Pity the Fool(s)
October 9th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
Yesterday we considered God’s love for all mankind as seen in common grace. Today we will look at the compassion He has for the whole world.
Compassion
God’s love to all humanity is a love of compassion. To say it another way, it is a love of pity. It is a broken-hearted love. He is “good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in lovingkindness to all who call upon [Him]” (Ps. 86:5). “To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him” (Dan. 9:9). He is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth” (Exod. 34:6).
Again, we must understand that there is nothing in any sinner that compels God’s love. He does not love us because we are lovable. He is not merciful to us because we in any way deserve His mercy. We are despicable, vile sinners who if we are not saved by the grace of God will be thrown on the trash heap of eternity, which is hell. We have no intrinsic value, no intrinsic worth—there’s nothing in us to love.
I recently overheard a radio talk-show psychologist attempting to give a caller an ego-boost: “God loves you for what you are. You must see yourself as someone special. After all, you are special to God.”
But that misses the point entirely. God does not love us “for what we are.” He loves us in spite of what we are. He does not love us because we are special. Rather, it is only His love and grace that give our lives any significance at all. That may seem like a doleful perspective to those raised in a culture where self-esteem is elevated to the supreme virtue. But it is, after all, precisely what Scripture teaches: “We have sinned like our fathers, we have committed iniquity, we have behaved wickedly” (Ps. 106:6). “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; and all of us wither like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away” (Isa. 64:6).
God loves because He is love; love is essential to who He is. Rather than viewing His love as proof of something worthy in us, we ought to be humbled by it.
God’s love for the reprobate is not the love of value; it is the love of pity for that which could have had value and has none. It is a love of compassion. It is a love of sorrow. It is a love of pathos. It is the same deep sense of compassion and pity we have when we see a scab-ridden derelict lying in the gutter. It is not a love that is incompatible with revulsion, but it is a genuine, well-meant, compassionate, sympathetic love nonetheless.
Frequently the Old Testament prophets describe the tears of God for the lost:
Therefore my heart intones like a harp for Moab, and my inward feelings for Kir-hareseth. So it will come about when Moab presents himself, when he wearies himself upon his high place, and comes to his sanctuary to pray, that he will not prevail. This is the word which the Lord spoke earlier concerning Moab (Isa. 16:11–13).
“And I shall make an end of Moab,” declares the Lord, “the one who offers sacrifice on the high place and the one who burns incense to his gods. Therefore My heart wails for Moab like flutes; My heart also wails like flutes for the men of Kir-heres. Therefore they have lost the abundance it produced. For every head is bald and every beard cut short; there are gashes on all the hands and sackcloth on the loins” (Jer. 48:35–37).
Similarly, the New Testament gives us the picture of Christ, weeping over the city of Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37). Luke 19:41–44 gives an even more detailed picture of Christ’s sorrow over the city:
And when He approached, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”
Those are words of doom, yet they’re spoken in great sorrow. It is genuine sorrow, borne out of the heart of a divine Savior who “wanted to gather [them] together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings,” but they were “unwilling.”
Those who deny God’s love for the reprobate usually suggest that what we see here is the human side of Jesus, not His divinity. They say that if this were an expression of sincere desire from an omnipotent God, He would surely intervene in their behalf and save them. Unfulfilled desire such as Jesus expresses here is simply incompatible with a sovereign God, they say.
But consider the problems with that view. Is Christ in His humanity more loving or more compassionate than God? Is tenderness perfected in the humanity of Christ, yet somehow lacking in His deity? When Christ speaks of gathering the people of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks, is this not deity speaking, rather than humanity? Do not these pronouncements of doom necessarily proceed from His deity as well? And if the words are the words of deity, how can anyone assert that the accompanying sorrow is the product of Christ’s human nature only, and not the divine? Do not our hearts tell us that if God is love—if His tender mercies are over all His works—then what we hear in Jesus’ words must be an echo of the divine?
“God’s love for the reprobate is not the love of value; it is the love of pity for that which could have had value and has none.” “They say that if this were an expression of sincere desire from an omnipotent God, He would surely intervene in their behalf and save them.”
They would be correct. If God pitied them so much, why wouldn’t He save them? Is His love limited? Not according to the scripture. His mercy? No. He will not force salvation on those who do (or would) reject it.
Those who suggest that it is such a grace for God to grant blessing to the “reprobate” in life must not be thinking. Just as we are to regard this life as next to nothing, we know that the afterlife is all that really counts.
As Wesley put it…
“Well, but he now enjoys many of the gifts of God both gift of nature and of providence. He has food and raiment, and comforts of various kinds; and are not all these great blessings?” No, not to him. At the price which he is to pay for them, everyone of these is also a curse. Everyone of these comforts is, by an eternal decree, to cost him a thousand pangs in hell. For every moment pleasure which he now enjoys, he is to suffer the torments of more than a thousand years; for the smoke of that pit which is preparing for him ascendeth up forever and ever. God knew this would be the fruit of whatever he should enjoy before the vapor of life fled away. He designed it should. It was his very purpose in giving him those enjoyments so that by all these, he is in truth and reality only fattening the ox for the slaughter.
David,
It sounds to me like Wesley knew that God had before ordained that the man described here would be sent to hell?
He is pointing out what he (and I) believe to be the assault on GOd’s character postulated in Calvinism. He didn’t believe that and neither do I.
I’m amazed that God chose to save any.
David M,
Two questions:
1) If what you’re saying is true, then why does Paul condemn the ungodly in Romans 1:21 in part because they were not “thankful”? If the blessing of God to the unrighteous is actually an underhanded curse, then why would it be appropriate for God to demand their gratitude for it?
2) You asked:
“If God pitied them so much, why wouldn’t He save them? Is His love limited? Not according to the scripture. His mercy? No. He will not force salvation on those who do (or would) reject it.”
Doesn’t your answer here amount to an admission that God’s love and mercy are, in fact, limited by God’s own unwillingness to “…force salvation on those who… reject it”? If your charge against Calvinism here is that we Calvinists limit God’s love and mercy, then how are you not also limiting them yourself?
David,
You said, “He is pointing out what he (and I) believe to be the assault on God’s character postulated in Calvinism.”
Which do you think is more of an assault of God’s character? (1) Man gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject God. (2) God gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject man.
Daniel,
I choose the latter.
Which do you think is more of an assault of God’s character? (1) Man gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject God. (2) God gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject man.
Actually, 2. I think it was Arminius (I am not completely Arminian, BTW) said that Calvinism robs God of a moral government since He is not punishing volitional wickedness and unbelief unless man decides.
