What Else Could God Do?

[Act9_12Out]

God asks the question, "What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it?" God expected good grapes, but wild grapes were what He received... What more could God have done? He could have predestined good grapes. However, God expected good grapes and received wild grapes. Did God really expect something, and then receive something else? Of course He did. He gave man the gift of contrary choice, hoped for and expected good grapes, but Israel freely rejected Him, and He received wild grapes.

Isaiah 5
5:1
Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill.
5:2
He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes.
5:3
"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
5:4
What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Either the calvinist god failed, or the God of the Bible once again shows His true nature (Jer 18, Eze 18).

[Solly]

Not if Israel were a picture to the world of man with the best advantages, yet still failing, showing that all are without excuse, all are sinners, and the Gospel of our salvation is needed. It's Saul and David again writ large.

[Act9_12Out]

Today @ 09:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78472#post78472)
Solly:

Not if Israel were a picture to the world of man with the best advantages, yet still failing, showing that all are without excuse, all are sinners, and the Gospel of our salvation is needed. It's Saul and David again writ large.

Solly,

You did not answer the questions... Why did God expect good grapes and receive wild grapes? What more could God have done that He did not do?

--Jeremy

[Solly]

God can expect good grapes because he is the Creator and the King. he has the right to that from his creations.

What more could he have done? Changed their hearts. That is what he went on to promise to do, that is what they had to realise they needed. Read Jeremiah 17 & 31 f'rinstance.

Have a good weekend, see you.

[Act9_12Out]

Today @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78508#post78508)
Solly:

God can expect good grapes because he is the Creator and the King. he has the right to that from his creations.

What more could he have done? Changed their hearts. That is what he went on to promise to do, that is what they had to realise they needed. Read Jeremiah 17 & 31 f'rinstance.

Have a good weekend, see you.

Solly,

I'm not attempting to speak for your beliefs, but rather to the calvinistic presuppositions presented here. If God has absolute prescience, and predestines all things, how can He "expect" anything other than what He knows will come to pass? If God expects good grapes, shouldn't the "all knowing" God of the Universe receive good grapes?

What more could have been done that He did not do? The god of calvinism could have predestined good grapes. However, the God of the Bible remains consistent in His nature. If God desires to do good for an individual or a nation, and that individual or nation does evil in His sight, then God repents of the good He said He would do. If an evil individual or nation repents of their evil, then God repents of the harm He said He would do (Jer 18, Eze 18). Again, God has given us the gift of contrary choice. God responds to our actions. God did everything He could do for Israel (except predestine good grapes), and expected good grapes. Israel did not respond the way God hoped / expected. God wonders what else He could have done to merit a positive response from the people...

Have a blessed weekend,

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

Acts9, if I am not mistaken, the problem here arises from two different understandings of the word "expect." There is the usage that you use: "1. To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of. 2. To consider likely or certain." Now, the problem results because there is also this meaning, "3. To consider reasonable or due." And this one, "4. To consider obligatory; require."

It seems more likely to me to be one of the latter two.

Joel

[Blake Reas]

Again X9 you are wrong. What if I told you way back in Deuteronomy God said he knew exactly what the Israelites where going to do? Would you not use this passage like you should not use the Hezekiah passage?

31:16
The Lord said to Moses, "Soon you will lie down with your ancestors. Then this people will begin to prostitute themselves to the foreign gods in their midst, the gods of the land into which they are going; they will forsake me, breaking my covenant that I have made with them.
31:17
My anger will be kindled against them in that day. I will forsake them and hide my face from them; they will become easy prey, and many terrible troubles will come upon them. In that day they will say, "Have not these troubles come upon us because our God is not in our midst?'
31:18
On that day I will surely hide my face on account of all the evil they have done by turning to other gods.
31:19
Now therefore write this song, and teach it to the Israelites; put it in their mouths, in order that this song may be a witness for me against the Israelites.
31:20
For when I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, which I promised on oath to their ancestors, and they have eaten their fill and grown fat, they will turn to other gods and serve them, despising me and breaking my covenant.
31:21
And when many terrible troubles come upon them, this song will confront them as a witness, because it will not be lost from the mouths of their descendants. For I know what they are inclined to do even now, before I have brought them into the land that I promised them on oath."

