
Norrie: It is a leap in logic to say that because God ordains everything that happens, that he allows evil to exist just to punish individuals. Hopw do you explain Job? Was it not God's plan for all of that to happen to him (notice, who points Satan in Job's direction in chapter 1?)? Did Job do something to deserve the evil that befell him? Nope, the text makes that perfectly clear as well. Therefore, we have God pointing out Job, knowing exactly how Satan would react (since God is omniscient), and using the entire incident to glorify Himself. This is the God who is. As far as Hitler: when did God know that Hitler would commit the atrocities that he did? Who brought Hitler into existence? Who allowed him to gain the power that he did, knowing all along the evil in Hitler's heart? Who allowed Hitler to build the concentration camps? Who allowed him to kill as many as he did before being stopped? And the most important question: did any of the Holocaust take God by surprise in the slightest? And, lastly, what do you make of verses like these? Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it. --Isaiah 46:9-11 Again, the question isn't whether you SEE God doing it. The question is whether that is the God as revealed in the whole counsel of the Bible. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2203 | All of God's decree is not predestined? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13974 | ||
Bob: What did you think of my view that the intentions of man are the source of sin rather than the way in which those intentions are carried out? While God does not control our wills, he does limit the way in which the individual wills of humans can express themselves. Therefore, by sovereignly placing us in various times and places in human history, and by limiting and extending our sphere of influence, and by means of such tools as divine interaction and human interaction and circumstances and a whole host of other things we can't even begin to wrap our minds around, God controls the manifestation of the sinfulness in our hearts. There is much in the Bible that supports the idea that the sin of humans is not merely the actions themselves, but the sinfulness that exists in the mind/heart: "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." --Matthew 7:17-18 In Matthew 5, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that those who hate their brother have committed murder in their hearts, and those who lust after a woman have committed adultery in their hearts. If God limits my opportunity to have sex with a woman who is not my wife, that does not mean that the lustful intention is not there, and therefore, the sin already exists. If I do indeed commit adultery with my body rather than just my heart, that is an outward expression of MY sinful intentions, but obviously it is something that God has incorporated into His sovereign plan, because it occurs. God did not tempt me; God did not place the evil desire in my heart; God did not encourage me. However, if I am an adulterer, God brought the woman across my path in the first place, controlled the circumstances which allowed us the time to develop whatever relationship there would be, controlled the circumstances which allowed us the opportunity to find the secluded spot to commit our sin, and he didn't prevent us from acting out our sinful desires. Again, the desires are ours, the sin we commit is ours, but it is God who controlled all external circumstances which paved the path to the adultery. This brings to mind another good example. After the Bathsheba incident, God said to David (through the prophet Nathan): "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'" --2 Samuel 12:11-12 Here we see that God "will raise up evil" from within David's own household to dishonor him the same way that he dishonored Uriah. God says specifically that this is what he WILL do, not what may happen as a result. He gives specifics on how this will occur and who will witness it. In other words, God decrees it. And the decree is fulfilled in a few chapters with his son Absolom: "Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, 'Give your advice. What shall we do?' Ahithophel said to Absalom, 'Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father. The hands of all who are with you will also be strengthened.' So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." --2 Samuel 16:20-22 We can conclude the following from this part of Scripture: 1. David's sin with Bathsheba and the sin of Absolom are interrelated, namely, that the latter is judgment upon David for the former. 2. God did not "make" Absolom sin. He was led into his sin by his own rebellion against David and directed by the advice of Ahithophel. 3. God said it would happen, and it did. His decree was for evil to befall David. How else could we put these two passages side by side and conclude that God did not decree that the evil would occur, and that it was decreed to serve God's purposes? Absolom's sinful intent was already present, and God directed that, providing the circumstances so that Nathan's prophecy would come true at the hands of Absolom. What do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
2204 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13970 | ||