This does NOT diminish God’s sovereignty at all. For God to take two identical creatures and burn with wrath unquenchable against one and lavish goodness and reward on another is sort of psychotic. There simply must be something different about them. Now the one’s belief is not a praiseworthy act, meriting salvation..not even close. But God grades on such a curve for such wretches as we are that even this puny effort is looked upon favorably.
But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Behold what “other-worldly” kind of love hath the father lavishly bestowed upon us that we (genuine believers) should be styled or called the sons of God. (my paraphrase of 1 John 3:1)
Is this the kind of love God has for those who reject his Son? Who remain enemies of God to the end? I don’t believe so.
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
These verses are special all by themselves but even more so when seen at the end of Romans 9-11 (God’s sovereignty in salvation).
Don’t try to logically figure out God’s love. Just read about it in the Scriptures and accept it for what it is. It is very easy to put God in a man-sized box.
James Harmens believed as I do until he started doubting the doctrines he had been taught just out of college. He started putting God into this man-sized box using human logic. By the way, his name in Latin is Jacobus Arminius. (The council of Dort had a few words to say about his “logical” doctrines.)
David,
You said, “For God to take two identical creatures and burn with wrath unquenchable against one and lavish goodness and reward on another is sort of psychotic. There simply must be something different about them.”
Not at all, for this is exactly what He did. Rom 9:21 says, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” When God chose Jacob over Esau, He did it even before they were born “and had done neither good nor evil.” We can see in Jacob’s life that He had done nothing to deserve God’s favor. Why did God chose Jacob instead of Esau? Wasn’t that sort of psychotic?
David M.,
You wrote: to take two identical creatures and burn with wrath unquenchable against one and lavish goodness and reward on another is sort of psychotic.
I’m curious as to your thoughts on Romans 9:10-13. Here we have two unborn babies, neither of whom had done anything (v. 11), yet God chooses to love and save Jacob and to hate and reject Esau (v. 13).
Oops… looks like Daniel beat me to the punch.
Nate B.
It stands to reason that you and Daniel think alike. His two older sisters just married Busnitz twins this summer. I happen to know that they are related to you. Their dad is Ethan.
Jeff
“Rather, it is only His love and grace that give our lives any significance at all.”
Jesus didn’t say to love ourselves, but to deny ourselves.
I’ve heard teachings in the Church that say that we need to love ourselves first before we can love god and our neighbor.
Thanks for this good and balanced post.
David M.
Brother, you may have found some problems with election but I think your solution has even more problems. It is you then that ultimately decides your salvation? You consider yourself further up the “curve” than the unsaved? I wonder how that attitude manifests itself in your dealings with them? It would seem a pretty natural result that you would be a bit proud of “your” decision to follow Christ. But doesn’t Paul say in Ephesians 2:8 “You are saved by grace, through faith, and this not from yourselves but the gift of God, not from works so that no one can boast?” There is simply no room for boasting. Perhaps it bothers you like it bothered Peter that others are getting a different deal (John). I think you’d benefit from the words of Christ, “what’s that to you?”
It goes back to some belief basic to humanity that we must have FREE will within our God likeness. The truth is that the only Free Will we have is the freedom to pick which sins we rebel against God with; because we are dead in our trespasses and sins according to the Holy scriptures and unable to ascend to God who is righteous and holy. Thanks for all the comments from all of us sinful and fallen folk who by the grace of God gave us faith to believe and continues with our sanctification and glorication upon death. My obedience to God’s call is my role and even that is given with thw moving of the Holy Spirit within my mind.
If Jesus died to atone for every single person’s sins, yet not all will be saved, wasn’t part of Christ’s sacrifice in vain? Or could it be that the atonement was only sufficient for those whom God had predestined unto salvation? In John 10:25-27 we have Jesus saying, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Notice that Jesus doesn’t say, “You are not part of my flock because you do not believe.” If he did, that would mean that the ultimate decision of our salvation rested with us, but praise the Lord, God is sovereign throughout all of the redemption process. Before the Holy Spirit regenerated our hearts, we were in absolute rebellion to God and nothing in us desired to please Him. This is why it takes an intervention by God in order to change our desires; we are unable, on our own, to choose the correct path in our original fallen state.
David Chaney,
You said: Which do you think is more of an assault of God’s character? (1) Man gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject God. (2) God gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject man.
Why only two choices? How about 3) God made the ultimate decision to allow man the ability to accept or reject Him.
Neither God’s moral character (love)is, nor his non-moral attribute (sovereignty) assaulted.
Rose,
Because these are only two choices. God makes the ultimate decision or man makes the ultimate decision. If God made the ultimate decision to allow man the ability to accept or reject Him, that would still be my first possibility: man makes the ultimate decision to accept or reject God.
But if it is His decision then He is still sovereign. Are you suggesting that God CANNOT make such a decision?
Rose,
Yes God CAN make the decision to let man decide, but if He did then man would be deciding. There are only two options: man decides or God decides. If God decides that man decides, man is still deciding therefore making it still my first option. It is impossible that there be more than these two options no matter how you mix it up.
Daniel you have morphed the arguement. You began by contending the if man makes a “decision” this assaults the Biblical concept of God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things.
If the original arguement was how many decisions can it be ultimately boiled down to. In a sense I would have to agree it boils down to two decisions (man decides or God decides).
But the issue at hand was if God’s sovereignty is assaulted by man making a decision. And I contend that God’s sovereignty is not assaulted if God Himself makes the sovereign decision to give man a decision.
Rose,
The two possibilities, man’s decision or God’s decision, are very relevant to the question of whether or not God is in absolute control of everything. Since you believe that man makes the ultimate decision, you cannot believe that God is in absolute control of everything. The two possibilities, man’s decision or God’s decision, can also be stated as: God is not absolutely in control (man’s decision to accept or reject God), or God IS absolutely in control (God’s decision to accept or reject man). If you see what the two options lead to, you will be able to see the importance of proving that there are indeed only two options.
Rose,
There is something I left out of my last post. If God made the decision to let man make the ultimate decision to accept or reject Him, then He would not be in control of their decision and therefore not in control of everything. I think you know that God is not left hanging on a thread wondering whether or not we will chose Him.
That is where you underestimate the incredible wisdom of God. In God’s infinite attributes is also his infinite wisdom, and in His incredible, infinite wisdom He is able to make all things work out after the counsel of His will, even while giving man freedom and ability to choose.
Rose,
So what you are saying is that God is in control of man’s decisions, making them work out after the counsel of His will?
No brother, Without having to control man’s decisions.
Rose,
So you are saying that God is not in control of man’s decisions?
I think we’ve been through this. Blessings on you brother.
Rose,
Back to my original statement: Which do you think is more of an assault of God’s character? (1) Man gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject God. (2) God gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject man. You have admitted that these are the only two options, so which do you think is the assault of God’s character?
