Why didn't Israel debate like Christians do? [Archive]

GoBahnsen

September 20th 2005, 06:26 PM

I was trying to think of an interesting way to title the thread, sorry if it sounds weird, but what I'm getting at is this: did Israel sit around and have debates about God's sovereignty? Or did they discuss freewill versus a bondage of the will? And here is my main question for discussion, did they suggest to one another that it wasn't fair for God to only choose them for His people and not ALL the other nations as well?

I wonder if, when God was judging Egypt, the Israelites had discussions about the love of God and how He wants all nations to be His people too? If there were the sovereignty folks, claiming Israel was His nation of choice, versus those who argued that Egypt was the same in God's eyes as Israel? No real difference... for God is no repector of persons? That God loved all the nations the same, and the Israelites who thought otherwise were full of themselves and prideful?

Do you think the Israelites struggled to wipe out their enemies, thinking God was really in love with those peoples he commanded to be slaughtered?

Yet...with the rise of the Gospel under the New Covenant and God including now the Gentiles, somehow we're to believe that God has stopped having a chosen people? That God has somehow changed from a God who chose a nation for His own to a God without a chosen nation? That the Church, the Israel of God (Gal.) is not God's chosen nation, but rather a nation that has chose itself through freewill?

God chose Israel and I think they liked that (except in their times of apostasy), but now so many of the people of God don't like the fact that God might have chosen them.

It's as if God went from having a people of His choice to a people of their choice. Or could it be true that God doesn't change and He still has a chosen race, the Christian nation, Jew and Gentile, called out by God to be His people? And His people... they find themselves to be, by His sovereign electing grace? What say ye?

seer

September 20th 2005, 06:42 PM

It's as if God went from having a people of His choice to a people of their choice. Or could it be true that God doesn't change and He still has a chosen race, the Christian nation, Jew and Gentile, called out by God to be His people? And His people... they find themselves to be, by His sovereign electing grace? What say ye?

Well we know that God reached out beyond Israel in those days (Nineveh). And after all, most of God's "people/children" were lost. So either God was insincere when He proclaimed His love for them - or they had free will. Take your pick - I know how I choose...

Free will is discussed at length in Jewish philosophy, firstly as regards God's purpose in creation, and secondly as regards the closely related, resultant, paradox.

The traditional teaching regarding the purpose of creation, particularly as influenced by Jewish mysticism, is that "This world is like a corridor to the World to Come" (Pirkei Avoth 4:21). "Man was created for the sole purpose of rejoicing in God, and deriving pleasure from the splendor of His Presence… The place where this joy may truly be derived is the World to Come, which was expressly created to provide for it; but the path to the object of our desires is this world..." (Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Mesillat Yesharim, Ch.1). Free will is thus required by God's justice, “otherwise, Man would not be given or denied good for actions over which he had no control” [1]. It is further understood that in order for Man to have true free choice, he must not only have inner free will, but also an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely [2]; this is the meaning of the Rabbinic maxim, "All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven" (Talmud, Berachot 33b).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

GoBahnsen

September 20th 2005, 06:56 PM

It's as if God went from having a people of His choice to a people of their choice. Or could it be true that God doesn't change and He still has a chosen race, the Christian nation, Jew and Gentile, called out by God to be His people? And His people... they find themselves to be, by His sovereign electing grace? What say ye?

Well we know that God reached out beyond Israel in those days (Nineveh). And after all, most of God's "people/children" were lost. So either God was insincere when He proclaimed His love for them - or they had free will. Take your pick - I know how I choose...I don't know about most of them being lost, certainly Paul makes mention that not all were Israel, but rather that the true Israel has always been by election (Romans 9).

Yes God has always had His eye on all the Nations, but if your view is correct, I think we should have had Nineveh stories on every other page of Scripture. Instead we find God with His chosen people, fighting the enemies of God. We find God glorying in His sovereign saving out a people for Himself. And yes, many were apostates within the physical nation.