Norrie: I do disagree with some of your statements; but it is not important who agrees with whom, but rather which view is most closely aligned with the revealed Word. Personally, I do not see a lot of support, for example, for the idea that God has ONE person in mind for you to marry and that you must "seek out God's perfect will" in that area. One sees general guidelines for whom you should select as a mate (e.g. not being "unequally yoked") and one should exercise wisdom in the choice of a mate (e.g. don't marry a homebody if you plan on being a missionary in Burma), but there is not a Scripture which suggests that if I marry Jane the Christian instead of Denise the Christian that somehow I have messed up God's perfect plan. Same is true for other life decisions as well. There is God's moral will which is revealed, and God's sovereign will which is inescapable. I see no biblical support for a particular kind of "individual will" in which God plays hide-and-seek for what He wants us to do. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
2205 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13928 | ||
Ed: Actually, what you said was that "only God knows" whether the Reformation was good or evil and resulted in a weak, ineffective church. Do you really think that God leaves it all up to some cosmic "guessing game" like that? This all sprang out of Brian overreacting when I asked for a simple shred of evidence for a claim he was making. I did not declare him to be wrong (despite the fact I think he is). I simply wanted him to support his assertion, since the burden of proof lies on him. I did so in a polite marrer, and still I have not received an answer to my question, only a cry of being attacked which served to distract some individuals (*ahem*) from the issue of whether any such support exists. And then someone jumped in way too deep and moved the conversation in this direction. Wonder who that could have been, Ed? No one thinks that Luther and Calvin were saints (least of all, luther and Calvin themselves). Isn't it great, though, that sometimes when we sinful humans construct our soapboaxes with human hands, there is a clearly biblical, divine impetus behind it? :) --Joe! |
||||||
2206 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13927 | ||
Norrie: No, I don't believe in "plans A, B, C" etc. Briefly, here is my take on what the Bible says about God's will: SOVEREIGN WILL: What WILL happen 1. Includes what God actively does Himself 2. Includes what God allows to occur by voltitional members of His creation 3. Partially revealed in Scripture (e.g. the Second Coming is not a "maybe"; the fact a specific set of human beings are chosen to eternal life is something that WILL occur) 4. How do we know God's sovereign will? First, look at what HAS happened. Nothing in history has happened that was not an element of God's sovereign will. Also, look to Scripture regarding what God has revealed regarding His plans for the future. Both of these comprise His revealed sovereign will. 5. There is no getting around God's sovereign will. It was established in eternity past and was decreed by God as what will happen. It is plan A. There is no plan B. God's MORAL WILL: 1. Includes what God COMMANDS and FORBIDS his creatures to do. 2. Completely revealed in Scripture. 3. Refelects perfectly God's character and standard of moral perfection. 4. Can and is violated by human beings, acting according to their sinfulness. 5. Such violations are not only foreseen by God, but the extent and manner in which humans are permitted to "step out of bounds" is sovereignly governed by God. Also the effects of such sinful acts are part of God's sovereign will and will be ultimately used for His glory, just like the acts we humans do that please Him as well. --Joe! |
||||||
2207 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13871 | ||
Bob: You wrote: "In this post, you use the phrase "God's sovereign will" a couple of times. By this, do you mean 'God's predetermined, unchangeable plan which includes everything that comes to pass in time?'" I do. You also wrote: "How does the concept of God "actively permitting" something fit into the concept of God "absolutely predetermining" every detail of history before any of it began? As I understand it, the concept of God "actively permitting" something must mean that there was *real* choice available (ie. that there really was both the *ability* to choose and the *opportunity* to choose), and that, although God would certainly have known what the choice(s) would be, He did not pre-destinate what those choices would be." I don't consider "decree" and "predestination" to be synonymous. Predestination, in my view, is the element of decree which reflects what God will actually do Himself. Biblically, the term is used to describe the eternal destiny of those whom He regenerates, and that is wholly a work of God in the Reformed view. Of course, we are heading into some pretty deep philosophical waters when we start to discuss God's choices and our choices with relationship to time, and grasping all the nuances of that could very well be out of our reach. Perhaps one good way to examine the notion that God limits our freedom without excusing us from the blame for our sin is to examine sin from the perspective of human nature. Human beings are sinful by nature; EVERYTHING a non-Christian person will do will be displeasing to God, simply because the unregenerate are slaves to sin and acting in accordance with their nature. this is the idea of total depravity. There