David M made a comment to the effect that Calvinism postulaes an assault on God’s character. This would no doubt be referring to that moral characteristic of God namely, His love.
Being as God is an ininite being all of his characteristics (and attributes) would be of an INFINITE quality. These moral characteristics would include His love, His justice, His goodness.
We would be in absolute agreement in that God shows His incredible love in the fact that He even saves ANYONE considering our depraved state. (I would even go beyond that and state, that even if we were only naughty in the most miniscule of measures* it would still be astounding that an infinitly HOLY God would ever condescend to save even one of us). That aside…
How can it be reconciled that an infinite love would love only the “narrow” few in a saving sense, and the “wider” majority at most in a pitying sense?
Please, PLEASE!! don’t go into attack mode, this is not an unreasonable question and I would love to hear some thoughts on it.
* NOTE: which of course is NOT the case, we are quite the contrary and are terribly depraved.
Rose,
No question from someone who is truly seeking can be considered unreasonable.
Rather than asking how God’s infinite love can be reconciled with Calvinism, we should really be asking, “How can God’s infinite love be reconciled with His (just as infinite) justice?” His infinite love is what says, “God is not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) We know that not everyone will be saved, so we can assume that the reason for this is God’s justice; can we not? The real question is, “How can THESE be reconciled?” Since the two seem to conflict, and most people want to dump God’s justice altogether, in favor of His love, we must question OUR understanding of them because we know that the Bible does not contradict itself.
I am not at all in favor of dumping God’s justice whatsoever, even though it once held me in it’s terrors. On the contrary He would not be the God I love and stand in awe of without it.
I am just thankful that His infinite love and his infintely perfect justice kissed at the cross.
I just don’t understand how the infinitely perfect sacrifice of a infinitely perfect Saviour was insufficient to meet the justice of God for all but a “narrow” few.
If that is not what you meant, what did you mean when you suggested that the reason that all are not saved is because of God’s justice?
Rose,
I did not mean to say that you are one who would dump God’s justice in favor of His love.
Actually, what I meant to say was that God’s justice is the reason that there is a penalty for sin; not necessarily that it is the reason that not all will be saved. Thank you for the correction. Mabye Jesus could have died for the entire world, but didn’t. Mabye there was something that God wanted more.
You said, “I just don’t understand how the infinitely perfect sacrifice of a infinitely perfect Saviour was insufficient to meet the justice of God for all but a “narrow” few.”
Since not all will be saved, and we know that God is capable of acomplishing anything He wills, the questions is, “Why does God not will that all be saved?” We know that the reason for everything that God has done, is doing, or ever will do is to glorify Himself. So we can assume that God desires His own glory MORE than He desires to save everyone. If Jesus died for only the elect, then His death acomplished everything He wanted it to because He saved everyone He wanted to. If Jesus died to pay the penalty for the whole world, then He was not powerful enough, because scripture tells us that not all will be saved.
I guess the answer to your question is that Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t insufficient because He didn’t pay the penalty for everyone’s sins. His sacrifice was sufficient for everyone He wanted to save.
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Perhaps it would help if I phrased the problem this way;
God cannot do absolutely everything, He CANNOT sin, right?. I believe you would agree that this does not take away from God’s sovereignty.
We certainly would not argue that; “God is God He can be a little less than perfectly sinless if he WANTS to”. He could not and would not WANT to.
God is also constrained by His justice. God CANNOT be unjust. He CANNOT let the guilty go free. His very nature demands that He meet out PERFECT justice.
We would not say; “God can be a little less than perfectly just if He WANTS to”. He could not and would not WANT to.
But God is also constrained by His own love. God not only CANNOT be unloving, His own nature constrains Him to be loving to an infinite degree. God’s own love and wisdom compelled Him to prepare the cross for the saving of the world. (Please note: this is quite different from saying God owed it to us -He owed nothing to us but judgement and condemnation -He owed it only to the glory of His own infinitely perfect nature). Limited love is IMPOSSIBLE for God, He is constained by the perfection of His own nature to love infinitely.
In light of God’s infinite capacity to love, and His perfection constraining Him to love to the utmost. It cannot be reconciled that God would only “want” to show saving love to a “narrow” few?
We could not say; “God could be a little more narrow in His love if He wanted to”. He could not and would not WANT to.
Rose,
I can do something that God cannot do. I do it every day; and that is LEARN! I agree with most everything you said in your post, but there is something that I had a question about.
You said, “It cannot be reconciled that God would only “want” to show saving love to a “narrow” few?”
Mabye I understood you wrong, but indeed God only has “saving love” for a “narrow” few. Do you believe that everyone will be saved? If not, then you believe this as well. Correct me if I misunderstood your statment.
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
I am NOT a universalist.
When we come to an issue like, “Why are ALL people not saved”? We would both agree that it must be reconciled without doing the greater damage of assaulting God’s moral character or His attributes.
Calvinism believes that it answers that question by defending God’s sovereignty. IE. God can do whatever He wants, He chose to save some and not others. However, I contend that this is NOT a satisfactory answer as it denies the infiniteness of the moral nature of God (specificaly, His love). In effect, that means it demeans His character.
I contend that God’s infinite love evidenced in the cross, must realisticly (because it is infinite) be extended to all people. The attribute of God’s sovereignty is not assaulted if God Himself makes the sovereign decision to let man make his own decision.
So, this view is best able to answer the question, “Why are ALL people not saved?” as it assaults neither God’s moral character nor his sovereignty.
I believe that you are capable of understanding what I am saying. I am not asking you to agree. You are free to choose (no pun intended) what you would prefer to believe, but this is NOT an unreasonable hypothesis.
Rose,
You said, “I contend that God’s infinite love evidenced in the cross, must realisticly (because it is infinite) be extended to all people. The attribute of God’s sovereignty is not assaulted if God Himself makes the sovereign decision to let man make his own decision.”
Would you disagree with the fact that God does not have a “SAVING” for everyone? I agree that God loves every part of His creation, but I do not believe that He loves them all in a saving sense.
So you believe that God’s purpose for not saving everyone is to preserve their free will (rather than for the purpose of glorifying Himself)?
You also said, “Calvinism believes that it answers that question by defending God’s sovereignty. IE. God can do whatever He wants, He chose to save some and not others. However, I contend that this is NOT a satisfactory answer as it denies the infiniteness of the moral nature of God (specificaly, His love). In effect, that means it demeans His character.”
So in my original question, “Which do you think is more of an assault of God’s character? (1) Man gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject God. (2) God gets the ultimate decision to accept or reject man.” you believe that (2) would be an assault of His love? I do not believe that Calvinism in any way diminishes God’s love, for He died for me even when I was dead in sins. How can this be anything but infinite love?