Hmmm... Sounds like someone knew the people where going to break the covenant a long time before they did it.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 11:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78910#post78910)
joelkaki:

Acts9, if I am not mistaken, the problem here arises from two different understandings of the word "expect." There is the usage that you use: "1. To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of. 2. To consider likely or certain." Now, the problem results because there is also this meaning, "3. To consider reasonable or due." And this one, "4. To consider obligatory; require."

It seems more likely to me to be one of the latter two.

Joel


No Joel his problem is that he leaves out scripture verses that throw his eisegesis into confusion.

Blake

[Solly]

Thoughts from John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, 1735

Parabolical divinity is not argumentative; nor ought parables to be stretched beyond their scope and design; the intent of this is to show the ingratitude of the Jews, in the midst of many favours bestowed upon them.

It cannot be understood of God's having done all that was sufficient and necessary to the saving conversion of those who are designed by the vineyard...the good things which God had done for his vineyard, the men of Israel and Judah, were of a civil nature, and which regarded their civil constitution and settlement as a body politic.

From such a well formed government [as Israel had], from such an excellent constitution, from a people enjoying such advantages, might it not be reasonably expected that the fruits of common justice and equity would have appeared?

The similitudes in the parable only regard the external culture of the vineyard, and can only, at most, design the outward means of reformation, which these people enjoyed...it might be expected that a people enjoying such privileges, would behave well in their moral conversation (lifestyle)...which they might have done, without supposing them to have grace sufficient to saving conversion, and though this might be withheld from them, and therefore it was not unreasonable in the Lord to expect good grapes of this [political] kind from them, nor to complain of their wild grapes nor to punish them for them.

Textual comment:
The interrogation should be translated:
What is to be done here, after my vineyard?, etc, and so designs not any thing past, but something to come, as evidently appears from the answer to it, vv 5,6.

----

Once again you fail to understand that Calvinism can handle the idea of morally volitional creatures operating within the foreordained plan of God.

[seer]

Once again you fail to understand that Calvinism can handle the idea of morally volitional creatures operating within the foreordained plan of God.

Actually Solly,I do not think Calvinists handle this problem well at all. How can a man born with "sin nature" a nature that compells him, that he can't resist,and that he never asked for, be held responsible in the sight of a Just God? Would you harm a mentally ill person for acting mentally ill? Would you eternally harm them?

[Solly]

Today @ 11:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80760#post80760)
seer:
Actually Solly,I do not think Calvinists handle this problem well at all. How can a man born with "sin nature" a nature that compells him, that he can't resist,and that he never asked for, be held responsible in the sight of a Just God? Would you harm a mentally ill person for acting mentally ill? Would you eternally harm them?

A mentally handicapped/ill person has a cognitive and/or physical problem. Sinners have an ethical and volitional one. God has not left himself without a witness to the fact that he exists and men should take notice of him; they are without excuse. God's word says that, not Calvinists.
Calvinists, like Arminians and OVTs seek to understand that fact intellectually and doctrinally, but all presumably start from that basic fact: all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, all are without excuse. Calvinists hold the two points in dynamic tension, seeing them both revealed in scripture, and ultimately deferring to the fact that God is good, holy and righteous, and the judge of all the earth will do right - he is not a luvey duvey liberal who overlooks transgressions, iniquity and sin, and says, Oh, they couldn't help it; he will punish sin, and that sin is wilful sin against God on the part of all human beings. If you don't believe that about God and man, then the rest is immaterial.
As far as original sin is concerned, we are not speaking of a genetic trait like skin colour, but the inner "thoughts and intents" the "devices and desires" of the heart. As C S Lewis described it, we are "bent", and we know it, and yet we do not want to do anything about it; rather, we suppress the truth in unrighteousness Rom 1.18

As far as mentally handicapped people are concerned, it is the same situation as with infants. We have no definitive revelation from God on the matter; if we did, some bright spark would be bound to say that it is better to kill infants and the mentally handicapped so they go to heaven.

It is of course necessary to prove that all are in a neutral state, all are savable, and God's intention it to save all, to make a position that is not followed by the Evangelical community. Even Arminians can't get away from the fact that the Gospel has not, does not, and will not come to all men. Nor can the fact that the revelation in scripture that all men are repsonsible before God be evaded not even in responding to his directions natually, as with the Jews in Isaiah 5.