is not one fiber of our unsaved selves that is not corrupted by the Fall. In this sense, the unregenerate cannot help but sin. Therefore, since God allows the existence of humanity, there can be no question that he allows humans to sin. Sinners are what we all once were by our very nature. What God does control, however, is how that sin finds expression (i.e how that sin is carried out). In my limited perspective, it would seem that he could do that in several ways. Simply denying a particular human's access to opportunity would not change the fact that he will sin, but it will control how he will sin. For example, if I were a misanthropic person who wanted to destroy humanity, God could take that desire within me and use it ultimately for His glory without putting in my hands the political and/or technological power to accomplish my desires. I am still the one sinning, but God controls how and when I am able to exercise what I want to do. Another way he actively directs the "flow of sin," so to speak, is through direct suggestion. god knows that Satan is bent on destruction and will use any opportunity he can get to bring ruin to God's creation. Why, then, does God say to him, "Have you considered my servant Job?"? God did not suggest that Satan do anything to Job, but knowing Satan's nature and voltitional bent toward eveil, he pointed him in the direction of Job without authoring the destruction that Satan would bring upon him. Circumstances contribute to how sin is expressed as well, and circumstances are controlled by God. Circumstances by their very nature limit our ability and opportunity, not to BE sinful (as that is a given), but HOW we sin. Therefore, we do not have unlimited choices about the manner in which we will sin, by virtue of the limitations and circumstances in which God has placed us. However, God, knowing our hearts from eternity past, and our will and determination to sin, has already determined how, when and where we will be able to exercise that will to sin, all for his glory. Again, the sin comes from our fallen nature, but it is God who has decided "how much rope" and even "what rope" to give us. --Joe! |
||||||
2208 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13838 | ||
Nolan: Wow...you do realize your view of eternal security is contrary to Wesley, don't you? He held that a person could be truly saved and then lose it. And I do consider you my brother (and therefore one of the elect)! :) --Joe! |
||||||
2209 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13837 | ||
Tim: One thing that we have to remember regarding God is that He operates from a perspective outside of time. Jeremiah 18:10 is a very good description from a human perspective how Israel's sin results in judgment. However, if we suggest that God truly changes His mind based on "changes in circumstances," we become Open Theists, saying that God does not know what man will do and will base His plan on what his creation does or doesn't do. Surely you do not think that God really has Plans A, B, C, etc. for the human race. If we are to take Jeremiah 18 as "God will wait and see what we will do," how do you reconcile that with 2 Kings where God has had enough during the reign of Manasseh, and decalres that Israel will be taken into captivity? His grandson Josiah implemented the greatest reforms in the history of Judah, but the biblical text specifically shows that God does not relent and decide not to judge Israel after all. I put to you three questions: 1. Did God know whether Israel whether Israel would repent? 2. If so, when did He know it? 3. What would be the point of Him telling Israel that he would relent if they repented and reject them if they did not? In other words, since he knew that Israel would not repent, why does he give an "if...then" to them? I would assume that you would conlude, as I do, that God was announcing His holy standard, so that they would be without excuse. However, to suggest that God was prepared to re-write his sovereign plan if they would do something would imply that he was not sure how things would turn out for Israel. If Paul writing that the vessels of wrath are "prepared for destruction" does NOT mean that they indeed will be destroyed, as you claim, what does it mean? And one final question comes to mind. How do you fit your Arminian interpretation of Romans 9 with verses 19 and 20? If we are simply asking, "Who is Israel?", why would the hypothetical challenger ask "Who resists his will?" That question one an individual would ask in reference to himself, not an ethnic people. The vessels of mercy are indeed "spiritual Israel." Hoever, notice that the word "vessels" is plural, indicating that a vessel is indeed an individual unit of spitirual Israel. In other words, individual people. The vessels of destruction are not being destroyed NOW, for a very specific purpose. Romans 1 and 2 shows that God is restraining his wrath now. However, there is the "wrath to come," when all those vessels prepared for destruction will indeed be destroyed. ALL of them. --Joe! |
||||||
2210 | Part 2 of 2: How can both be true? | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13836 | ||