Nevertheless, God covenanted with Israel, not Nineveh and if the non Reformed camps have it right...then we ought to have always seen God dealing global. Just trying to get everyone to be His people. What's up with His model to us of a chosen nation? What sense does that make in your "God loves us all the same and hopes we choose Him" view?

GoBahnsen

September 20th 2005, 07:00 PM

Free will is discussed at length in Jewish philosophy, firstly as regards God's purpose in creation, and secondly as regards the closely related, resultant, paradox.

The traditional teaching regarding the purpose of creation, particularly as influenced by Jewish mysticism, is that "This world is like a corridor to the World to Come" (Pirkei Avoth 4:21). "Man was created for the sole purpose of rejoicing in God, and deriving pleasure from the splendor of His Presence… The place where this joy may truly be derived is the World to Come, which was expressly created to provide for it; but the path to the object of our desires is this world..." (Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, Mesillat Yesharim, Ch.1). Free will is thus required by God's justice, “otherwise, Man would not be given or denied good for actions over which he had no control” [1]. It is further understood that in order for Man to have true free choice, he must not only have inner free will, but also an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely [2]; this is the meaning of the Rabbinic maxim, "All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven" (Talmud, Berachot 33b).

Fine, I don't see a problem here. I don't deny a certain freedom and liberty, but I do affirm with Scripture that God must be the One who brings out the right free choice. To deny that is to reduce election to men electing themselves.

seer

September 20th 2005, 07:09 PM

I don't know about most of them being lost, certainly Paul makes mention that not all were Israel, but rather that the true Israel has always been by election (Romans 9).

No Gb. I'am speaking of the very people that God proclaimed His love for. That He called His children/people who wre eventually lost. I have proven this in the past - do we really need to go over it again? Was His love sincere bro.? Or was it a half hearted love?

Yes God has always had His eye on all the Nations, but if your view is correct, I think we should have had Nineveh stories on every other page of Scripture. Instead we find God with His chosen people, fighting the enemies of God. We find God glorying is His sovereign saving out a people for Himself. And yes, many were apostates within the physical nation.

Well sure Israel was His chosen nation. But to what end? Why did God choose Abraham? That he may bless "all the families" of the earth. That Israel might be a light to the nations. Which happened through Christ.

Nevertheless, God covenanted with Israel, not Nineveh and if the non Reformed camps have it right...then we ought to have always seen God dealing global. Just trying to get everyone to be His people. What's up with His model to us of a chosen nation? What sense does that make in your "God loves us all the same and hopes we choose Him" view?

Was that generation in Nineveh saved? Of course they were. And do you think all the works of God are contained in Scripture? And remember my point in the other thread. God does not hope for anything. He knows exactly who will freely respond to His overtures - and will get His gospel/message to them...

Xmansmommy

September 20th 2005, 07:18 PM

GB, was Israel ignorant of the fact that God was going to bless the world through them? Did they not know that God was using them as a light unto the gentiles/world?

Xmansmommy

September 20th 2005, 07:23 PM

Yes God has always had His eye on all the Nations, but if your view is correct, I think we should have had Nineveh stories on every other page of Scripture. Instead we find God with His chosen people, fighting the enemies of God. We find God glorying in His sovereign saving out a people for Himself. And yes, many were apostates within the physical nation.

I imagine it wasn't so easy to have them be a light unto the world and bless the world when they continuously hardened their heart to God themselves and murdered the prophets that called them to repentance, yes?

GoBahnsen

September 20th 2005, 07:53 PM

GB, was Israel ignorant of the fact that God was going to bless the world through them? Did they not know that God was using them as a light unto the gentiles/world?I don't know how much they knew Xmm. Maybe they debated like we do too. We are told that the Gospel going global was a mystery that the prophets weren't aware of. They longed to know the things we now take for granted.

It came as a surprise when God made one new man, both Jew and Greek. Paul was the spokes person for the revelation of all this new measure of God. I think old Israel was a type, a shadow of a bigger, grander people of God in the New Covenant Church.

My point is, God chose the old nation, does He not still choose this new nation of believers?