The first line of my second paragraph should say, “Would you disagree with the fact that God does not have a “SAVING” love for everyone?
You said, “Would you disagree with the fact that God does not have a “SAVING” love for everyone?”
Let me rephrase my statement in the previous post to make it clearer. “I contend that God’s infinite love evidenced in the **SAVING LOVE OF THE** cross, must realisticly (because it is infinite) be extended to all people”.
You said, “So you believe that God’s purpose for not saving everyone is to preserve their free will (rather than for the purpose of glorifying Himself)?”
God’s purpose in not saving everyone has nothing to do with attempting to preserve their free will. Neither is it related to ANY deficit on His part. Neither a deficit in His love, nor a deficit of His sovereign ability. My point would be that ALL the blame lies at the feet of the unbeliever, because though God has made EVERY provision for them, they refuse to repent and put their faith in Him.
You said, “He died for me even when I was dead in sins. How can this be anything but infinite love?”
Infinite love has not only depth, but also breadth and height. What I mean is the depth of your sin is only one aspect of the reach of infinite love, there is also the aspect of the breadth of God’s love. It extends far and wide to encompass everyone across the world and throughout the ages. It also has height, it extends upward throughout eternity, God will never say, “Okay, I have loved them long enough”. It quite probably has many other dimensions. It is indeed infinite in ALL it’s aspects or dimensions.
Rose,
I am curious; what are your thoughts on Romans 8:29-39.
At the beginning of this passage, Paul says that God predestined who would be conformed to the image of His Son, and then he then goes on to show how God’s love is reconciled with this “Calvinistic” view.
I appreciate your comments.
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
I have tried 3 times to post a response, the third time it told me I had already posted that same response.
Sorry, I don’t know what to do.
I’ll try posting the response in 3 parts, perhaps it is too long. Part 1
I’m having a little difficulty answering your question because I’m not quite sure what it is you’re trying to say.
I think (or am hoping) that the simplest way to cut through this is to paraphrase what I hear the passage saying.
starting at verse 28, with the context that is revealed in verses 17 and 18.
God causes all things, even the present hardships(a) you(b) are enduring to work out for good (c). That is, God, who knew all about you, even before you existed (d), made a plan to make you more Christ like.
And with that plan in mind, He then went on to call you, declare you “not guilty’ and bring you into the glory of His Son.
What can we say, with God on our side (e), what does it matter who our enemies are (f)?
If God already made the ultimate sacrifice (g) for us, we can be quite confident that He has proven that He will withhold no good thing from us.
Now it won’t let me post part 2.
Part 3
(a) from verse 18, which seems to be the flow of thought all the way up to verse 28 and beyond (b) as a Christian (c) Paul goes on to explain what that “good” is, (IE. conforming us to the image of Christ). (d) It is my understanding that this “knowing” included His knowledge that, that individual would embrace the Gospel. (e) okay, the word choice is not the best (f) Even if it’s Caesar himself (g) His Son (h) I am not ready to die on this hill, but following the flow of thought it does seem that the context of these remarks is in regards to the persecution they are enduring, as the comments following, continue to speak of this persecution. (this often included being brought up on false charges, or being brought up on true charges to wicked laws -as it still the case in many countries to this day, ) (i) The meaning of Eklektos http://www.jarom.net/eklektos.php (j) verse 34a, or the thought could be, if God is the one who declares a person not guilty does it matter if the civil judge condemns (k) the ONLY reason for changing the order was an attempt to keep a long sentence clear, I had no doctrinal implications in mind.
With what I hear these verses saying, I am puzzled by your question. I don’t hear any Calvinist thought running through these passages.
a tiny bit of part 2
It doesn’t matter what civil charges the enemies trump up (h) against God’s special ones (i) God is the one who declares who’s “not guilty”, and He’s also the One who condemns. (j)
I am speaking of Jesus Christ the one who died, was resurrected and who stands in the position of authority with God, interceding on our behalf.
the rest of part 2
These enemies can’t separate you from God’s love. Not affliction, distress, persecution, famine, lack of clothing, peril or sword can do that.
For all these things are the lot of those who name His name, Scripture testifies of this, in Psalm 44:22.
But we’re victorious through the power of our loving Saviour. So that, neither death nor life, being exalted or debased, nothing in the angelic realm or anything you are experiencing here and now or will experience in the future, is able to separate you from God’s love through Jesus Christ, our Lord, there is not ANY created thing that could accomplish that. (k)
For goodness sake, I finally got it to print the whole post.
I narrowed it down to it not liking the word for “lack of clothing”. I removed it and put the synonimous phrase in it’s place and it consented to post it.
Rose,
I had the same trouble posting my comment, only it was for a reason of which I am still unaware.
Your posts in response to mine have been excellent! I will quote a bit of what you said.
1. God causes all things, even the present hardships(a) you(b) are enduring to work out for good (c). That is, God, who knew all about you, even before you existed (d), made a plan to make you more Christ like. And with that plan in mind, He then went on to call you, declare you “not guilty’ and bring you into the glory of His Son.
2. It doesn’t matter what civil charges the enemies trump up (h) against God’s special ones (i) God is the one who declares who’s “not guilty”, and He’s also the One who condemns.
3. But we’re victorious through the power of our loving Saviour. So that, neither death nor life, being exalted or debased, nothing in the angelic realm or anything you are experiencing here and now or will experience in the future, is able to separate you from God’s love through Jesus Christ, our Lord, there is not ANY created thing that could accomplish that.
All of this is excellent! You said in number 1 above that God causes all things to work out for good. I absolutely agree with you, but I believe that God also causes our salvation.
You said in part 3, “It is my understanding that this “knowing” included His knowledge that, that individual would embrace the Gospel.” I agree that God knows who will be saved and who will not, but in your opinion, how could God know this if He was not able to ensure it? I agree that we do make a decision to accept Christ, but do you believe that this decision is entirely out from under the influence of the Holy Spirit?
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel Chaney
I’ll answer the 2nd question first because it is easier for me to explain.
I do NOT beleive that the decision is ENTIRELY out from under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
As I believe for example that a mother praying for a prodigal, is genuinly efficacious. God does hear our prayers and He will put additional influences in the way of our loved one, to try to bring them to repentance and faith. Of course it needs to be noted that I am NOT an open-theist either, all of this** took place before God ever created the world.