Bob: It is a bit of an oversimplification to say that Calvinists do not believe that man has free will. What Calvinists state is that after the fall, man does indeed have free will, but his nature is corrupted by the fall in such a way that whatever his choices will be, he will not choose to do anything that is pleasing to God; he cannot submit to God's law, as Romans 8:7-9 explicitly states. For example, I was born a sinner. However, that sinful nature never manifested itself in the form of homosexual acts, murder, or building graven images and worshiping them. I have never chosen to engage in such activities. However, I have lied and I have acted selfishly a countless number of times. Therefore, while I have rejected some actual sins, before my conversion there was not the slightest inclination to act for good with the motive of giving glory to God. It took the Holy Spirit's regeneration, quickening my spiritual deadness before I could even place my trust in Christ for the forgiveness of my sins. Therefore, it is most correct to say that our wills are damaged as a result of the Fall's curse, rather than non-existent. Maybe the best way to sum up "decree" is merely God stating, "This will happen." I recently read a short part of one of John Piper's books which dealt with a similar problem with regard to God's sovereign decree: the question, "Why should I pray, then, if all is decreed?" Piper framed it in the context of a conversation between two individuals, with one asking why one should pray if God has already determined what would happen. The basic response (and this is a very rough paraphrase) was that the God who knew what He would do also knew that the praying person would be praying for it. Therefore, God knew that a person in his free will would pray for something, and he would decide to work in accordance with that prayer. The other man responded by saying something along the lines of "So, if you didn't pray, it wouldn't have happened." The praying person agreed, which thoroughly confused his challenger. But if that were the case, he continued, then God also knew from eternity past that he wouldn't pray. He compared it to a sovereign decree that someone would die from a bullet wound. If there were no bullet, the man wouldn't die from a bullet wound. The fact is, however, that because it is decreed, there WILL be a bullet coming from somewhere. God doesn't fire the shot, but He says, "It will happen." The same could hold true for evangelism. Why evangelize?, people say to Calvinists. One, because God told us to, and two, God sovereignly governs the universe so that many of his elect will come across the paths of believers who will share their faith. Epehesians 2:10 illustrates this quite well, that God arranges before hand our good works, so that we will walk in them. While it is our will that we do them, God also has sovereignly prepared them beforehand. Same holds true for sin, in the view of Calvinists. Sin is the expression of man's will. God knows that human beings (especially the unregenerate) will sin. There is no question that they will sin. God places individuals in situations where their sinfulness will find expression in a way that looking back on it from the end of human history, God's sovereign plan will be clearly seen. This is demonstrated all throughout Scripture.God hardens Pharaoh's heart so that he will not repent. In fact, he gets more harsh, so that even after he has relented after his first born dies, he still goes chasing after the nation of Israel. God decrees that the military buildups of Assyria and Babylon will occur to test and judge His own people. He ordains that His prophets will die horrible deaths despite following Him. He decrees that His only begotten Son will die for me, and that the Pharisees would be the one to do it, and that one of the Twelve would be the one to betray Him. Therefore, I would conclude that "God's decree" is that from eternity past, God delared what would happen, what He would do Himself, what He would allow, and what He would prevent, so that He would be glorified in all things (Romans 8:28). God, by creating sinners, decreed that sin would occur as he would permit, for His glory. The sinful nature is ours, and we have sinful intents, but God directs through circumstance and other means how and when those sinful intents will be manifested. --Joe! |
||||||
2211 | Again, "decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13835 | ||
Bob: I didn't say decree didn't mean "allow." What I had said before that it is MORE than simply allowing something. Here's the way I explained it in the context of God's sovereign will at a teen camp this summer: God's sovereign will includes everything that He either actively engages in or actively permits to occur. Both fall under the category of "decree," and both were ordained from eternity past. Also, both play an active role in God's overall plan to glorify Himself. While He is not the author of sin, he directs the sinful hearts of men in such a way that His purposes are accomplished. Again, we still have a "problem" to resolve from either point of view, because God created those who would later sin, so in a way I suppose that we could say that sin exists because of God (in the sense that if He had not created anything, sin would be nonexistent), but He didn't create it Himself. He created the creators of sin would be the best way to put it. That is something every Christian would agree with. --Joe! |
||||||
2212 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13830 | ||
That makes twice we agree in as many days! Kinda spooky... --Joe! |
||||||