A Cup of No

September 20th 2005, 08:31 PM

I don't know how much they knew Xmm. Maybe they debated like we do too. We are told that the Gospel going global was a mystery that the prophets weren't aware of. They longed to know the things we now take for granted.

It came as a surprise when God made one new man, both Jew and Greek. Paul was the spokes person for the revelation of all this new measure of God. I think old Israel was a type, a shadow of a bigger, grander people of God in the New Covenant Church.

My point is, God chose the old nation, does He not still choose this new nation of believers?

Yes, He chose the old nation, but for the purpose of reaching the others,not to just randomly pick people. The old nation failed, now Christ has taken their former vocation upon Himself, as the light of the world and as the way how people learn of the true God.

By the way, where are we told that the gospel going global was a mystery of which the prophets didn't know? The making of the new man which Ephesians describes is definitely a mystery which was revealed, but the OT is replete with passages which speak of how the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. Perhaps the Jews interpreted these passages as a time when the Gentiles would come to know YHWH, but Israel would still be preeminent as God's people. Now that the mystery is revealed and Israel has lost her preeminence, God's people are Jew and Gentile.

Anyway, just my two cents, don't know if they're worth much.

technomage

September 20th 2005, 08:35 PM

Jawa Man

September 20th 2005, 08:41 PM

GoBahnsen, reading from the Tanakh, it becomes obvious that the Hebrews viewed both in the ultimate sovereignty of God and the unfettered free will of humanity. It is only us moderns that make a big deal about it--mainly because we over-analyse things.
Here is a passage from the Apocrypha:

Sirach 15:11-20
11 Do not say, "It was the LORD's doing that I fell away";
for he does not do what he hates.
12 Do not say, "It was he who led me astray";
for he has no need of the sinful.
13 The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
14 It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
17 Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

Doesn't this show that the Jews didn't believe in election?

technomage

September 20th 2005, 08:59 PM

Here is a passage from the Apocrypha:

I would say--even as a non-Christian, but speaking as best as I can from a Christian perspective--that it would be difficult in the extreme to prove a doctrine one way or another from a non-Canonical document, or from what people believed. Heck, for large portions of the history written in the Tanakh, the Jews "believed" it was perfectly acceptable to worship Ba'al and Asherah.

I think it comes right down to Joshua:

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

This clearly shows that people had the choice, with unfettered free will.

Jawa Man

September 20th 2005, 09:08 PM

I would say--even as a non-Christian, but speaking as best as I can from a Christian perspective--that it would be difficult in the extreme to prove a doctrine one way or another from a non-Canonical document, or from what people believed. Heck, for large portions of the history written in the Tanakh, the Jews "believed" it was perfectly acceptable to worship Ba'al and Asherah.

I think it comes right down to Joshua:

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

This clearly shows that people had the choice, with unfettered free will.
Considering that Sirach itself was big in the Early Church, I don't find it extreme. The Jews accepted it until about 90 AD, and the Christians continued using it in combination with the LXX. The majority of Christendom considers it canonical, and the Jews used to.

technomage

September 20th 2005, 09:13 PM

Considering that Sirach itself was big in the Early Church, I don't find it extreme.

No, you accept it--and I have no problem with that. But GoBahnsen's coming from a Reformed background that does not: heck, some of the Reformers had serious doubts about James and Revelations.

geebob

September 20th 2005, 10:05 PM

Yet...with the rise of the Gospel under the New Covenant and God including now the Gentiles, somehow we're to believe that God has stopped having a chosen people?

no one argues this position but newbies. God has a choosen people. He always has and always will and if you don't believe it, you don't read the bible. And if you don't understand how even I, an open theist so strongly insists this, it's because you've been selectively listening as it has been pointed out several times, to you specifically, that God has a choosen people and free will theists believe this and many see this as essential.

Do you think the Israelites struggled to wipe out their enemies, thinking God was really in love with those peoples he commanded to be slaughtered?

the israelites, as free will theists today hold that God judges us for his actions. The people who were wiped out were judged for their actions.