Secondly, the Holy Spirit works through His Word, when people are confronted with the law of God, their conscience comes alive. (I see it written all over their faces every time I go street witnessing). The Spirit of God works through His Word to bring conviction of sin. (granted, most smash their consciences back into submission to their own wills in short order)
Thirdly, (these points are not in order of importance), after a person hears the Gospel and calls on the name of the Lord, God meets them and regenerates them. Being born again is entirely miraculous, if it wasn’t for God’s Spirit we could call on the name of the Lord all we wanted we could not change ourselves an iota. But, by God’s grace He made a promise to save whosoever will call on His name.***
To the first question, God is quite able to know everything ahead of time so perfectly that He can calculate it all into His plan, and nothing can go wrong, because when God knows something perfectly He really knows it PERFECTLY. That is what ifinite wisdom is all about. I don’t find that too hard to grasp about God at all. I don’t believe that if God cannot directly control something that He is incapable of knowing perfectly it’s end. That, I find, undermines the attribute of His infinite wisdom.
God knew exactly how I would respond to having the Gospel presented to me, He knew who if any that were praying for me, as well as host of things to vast to innumerate.
** God in His foreknowledge knew that the mother would pray, including how fervently and dilligently she would pray. I contend He knew which seconds of which days she would pray and what words she would use, and how many gray hairs she would have on her head on each of those days… -if you get my point?
*** In repentance and faith
Rose,
You said, “Being born again is entirely miraculous, if it wasn’t for God’s Spirit we could call on the name of the Lord all we wanted we could not change ourselves an iota.”
If it weren’t for God’s Spirit, we would not call on Him at all. The scriptures are clear that man did not chose God but that He chose them from before the foundation of the world. We know from Ephesians 2:1-9 that salvation is not of works but because of God’s grace and only God’s grace. Isn’t the belief, that accepting Christ is ultimately man’s work, in direct opposition to these verses and many other similar verses? If salvation is just a little bit of man then it is not all of God. Also, from your above statement, would you say that the converse is true? “God’s Spirit could call us all He wanted but if we didn’t accept Him then we would not be saved.”
Rom 9:21 says, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” If we are clay, how much of a choice do we have to decide whether we are made to honor or dishonor?
The subject is starting to get too broad to deal with fairly.
Your wrote: The Scriptures are clear that man did not choose God but that He chose them…
We haven’t yet agreed that this is clear, there are a number of Scriptures that we would need to look at in their context to see if indeed that was the intended meaning. The ones that I have looked at, in that regard, I have found them to be wholly other engaged in intent.
In Ephesians 2:1, the teachings of Calvinism make the assumption that “dead” in sin means that man is incapable of responding by faith because he is after all dead, dead people can’t respond. If we were to take that context of the word “dead” we would have to agree that dead people can’t sin either. We need to go to that Scripture to determine what the parameters on that verse are, IE. what Paul was really trying to say and no more.
In regards to Ephesians 2:8 A.T Robertson points out (in Robertsons’s Word Pictures) that according to the Greek, the word “that” because it is neuter in gender, cannot refer to faith or grace because they are both feminine, it must refer to the act of salvation itself. To read it with that in mind, we would better read it, By grace through faith are you saved, and that is not of yourselves it is a gift from God.
Another problem that I noticed was the classifying of faith as a work. When the Scriptures go to a great deal of trouble to contrast faith with works. They are opposites. Biblically faith is NOT considered a work. Gal 2:16, Gal 3:2, Gal 3:5, James 2:14, James 2:17, Rom 3:27, Rom 9:32
Rom 9:21 I believe that when Paul wrote that, He was writing with Jer 18:3-12 in mind, which shows no arbitrary choice at all. God uses the potter ananlogy verse 6, and then proceeds to give us the interpretation in verses 7-10. The same took place with Pharoah for example. God enabled Pharoah to come to the head of Egypt, and then when Pharoah hardened his heart against God, God gave him over to hardness of heart. **
To do justice to any of these topics it would be only right to take them one at a time. I think that is where Calvinist and non-Calvinist discussions go sour, when we just start throwing out verses without the time to really examine the passage. Then we get annoyed with the other and wonder why they are being so stubborn and not seeing our point.
You have been a wonderful treat to talk with. We are not enemies, I believe we both have a deep regard for God and His Word are desirous of honoring Him in rightly dividing it. If we come to opposite conclusions on things (that are within orthodoxy) we can know that the other did so with the most God honoring intentions (certainly I’ll believe that about you).
**Of course all this information God had already back in eternity and planned THEN every maneuver that would make it all work according to His plan. Do I need to mention this each time, or would you be willing to assume I am not a open-theist and though I speak in here and now terms from our human perspective that we both agree that, that this NOT ultimately where everything took place.
Rose,
I am not sure what you mean by “open-theist”. I have not heard this term before. I agree that we are speaking in “here and now” terms, because God already planned everything from eternity past. The “here and now” idea of salvation is that every person makes a decision to accept or reject Christ. However, the bigger picture that God has is that He chooses who will be saved and who will not (which vessels he will make for honor or dishonor).
You said, in reference to my quote, that the scriptures are not clear that God chose us and we didn’t choose Him. Here are a few verses that should clear it up. Ephesians 1:4, Acts 13:48, John 17:24, 1 Corinthians 2:7-16, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2.
You said, “In Ephesians 2:1, the teachings of Calvinism make the assumption that “dead” in sin means that man is incapable of responding by faith because he is after all dead, dead people can’t respond. If we were to take that context of the word “dead” we would have to agree that dead people can’t sin either.”
He is saying that they are dead in sin. A dead person can do nothing but what? STAY DEAD! We do not have to agree that dead people “can’t sin either”, because Paul is saying that that (sin) is all that a person who is dead in sin can do.
You also have been a treat to talk with. I pray that God will continue to sanctify you as you diligently study His word.
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Brother, Please consider the following, perhaps you are so confident of your opinion that it may have escaped your notice that I have the same Bible as you, it contains all those same verses. Us non-Calvinists don’t skip over them when we read our Bibles. We read them, understand them in the context of the passage, and so remain non-Calvinist.
That is why I tried to caution you, throwing six Scripture references at a subject does NOT clear the matter up at all. Because, the only thing that has happened is that the conversation has gotten too large to deal with carefully and honestly.
Imagine just for a moment what the length of the post would look like if I tried to answer all six verses in their context, in the same manner that I did the Romans passage above. (which is the only just and proper way to deal with so serious a subject as God’s Word). It is entirely unrealistic! So, what happens is one person imagines they have proven their case, but the only person they have convinced is themselves.
If all those passages are proof of your point, then any one of them ** should be able to stand up under scrutiny.
I for one, wouldn’t mind first looking together into that “dead in your trespasses and sins” statement (Eph. 2:1) . How about you?