2213 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13754 | ||
Tim: Calvinists hold that Adam and Eve had free choice in the garden. Also, he did not set them up to fail. He did know from eternity past what their choice, would be, and He decreed that the sin would take place (i.e. he would allow it and use the sin for the purpose of His glory); it did, however, originate in the hearts of our first parents (with an assist from a snake, of course). --Joe! |
||||||
2214 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13752 | ||
Nolan: Actually, I hold that Romans 9:15-24 makes an ironclad case for unconditional election (rather than just examining (9:10-15 in isolation), since the "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" CANNOT be talking about favored and unfavored nations. Paul undeniably states that the vessels of mercy are those from the Jews and the Gentiles who have been prpared for glory. Unless there is a third type of vessel that Paul forgot to mention, those vessels of destruction also must be from the Jews AND the Gentiles (i.e. those who do not fall in the category of 9:24). This is what Tim does not address in his repetition of the "vessels of mercy" interpretation. No offense, but he seems eager to emphasize the "mercy" group and gloss over the "wrath" group almost completely. One has to do some serious mental gymnastics (far more so than occasionally qualifying the word "all" in its biblical context) to come up with a conclusion other than the one Paul is directly stating. --Joe! |
||||||
2215 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13727 | ||
How melodramatic, Ed. I am so glad we live in a society where "tolerance" means that we can't even ask for evidence to support a claim made on a public forum without getting mealy-mouthed ecumenism from all sides. The forum is for debate. In no way have I acted in a mean-spirited fashion toward Brian nor anyone else with whom I disagree. O, for some discernment in the American church! (Curtain falls.) --Joe! P.S. Brian has demonstrated that he rejects completely justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Does that still make him a Christian? |
||||||
2216 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13725 | ||
All I asked was a simple question. You asserted that there was early church support for a papacy starting with Peter. Since you made that assertion, I asked you to provide evidence of that from the early church fathers or other historical sources of the time period. How is that insulting? Ad hominem attacks have very little effect on me, so I politely ask you again to provide concrete evidence that would point to a papacy beginning with Peter. That will be a more than adequate answer for me. Furthermore, if I were Roman Catholic and wanted to defend such a notion, I would try my hardest to prove all those "hateful" Protestants wrong. If the evidence is there, surely someone has made it more than public to refute what you consider to be mockery. And if the evidenc edoesn't exist, you need to be intellectually honest enough to wonder whether we are right... --Joe! |
||||||
2217 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | Reformer Joe | 13720 | ||
Bob: Don't worry about coming across as anagonistic. Healthy discussion and debate is like dessert to me! :) I find you framing Chapter III of the Westminster Confession as a contradiction a little difficult to work with, and that is why I asked for your view. You see, all believers in the Bible have to reconcile an omipotent, omniscient God with the fact that He created beings who would rebel against Him (Satan and his angels and human beings). The way, I see it, there are three options in explaining why he would do such a thing: 1. He did not know they would sin against Him when he created them. 2. He did know that they would sin when He created them, but decided to "work around" that to glorify Himself anyway. 3. He did know that they would sin when He created them, and fully intended to work through their rebellion to glorify Himself. I hold (1) to be a denial of God knowing the future, and I reject that as unbiblical. The Scriptures I stated in my previous posts repudiate (2) by showing that God indeed intends the sin of humans and Satan to be used directly for His glory, in spite of the efforst of those who fight Him. Therefore, I embrace (3) as being the biblical answer. Whether Calvinist or Arminian, the fact still remains that God created beings who would become rebels against Him. To say that it was a mistake on God's part would deny His infinite wisdom, so there must have been a purpose to it. In any case, also note that God did not CREATE them in a state of sinfulness; both Satan and Adam were created in a state in which they were sinless, but corruptible. The Reformed view does not hold that God encouraged them to sin or entrapped them in some situation that they could not get out of, for that, too would violate Scripture: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." --James 1:13-15 So while God did not MAKE Satan rebel or Adam sin (Chapter III of WCF states "nor was violence offered to the will of the creatures"), He created them will full knowledge that they would rebel. Therefore, the sin was theirs, but God had purpose in creating those who would become sinners. It would seem to deny some of God's revealed attributes to say otherwise. It is always a daunting task to