That God has somehow changed from a God who chose a nation for His own to a God without a chosen nation?

the only thing that has changed is the method for joining God's choosen people. Before you had to follow the Mosaic law and be born a Jew (or become Jewish through the works of the mosaic law), now anyone can become a member of the choosen body through faith. (and it never had anything to do with being selected individually before the creation)

I wonder if, when God was judging Egypt, the Israelites had discussions about the love of God and how He wants all nations to be His people too?

Israel wasn't choosen inspite of the other nations. Israel was choosen for benefit of the nations. That was the prophecy given to abraham regarding his choosen status... that the nations of the world would be blessed through his seed.

Any israelite who fretted about God's love for other nations failed to read the multitude of his own scriptures describing God's love for the other nations including the whole basis of the founding of the Jewish people... to be a blessing of all other nations.

Yes God has always had His eye on all the Nations, but if your view is correct, I think we should have had Nineveh stories on every other page of Scripture.

not if people and nations excersize a degree of libertarian free will. infrequent repentence is perfectly coherent with liebertarian freedom.

but scripture is not meant to be an extensive record of how God treated the other nations. There's plenty of it, and a signficant amount that is good (though a lot is negative because the other nations had a good deal of savagery and evil).

It's primary focus is on God's choosen people.

And of course, even Paul said that God has provided of himself to the other nations even if it is more limited than of his choosen people.

acts 17:26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

God chose Israel and I think they liked that (except in their times of apostasy), but now so many of the people of God don't like the fact that God might have chosen them.

What's not to love?

Jawa Man

September 20th 2005, 10:14 PM

No, you accept it--and I have no problem with that. But GoBahnsen's coming from a Reformed background that does not: heck, some of the Reformers had serious doubts about James and Revelations.
Fair enough, yo. My point was, though, that since the Jews used it before 90 AD, it represented Jewish thought at the time.

mickiel

September 20th 2005, 10:18 PM

Tercel

September 20th 2005, 10:20 PM

did Israel sit around and have debates about God's sovereignty?Yes.

Or did they discuss freewill versus a bondage of the will?Yes.

And here is my main question for discussion, did they suggest to one another that it wasn't fair for God to only choose them for His people and not ALL the other nations as well?The surviving writings reveal a debate about why God had choosen Israel, either:
1) Because the Patriarchs were godly, God rewarded them with the promise to bless their descendants; or
2) God, in his foreknowledge had forseen what a godly nation Israel would be, so choose them to be his.

Yet...with the rise of the Gospel under the New Covenant and God including now the Gentiles, somehow we're to believe that God has stopped having a chosen people?According to Isaiah, the purpose of Israel was to be a "light to the nations". Israel was supposed to be God's example nation, setting an example to others, showing others the way to God. Now that role has passed to Christians.

It's only when you make the mistake of thinking that this election was connected with eternal salvation that you run into problems. The Jews never believed in such a connection. Their doctrine of the afterlife, when it developed around 200-100BC, was that good people would go to heaven and bad people would be destroyed. They were always quite clear that every person in the world had it within their power to do this good or evil.

Paul's arguments in Romans are highly relevant here. His driving question is "What is it that makes God pleased with us?" He argues that it is doing good rather than election or ritual observance that make God pleased with us. Among other arguments he gives in support of this, he uses the doctrine of the afterlife. The Jewish doctrine of the afterlife clearly states, he says, that God will send to heaven all those who do good, both Jew and Gentile, and punish all those who do evil, both Jew and Gentile (Rom 2). Thus, he believes, what pleases God must be the doing good, and what displeases God must be the doing evil. Clearly, God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to being pleased with/blessing one and being angry with/punishing the other. Simply being Jewish - one of the "elect" - is not enough to please God nor does it indicates God's pleasure. He also draws on scriptural proofs (Rom 3:10-18) which show Jews being spoken of in the same terms as gentiles when they are wicked, thus also demonstrating that mere election does not make (and has never made) them righteous before God. Rather, what has always made people righteous before God is when they faithfully obey God and live as he has commanded.