** of your choice
The word for “dead” in Ephesians 2:1 is the Greek word “nekros”. which means ” spiritually dead, destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins, inactive as respects doing right, destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative.” It is related to the the word “nekus” which means “a corps”. It is used 123 times in the New Testament, and every one of those times it is used in reference of someone who is literally dead. EX. Matt 8:22 Christ says, “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” It is also the same word used to refer to Lazarus before Christ raised him from the dead. If Paul was going to describe the state of an unregenerate sinner, he picked the right word.
I agree, “dead” is a very appropriate word for describing the unconverted. And I quite agree with Thayers** that those are all possible ways of using that word metaphoricly.
But to determine how Paul meant us to understand his analogy in this instance we need to go to the Scriptures, to that passage in Ephesians in particular but also to other places where the dead, death and dying concept is used in regards to Spiritual life.
In Rom. 6:2 Paul uses the metaphor of being dead or having died, but is here, speaking of Christians. “How shall we who are DEAD to sin live any longer therein? Here he is saying the Christians have a “deadness” about them, only it is a deadness to sin. Does this deadness to sin mean that they have no force or power in them (IE. no ability) to sin? Well, we all know that we as Christians still have the ability to sin. 1John tells us that we are liars if we say that we have no sin.
In this instance the metaphore is trying to get across the idea of Christians having severed their relationship with sin. They can still sin, but they need to remind themselves that they have taken on a new allegiance. It does NOT carry the idea that Christians have no ability to sin.
You could imagine how challenging it would be to have a debate with a Church of the Nazarene apologist who was claiming that this verse was their proof positive that, Christians (who have been perfected) don’t sin, they can’t sin. We are dead to sin, have you ever seen a corpse sin?
You would have to agree along with I, that they would be making something out of the analogy that was not it’s intent. How would you go about arguing this point with them? I could use some tips.
It is my estimation that Paul’s analogy in Eph 2:1 was meant to convey that they were devoid of spiritual life being consumed by their sin. He contrasts it with, “made us alive”. The unconverted live for themselves, and for what the world has to offer them, in all of it’s lusts and distractions. It is such a dark and hopeless existence.
Whereas Christians are spiritually alive, we see that life is all about glorifying God and enjoying Him forever.
So, am I saying that the verse in Ephesians CANNOT allow the understanding that the unconverted cannot respond by faith to the Gospel without the irrestible grace of God. Nope, I’m not, you can believe it if you want. There is nothing in the text that either affirms or denies that doctrine.
Sorry, I should clarify a point in case you are unfamiliar with Church of the Nazarene teaching. When we speak of Christians having been “perfected” we are generally speaking of Christians in Heaven. In the Church of the Nazarene they have a doctrine called “‘Entire Sanctification” in which they believe that they can be “perfected” so that they don’t sin anymore THIS side of Heaven.
Rose, here are some ideas on how to answer a “Nazarene apologist.”
In Romans 6:2, you will notice that the word used here for “dead” is a different Greek word than the one used in Eph. 2:1.
The “new nature” that we receive of God when we are saved, CANNOT sin; but the old nature can ONLY sin. Hence Paul’s problem in Rom.7:23. If you read the rest of Romans 2 (through verse 11) you will see that only one of the words “dead” mean the same thing as the word in Ephesians 2:1. It is ironic that it is the one in verse 9, which says, “Knowing that Christ being raised from the “dead” dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.”
Pay attention especially to verse six. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” The word for “serve” is the Greek word “douleuo” which means SLAVE.
When we are saved we receive the nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4) which CANNOT sin.
Jer. 17:19 tells us the condition of our heart. Rom. 8:8 tells us that the unregenerate heart CANNOT please God. John 15:5 tells us that apart from God we can do absolutely nothing. Is. 64:6 tells us that even our apparent righteousness is as filthy rags in God’s sight. 1 Cor. 2:14 tells us that the unregenerate sinner cannot even understand (much less receive) the things of God. John 6:44 tells us that no one can come to the God unless HE draws them.
You said, The “new nature” that we receive of God when we are saved, CANNOT sin”.
and
“When we are saved we receive the nature of Christ (2 Peter 1:4) which CANNOT sin”.
Brother, are you suggesting that you agree with the Nazarene that we can be perfected so that we never sin again thoughout the rest of our earthly existence?
You NEVER sin?? Can I ask your wife??
It is really irrelivant to this text which word for dead is used, as they both mean the very same thing “dead” both actually and metaphorical. The rest of Thayer’s definition was commentary, that is; his understanding of the many metaphorical uses of the word, but we look for authorial intent to determine the specific use in the text under consideration.
My point was that “this” text (Eph 2:1) does NOT REQUIRE the understanding that man is unable to respond in faith to the Gospel.
We haven’t gotten to those other verses, (perhaps THEY might) we are talking about this verse. But you have NOT shown how THIS VERSE require that understanding. This text neither affirms nor denies that doctrine, you can read that doctrine into it (if you happen to believe that doctrine), but it cannot be used as a proof text.
That is all, you are free to believe that doctrine if you wish, but if this verse is your proof text, then the doctrine is in trouble.
Rose,
You said, “Brother, are you suggesting that you agree with the Nazarene that we can be perfected so that we never sin again throughout the rest of our earthly existence?” No, I don’t believe that. I said also that our “old nature” can ONLY sin. This is why Paul was having such a hard time (Rom. 7:23). The nature of Christ cannot sin. You would not argue with this. When we are saved, we inherit this nature, but we do not get rid of the old one.
I interpret the Bible literally. I don’t know about you, but when I see a noun, I interpret it as a noun. When I see a verb, I interpret it as a verb. When I see an adjective (dead), I interpret it as an adjective. The reading in that you mentioned, comes when you try to go farther than this.
I do not base my belief in the doctrines of Calvinism on just one verse. That would indeed be foolish. If you will reread the verses that I have listed, interpreting them literally, you will probably come to the same conclusion that I have.
Please forgive me Brother, I didn’t explain myself well, I’m quite sure that you base your doctrine on your understanding of many other verses.
I will try to say it in a different manner. “It is a good thing that you base your belief in this doctrine on other verses, because THIS verse has nothing to offer to the arguement”
Yes, I too read the Bible at face value, and I also understand “dead” to be an adjective in this text. We are on the same page in this regard.
As for the understanding that you have in regards to being “dead to sin”; it is a VERY unusual understanding and is foreign to any of the commenataries that I’ve consulted, (including MacArthur’s). Unfortunately, it made it impossible for you to understand the analogy. So be it, I’ll drop it and attempt another.
The Westminster Confession of Faith states that “man… is incapable of responding to the gospel*, THOUGH ABLE TO MAKE OTHER MORAL CHOICES.
The WCofF agrees with me that the word “dead” does not have to mean “dead” in EVERY aspect of the word. It only means dead insofar as the author intended it. The WCofF and I just happen to disagree on which aspects Paul intended the word “dead” to take.