[seer]

Calvinists, like Arminians and OVTs seek to understand that fact intellectually and doctrinally, but all presumably start from that basic fact: all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, all are without excuse.

They have the perfect excuse if they are constitutionally incapable of responding. But of course they are not - that is Paul's whole point in Romans 1. Because of God's common grace all men can respond to the light that they have.

It is of course necessary to prove that all are in a neutral state, all are savable, and God's intention it to save all, to make a position that is not followed by the Evangelical community. Even Arminians can't get away from the fact that the Gospel has not, does not, and will not come to all men.

1. It is God desire to save all men. 1 Tim.2:4

2. He is the Savior of all men. 1 Tim.4:10

3. Which Gospel did Abraham get saved by?

[joelkaki]

2. He is the Savior of all men. 1 Tim.4:10


In what sense do you think he is the Savior of every single man?


Joel

[seer]

In what sense do you think he is the Savior of every single man?

1. We know for sure that this text includes more that just the elect.

2. God is the Savior of all men because:

A. Christ died for all men.

B. Salvation if offered to all men.

C. God has made complete provision for all men.

D. God desires all men to be saved.

So from God's point of view He is the Savior of all. Whether we take advantage of that fact is another matter.

[doogieduff]

04-25-2003 @ 06:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79013#post79013)
Blake Reas:

Again X9 you are wrong. What if I told you way back in Deuteronomy God said he knew exactly what the Israelites where going to do? Would you not use this passage like you should not use the Hezekiah passage?



Hmmm... Sounds like someone knew the people where going to break the covenant a long time before they did it.

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

Dude Blake! You are so wrong! I bet you got this right out of Ware's WEAK book! You see, let's assume for a minute that God did indeed know Isreal would fail and He would cut them off. This isn't true, but even if it is, like you say, then God is a liar in Isaiah 5! If He truly did know what would happen, then He wouldn't "expect good grapes" because He already knew what would really happen!

Now onto your Deut. passage. God definitely knew Israel would struggle. He endured Israel's many rebellions for centuries. (Num. 14:22 and Ezek. 2:3) 10 times in Numbers 14 I might add! So guess what? God was right! He knew they would struggle, and rebel, and they did so many times. But God "expected" that after these many rebellions, and the fact that God would hang in there for them, that they indeed would " bring forth good grapes" after God's many acts of mercy on them. Let's look at Abraham. God made a promise to Abram in Gen, 12:1-3.
Abram doubts that promise in Gen. 12:11
God sticks with Abram and ensures him of His promise in Gen. 13:16
In Gen. 15:3 Abram doubts God's promise once again!
God sticks it out even more and reminds Abram of His promise again in Gen. 15:5
In Gen. 16:2, Abram doubts God's promise once again!!!!!
Our loving God endured and stuck with Abram once more, reminding him of His promise in Gen. 17:2 once again!
In Gen. 17:17 Abram doubts again! What a surprise, even i saw it coming.
What does God do, He endures yet again! He reminds Abram of His promise to him in Gen. 17:19!
Guess what happens in Gen. 20:11? Abram doubts once again! I know, it's hard to believe.
So God, starting to wonder if Abram really deserves to have his descendants like the stars, decides to give Abram one final test. Abram has doubted, and doubted and doubted some more. God wants to know if Abram really and truly fears God. So God decides to ask Abram to kill the one and only son in whom He promised Abram's desendants to come out of! Talk about the ultimate test! Abram's fear and love of God will definitely show if he does indeed do what God has said. We get to Gen. 22 and Abram does just what God has asked him to do, and is going to kill his one and only son. God reads his heart and knows with certainty that Abram doesn't plan to chicken out before stabbing the knife into his son, and God stops him. God replies in Genesis 22:12 with "Now I know" that you finally trust me Abram! The test prevailed. Abram finally feared God enough to trust Him. It even says in Hebrews 11:17-19 that Abram trusted God so much, that he thought God would raise his son from the dead if he did indeed kill him. He trusted that his seed through Isaac would be like the stars in the sky, and trusted God so much that he would kill his one and only son, thinking "God has the power to raise him from the dead, I need to trust him." (BTW, this is why Ware's answer to Genesis 22:12 is yet again WRONG! Throw this by him and think it through yourself.)