ever attempt to even get the slightest grasp of God's soverign will over existence. We in our, finite, temporal bodies try to understand how no matter what we do, that God's purposes will be accomplished. It goes beyond some "cosmic chess match" where God compensates for "our moves." Every move that we make by our own free will, whether pleasing to God or dishonoring to Him, has already been incorporated into His sovereign decree from eternity past and will ultimately result in his glory. God created beings who would become vile, sinful creatures; it was His decree. God permitted them to sin; it was His decree. He permits us to be born in a state of rebellion against Him; that is His decree. He chooses some to be regenerated and dwell with Him for eternity to demonstrate His mercy and love and grace, and others to remain in their rebellious, sinful state and suffer His justice and wrath for THEIR sinfulness. Again, it is all part of His plan, not loose ends that he has to tie up after all is said and done. I see nothing in your comments that presents a more particular problem for Calvinists than it does for Arminians who must also explain that God created sinners, and is not the author of sin. --Joe! |
||||||
2218 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Reformer Joe | 13677 | ||
While it is not necessary to pin a doctrine down to a single verse to show that Scripture teaches it (find me one that directly states that God eternally exists as a Trinity, for example), Romans 9:22-23 definitely indicates that some are vessels of wrath who are prepared by God for destruction. Who are these people, in light of the fact that the whole passage deals with who is shown mercy? I would hardly called "being prepared for destruction" an example of being a recipient of mercy! --Joe! |
||||||
2219 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13675 | ||
Okay, I was hoping for something a milennium and a half closer to the events themselves. Someone in the eighteenth century claiming that such a "papal senate" was formed carries no more weight than you telling it to me. What were HIS sources for making this statement? Thanks. --Joe! |
||||||
2220 | Mercy's God's prerogative | Rom 9:15 | Reformer Joe | 13631 | ||
Tim: You wrote: "1) The thurst of the quotes about Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, all have to do with God's sovereign right to use them in anyway He sees fit, since He is the potter. However, it never says anything about their individual salvation. In fact, all of the quotes about Jacob and Esau all refer to the nations involved." Well, the question raised was not about individual salvation, but whether God is required by His very nature to show mercy to all. In the case of Pharaoh, we are definitely talking about an individual who was not the object of God's mercy. And even if Paul intends his references to Jacob and Esau to refer to the Israelites and the Edomites (which is not a point I concede), these nations are still made up of individuals, so we still come down to individuals not receiving mercy (i.e. "being hated") from God. "2) Nowhere in chapter 9 does it say that the vessels are locked into the postion that they are in currently. Notice in Ephesians, that Paul says that they were all at one time 'vessels of wrath'. But, God had mercy on them." I think the term "prepared beforehand for destruction" implies exactly that these vessels serve the purpose God intended for them. Ephesians 2 refers to us as "formerly...children of wrath, even as the rest" rather than "vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction." And the big difference is seen in the very next verse: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" --Ephesians 2:4-5 It is clear that: a) we were all children of wrath b) now we (i.e. believers) are not c) Paul differentiates us from "the rest (i.e. the lost--v.3) d) the difference between the elect (Ephesians 1:4, 11) and the lost is God's rich mercy toward the elect It is not to hard to conclude by this epistle that the elect receive mercy that "the rest," those who will remain "children of wrath" do not receive. You continue: "3) Chapter 9 cannot be understood in isolation from chapter's 10 and 11. Both of these chapters stress that whoever calls will be saved and that even those, in chapter 11, who are not of the elect can be saved if they do not continue in their unbelief." The Reformed position agrees that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. We are not in disagreement there. Where we disagree is that the Calvinist position holds that all those who will truly call on the Lord are precisely the ones that God has predestined, called, and regenerated (and no one else). Chapter 11 does not distinguish the elect from those who will be grafted back in. The ones who will be grafted back in are those whom God will regenerate. When Paul says that the condition is "if they do not continue in their unbelief," that is not contrary to Calvinism, either. If they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be the ones re-grafted and therefore among the elect. "4) Concerning "all Israel", I believe Paul is refering to the Spiritual Israel of 9:1-6 here. He specifically mentions the full number of Gentiles being brought in, and then he says, "Thus, all Israel will be saved." Agreed. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 ] Next > Last [123] >> |