The WCofF teaches that a dead man CAN make moral choices. Another could argue, “that is impossible, a dead man can do nothing, he is dead, dead men don’t go around making choices when they are cold stiff corpses”. Much like Calvinists would argue, “man can’t respond to the Gospel, how can a cold dead corpse respond to anything”.
The WSofF based their decision NOT on this passage (because they have no more information than you or I about this passage), they based it on their systematic theology. IE. if our theology teaches __X__ then this verse/word would have to mean __Y___.
If the WCofF can decide, that “dead” does not have to mean a complete cessation of ANY or ALL kind of activity. Then I too am correct in deciding that “dead” does not have to mean a complete cessation of ANY or ALL activity, and my systematic theology does not require “dead” to mean the inability to respond to the Gospel.
Are you comprehending what I am saying**? It sure would be helpful to me, if you would you be so kind as to paraphrase what you understand me to be saying, before beginning your response.
So, what did you do in celebration of Creation Day today? According to Ussher’s Annals of the World, he has calculated October 23rd as the day that God began His 6 days of creation. I went for a nice worshipful motor scooter ride, marveling at the wonders of His handiwork.
* which of course you know I disagree with
**I am NOT asking you to agree, just comprehend my meaning
What do you think of John 6:44? “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
I would say that this statement is clear, wouldn’t you?
What do you think of 1Co 2:14? “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither CAN he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
I would love to look at John 6:44 with you as it is one that is commonly misunderstood, after I get off work. One at a time. okay.
Rose,
My interpretation of John 6:44 is that no one can come to Christ unless GOD draws them. Would you say that this is a misinterpretation?
No, I wouldn’t call it a misinterpretation, though I might phrase it slightly different; None of them could come to Jesus
unless the Father drew them to Him. *
I will try to share what I hear the verses saying. I would like to quote a few complimentary verses up front.
John 17:6,11, 12 I have manifested Your name to the men whom YOU HAVE GIVEN ME out of the world. THEY WERE YOURS, YOU GAVE THEM TO ME, and they have kept Your word…keep them through Your name THOSE YOU GAVE ME…THOSE WHOM YOU GAVE ME I have kept; and none of them is lost….
John 8:42 IF GOD WERE YOUR FATHER YOU WOULD LOVE ME, for I proceed forth and have come from God.
John 8:47 HE WHO IS OF GOD HEARS THE WORDS OF GOD for this reason you do not hear FOR YOU ARE NOT OF GOD.
John 5:38 You do not have His Word abiding in You for you do not believe in Him whom He sent.
John 8:19 You know neither me nor my Father, IF YOU KNEW ME YOU WOULD KNOWN MY FATHER ALSO.
In all these verse Jesus is saying in essence the same thing as He is saying in John 6:37,44 and 65 Let me explain.
Long before Jesus’ incarnation God had HIS people. Now the Jews may have been covenant people, but not all of them were believers (IE. those who knew and loved God and truly sought to serve Him through faith). People like Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary the mother to Jesus, Simeon and Anna. But, of course most believers (the devout) were unknowns, humble people who didn’t garner much attention but God knew these who were His own.
These are the people that Jesus was referring to, did you notice that all of the people in Scripture who genuinly loved God, recognized Jesus. They may not have COMPLETELY understood who He was (because that was a lot to swallow), but they were wide open. And because they knew God, Jesus had this uncanny familiarity about Him.
Jesus is (in this passage) surrounded by a crowd of people who are NOT these Simeon types (If I can use him to typify them). These people had seen the miracle of loaves and fishes that Jesus had performed, but they really had no heart for God. They were just ambulance chasers. But Jesus, bless His wonderful love and patience still tried to bring them to see. But He pulled no punches, He knew they had no true Simeon like regard for God because if they had then they would have clued in as to who Jesus was. And that is exactly what Jesus tells them…
Any of the Jews who TRULY was one of God’s own, God would reveal Jesus to them. He would pass them over to Jesus. He would draw them to Jesus.
That is what I hear these verses saying. Read through these veses with that thought in mind, it’ll bring tears to your eyes.
Look particularly at verse 45 where Jesus explains for Himself what He meant by verse 44. After He shares His justification for stating that He will raise them up on the last day. He then explains what He means by “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws Him”, and it is that, all those who have heard from God, those who are disciples of God, (IE. the Simeons and Annas) will naturally be draw to Jesus.
* Please don’t read this note until the end because it will only confuse you. The reason I rephrased it into the past tense, is because I have reservations as to whether this concept works the same way outside of the covenant nation of Israel. It might, I need to give that more thought.
Rose,
This is exactly what I have been saying all along! No man can come to God unless God has chosen him from “Long before Jesus’ incarnation” and he is therefore already one of “God’s own” (elect). No man will even realize his position until the Holy Spirit works in his heart.
You said, “No, I wouldn’t call it a misinterpretation, though I might phrase it slightly different; None of them could come to Jesus unless the Father drew them to Him.”
By putting it in the past tense, are you referring to God’s work of election?
I guess we do agree after all.
I think you missed the whole point of my post.
I put it in the past tense because I have not meditated on it enough to consider if these words of Jesus referred only to that time when Jesus was reaching out to the nation of Israel, and not now that He is reaching out to the Gentiles. It may be, I just want to give that some more thought.
The point of my post is that there were some Jews who had already chosen to put their faith in God** before Jesus’ coming to them, (people like Simeon), Jesus was saying that God would transfer those people over to Jesus. He would draw them to Jesus. They would recognize Jesus. Others who had no heart for God, would not recognize Jesus and would likely remain as ambulance chasers.
**I was NOT saying God chose them
Rose,
If, as you say, Jesus Christ’s death on the cross allowed EVERYONE to have the option to choose Him, then why do you think there were people saved BEFORE Christ’s death, and therefore before they had that option?
Blessings Brother, the answer to that question is not a Calvinist/Non-Calvinist issue. We think alike in this regard. If you’ll copy the link below I’ll let Dr. John MacArthur answer it for me. (I think we’d both agree that he’s reputable source?)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-14.htm
An excellent quote by John MacArthur. I know that this answer fits in with my view of salvation; I would just like to know how it fits in with your’s. I believe that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world, as stated in Ephesians 1:4, Acts 13:48, John 17:24, 1 Corinthians 2:7-16, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2. You have admitted that man’s decision to accept Christ is not completely out from under the influence of the Holy Spirit, so if you believe that the Holy Spirit does have power to bring a man to repentance, it all comes down to the question of “who is more powerful; man or the Holy Spirit?”
What do you think of 1Co 2:14? “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither CAN he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
What do you think this “natural man” is, and why do you think he is unable to receive the things of God?