So with this in mind, God knew Israel would struggle. That's not that hard of a prediction was it? I mean look at mankind! But God hung in there with them, even after Christ's death, burial and resurrection, "expecting good grapes" at some point. It worked with Abram, why not Israel? But the people of Israel disappointed God and He cut them off in Acts 7.

Blake, the Open View is right once again!

[doogieduff]

BTW Blake, this is an exegesis, your deut. passage was not. Acts 9 didn't eiseget anything, he actually taught me this when I was struggling with the open view. Ask him for his exegesis before accusing him of eisegeting it.

[doogieduff]

04-25-2003 @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78910#post78910)
joelkaki:

Acts9, if I am not mistaken, the problem here arises from two different understandings of the word "expect." There is the usage that you use: "1. To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of. 2. To consider likely or certain." Now, the problem results because there is also this meaning, "3. To consider reasonable or due." And this one, "4. To consider obligatory; require."

It seems more likely to me to be one of the latter two.

Joel

JOEL! Are you attempting to explain away a passage by an english defintion of a word!?!? Do you know how terrible that is? The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not english. Do some biblical research on the verse and you'll find that you are wrong...

[joelkaki]

JOEL! Are you attempting to explain away a passage by an english defintion of a word!?!? Do you know how terrible that is? The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not english. Do some biblical research on the verse and you'll find that you are wrong...


I feel stupid. I jumped the gun there. Thanks for correcting me, doogie. I need to learn to think beforeI speak (type) more often. However, as Blake has shown, that still doesn't disprove it.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

As stated before, the god of calvinism could have predestined good grapes. However, God responds to our free will actions, and blesses or curses based on our actions. I would like to offer yet another example of God expecting one result and receiving another...

Jeremiah 3
6 The Lord said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot.
7 “And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

God expected Israel to return to Him, but she did not...

How many of you hold to the unbiblical doctrine of Immutability / Impassability? Just wondering how many "consistent" calvinists there are on this site...

Let's look at a few more Biblical attributes of God. Our Lord is sometimes displeased and wonders.

Isaiah 59
15 So truth fails,
And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.
Then the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him
That there was no justice.
16 He saw that there was no man,
And wondered that there was no intercessor;
Therefore His own arm brought salvation for Him;
And His own righteousness, it sustained Him.

Why couldn't God predestine justice? Why would God be displeased and wonder about an event that he supposedly "already knew" all along?

God can be provoked and limited? Let's read it...

Psalm 78
40 How often they provoked Him in the wilderness,
And grieved Him in the desert!
41 Yes, again and again they tempted God,
And limited the Holy One of Israel.

Now, this cannot be true can it? I have heard from a few calvinists that God cannot be provoked. Some even say that God cannot be truly grieved. Many calvinists say that the Open View somehow "limits God." Well, I guess the children of Israel were also OVr's, since they limited God...

More to come later...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

In light of prescience / predestination, here are a few more...

God hopes or wishes:

Deuteronomy 5
28“ Then the Lord heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the Lord said to me: ‘I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken.
29 ‘Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever!

Why didn't God predestine them to have hearts that would fear Him always and keep His commandments? God hopes and wishes that this were true...

Psalm 81
8 “Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you!
O Israel, if you will listen to Me!
9 There shall be no foreign god among you;
Nor shall you worship any foreign god.
10 I am the Lord your God,
Who brought you out of the land of Egypt;
Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.
11 “But My people would not heed My voice,
And Israel would have none of Me.
12 So I gave them over to their own stubborn heart,
To walk in their own counsels.
13 “Oh, that My people would listen to Me,
That Israel would walk in My ways!

Why didn't God predestine them to heed His voice and listen to Him? Wait, there's more...

Isaiah 48

17 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
“I am the Lord your God,
Who teaches you to profit,
Who leads you by the way you should go.
18 Oh, that you had heeded My commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river,
And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Why didn't God predestine them to heed His commandments? Why didn't He predestine their peace and righteousness?

Matthew 23
37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

Why didn't God predestine Israel to be gathered?

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

God says "perhaps?"

Doesn't God already know how the people will respond?

Exodus 13
13:17
Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, "Lest perhaps the people repent nacham when they see war, and return to Egypt."

God is not sure if the people will repent nacham and return to Egypt when they see war? So much for prescience / predestination...

--Jeremy