Tangent question for proponents of Calvinism:
If the second greatest command is “Love your neighbour as yourself” then why would God expect something of us that He Himself doesn’t do? (Ie. Assuming that God deliberately creates some people for the purpose of eternal destruction; which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed as Love.)
Kat,
I assume that you believe that God will punish those who are never saved, in hell. If this is the case, how can you say that THIS is loving? God commands that we forgive all who trespass against us, so how can He command us to do that if He Himself does not forgive ALL those who trespass against Him?
If you find an answer to this question, then you have also found the answer to the objection you raised against Calvanism.
Are we more loving, more just, more compassionate than God?
By no means!
As to the nature of your question, I infer from it that you don’t believe God loves everyone?
Might I also ask, who is our neighbour? Is the second command something we are to take literally, or do you believe this is just for the elect?
ps( forgiveness is a two way street…Person A offers it to Person B, and Person B accepts or reject it. Irregardless, Person A has done their part.)
Kat,
You said, “forgiveness is a two way street…Person A offers it to Person B, and Person B accepts or reject it. Irregardless, Person A has done their part.”
Would you say that salvation is a two way street? (Another way of putting this would be: Do you believe that God requires our permission to bring us to Himself?)
Daniel, you haven’t answered my questions. These are:
1) do you believe God loves everyone?
2) Are we to take the passage about loving our neighbours literally, or should we only apply this to the Elect?
To answer your question:
I believe God is big enough to enable His creatures to have a little scope to make their own choice in this regard. He provided the sacrifice, He paid the price for everyone’s sins, He made this available to any person in need of this, He sends messengers out to tell this good news, and He also gives us the opportunity to choose to accept or reject this Gift. That’s the nature of freely given gifts…they can be rejected.
Kat,
To answer your first question, yes, I believe that God loves every part of His creation. However, I also believe that God will not save every part of His creation. In fact, I believe that MOST of God’s creation will not be saved. But if the fact that God will punish sinners in hell, does not conflict with God’s love, then why do you say that the fact that God predetermines who will and will not be saved, does?
To answer your second question, yes we are to take this command literally. We are to take every one of God’s commands to us literally. We are to take the entire Bible literally.
Would you mind reading the verses that I have mentioned earlier in this discussion? I know that nothing I say will convince you of anything, because only the Holy Spirit can convince you.
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel Chaney
p.s. I do not claim to know all that there is to know on this subject, but I do believe that this position has more scriptural backing.
“But if the fact that God will punish sinners in hell, does not conflict with God’s love, then why do you say that the fact that God predetermines who will and will not be saved, does?”
The outcome might be the same, but the crucial thing is the intention.
1) God could have just prevented Hell-Goers from being born, but He did something better: He first went there in their place, in the form of the sinless Jesus Christ. What better definition of love is there than giving up your life for someone? That’s the most lavish kind of love I can imagine. How sad that they reject it!
2) I’m curious as to how you reconcile the idea that God loves everyone with the idea of Him deliberately predestining the majority of them to Hell; making them for that singular purpose and preventing them from accessing salvation. That seems like a rather inadequate kind of ’love’ to me.
——————————————————–
Thank you for being willing to engage in discussion, and for your response to my questions. I’d also like to raise the following points: (apologies for the length of this!)
a) accepting a gift of grace (salvation) does not somehow make me deserving of it. If I give a warm jacket to a homeless drug addict because I feel compassion for him, that doesn’t make him more worthy of this if he accepts it.
b) God is not involved in some Divine lottery system, arbitrarily selecting a handful of people to be saved. Likewise, God does not predestine people for the purpose of populating Hell. Scripture is rich with promises that He is not willing that anyone should perish, and that He doesn’t take pleasure in the death of anyone.
Being outside of time, He knows will respond to Him and accordingly prepares their future roles . Eg. David was chosen to be Israel’s King because God already knew his heart was responsive to Him.
Predestination in scriptures pertains to the perfecting work of God in the lives of believers, transforming their character in accordance with their adoption as heirs.
I cannot find a scriptural reference that uses predestination in conjunction with punishment.
The reference “prepared for destruction” in Romans 9:22-23 might be misconstrued that way, but on closer examination there are two separate words for prepare. The first one “Katertismena” contains the idea of an ongoing action, a being fit for, or ripe for. This is the logical consequence of hardening one’s own heart: we are storing up wrath for ourselves. Continue on that path and there will come a point when God eventually relinquishes us to our choice. (See Ezekiel 24:13-14)
By contrast, the second in verse 23 is Proetoimasen which contains the idea of getting ready (Pro is before, Eteoismasen is to prepare or get ready.) Here God is the instigator, actively planning an inheritance for those of us who will be adopted in Christ.
c) True love is unselfish:
We readily acknowledge the value of choice in the context of courting and marriage. No sane suitor would drag his potential spouse off by the hair, demanding that she love him and commit to him. That would make her a prisoner, not a wife.
Instead, he wants her to respond to him of her own volition. That’s the nature of genuine, selfless love. And no matter how fabulous the suitor might be, there’s always the possibility she might refuse him, to her own loss. Hence the tension we see in passages like Isaiah 65 and 66, where God is graciously offering His love, patiently waiting, while the Beloved’s response is obstinate indifference.
d) Love trumps all:
Who would I rather serve? A kind of despotic God who deliberately makes trillions of throw-away people to use for cannon fodder (in order to show off his power?) and who arbitrarily selects a small handful of these to rescue? OR a courageous, unselfish God who deliberately permits his creation to make their own choices because He values a willing and responsive heart over mindless, enforced submission. (Even if that means permitting the Beloved the freedom to choose Life, or Death)
e) like extreme Arminianism, the outcome of extreme Calvinism seems to be contention, not unity.
For me, the proof is in the fruits of those beliefs. Whenever I attempt to reconcile 5pt Calvinism with my experience and understanding of God and the scriptures I find myself doubting His character and His love. It causes hurt and confusion in my relationship with Him, and with others. So, at an experiential level, as well as how it compares with the scriptural depiction of God, Calvinism seems to fall short, in my opinion.
Kat,
That you for your detailed response. You said, “I’m curious as to how you reconcile the idea that God loves everyone with the idea of Him deliberately predestining the majority of them to Hell; making them for that singular purpose and preventing them from accessing salvation. That seems like a rather inadequate kind of ’love’ to me.”
Romans 9:10-24 Explain Pauls view very clearly and I would recomend reading it. Verse 16 says, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” And verse 18 says, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Notice the question in verse 19. I will rephrase it in a little bit more modern terms: “Why does God still find fault if he predestined men to hell?” The answer to your question is found in verses 22-24.
It is not of him that willeth.