That the Church, the Israel of God (Gal.) is not God's chosen nation, but rather a nation that has chose itself through freewill?Please do remember that people could choose to become Jewish and be adopted into the Jewish community and religion.

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 12:31 AM

GoBahnsen, reading from the Tanakh, it becomes obvious that the Hebrews viewed both in the ultimate sovereignty of God and the unfettered free will of humanity. It is only us moderns that make a big deal about it--mainly because we over-analyse things.Thanks for your input. No doubt, in some ways, I'm getting an education in this thread. Good for me...good for all members.

Yes, I realize they debated. My mind was really set in Egypt when I penned the OP. God was clearly judging Egypt and moving His own sinful people out. The Israelites then were a sad bunch. They didn't deserve deliverance. God displayed both His grace and faithfulness to Abraham by delivering this chosen people.

I'll have more to say...I'm just getting warmed up. BTW, please turn your heart back to Jesus, Justin. I look forward to that day my friend according to the flesh.

Kevin Wayne

September 21st 2005, 03:08 AM

This is actually a very good discussion, and I'd like to add something to the mix: When the Sinai Covenant was given, there were Egyptians standing alongside of Jews. There was always a provision made for Righteous Goyim to enter the Kingdom (putting it roughly.)

Beyond that, I think Geebob has pretty well summed up nicely what I see regarding this subject. Put a little elbow grease into checking out some Karl Barth sometime, and the picture of "Corporate election" comes much, much clearer. God's having "chosen" Israel only supports this, IMHO.

Fair enough, yo. My point was, though, that since the Jews used it before 90 AD, it represented Jewish thought at the time.

Which I'm sure that they had gotten very Hellenized by then.

Sheepdog

September 21st 2005, 04:11 AM

actually, my understanding is that there were debates on such topics. probably not extensively, but they had their own versions of the Calvy v Minian issue.

lemme see if i can track down where i read about this from.

seer

September 21st 2005, 07:00 AM

Yes, I realize they debated. My mind was really set in Egypt when I penned the OP. God was clearly judging Egypt and moving His own sinful people out. The Israelites then were a sad bunch. They didn't deserve deliverance. God displayed both His grace and faithfulness to Abraham by delivering this chosen people.

That is correct Gb. God was keeping His promise to Abraham. The real question is why He chose Abraham. And remember God is not finished with Egypt as a people:

Isaiah 19:22-25

22 The LORD will strike Egypt with a plague; he will strike them and heal them. They will turn to the LORD, and he will respond to their pleas and heal them. 23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.

Amazing Rando

September 21st 2005, 08:46 AM

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 01:15 PM

Israel had debates among themselves all the time- do you think the Pharisees and Sadducees were bosom buddies? Far from it. They were bitter opponants of one another in the public forum and battled for control of the faith in occupied Jerusalem. The only thing they were united on was their fear and hatred of the threat Jesus posed to their privileged status in society.Ok, I can see my OP was sloppy. Like I said, I was really thinking of Israel in Egypt. Granted, the Egyptians were cruel task masters, but I imagine that many of the Egyptians were not so cruel, as the actual task masters. Yet they were judged and the sinful Jews were protected in Goshen.

My point is, God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. The Jews weren't the good guys, using their freewill aright, therefore cooperating with grace and finding themselves in God's favor (Arminians). We find out how sinful they were in the wilderness wandering.

Yet, they were singled out by God. The rest of the nations went on in pagan darkness, while sinful Israel got blessings and light. And I don't think they argued about God's clear right to choose a people according to His good pleasure.

Today, we Christians argue that very point. The Reformed says that God chooses first, the others say man chooses first. However that get's packaged to play into election without making election moot, the non Reformed views do indeed make election the election of God by man. Predestination and election are made void when it becomes a matter of God knowing who the cooperators would be. Israel, as a nation, was not a cooperative nation, yet they were God's chosen people.

That's my point in this thread. God chose Israel and rejected Ishmael. That doesn't square well with theologies that have God choosing based on some quality He finds acceptable in humans. A quality God did not put within them, but one they cranked out and thereby became heirs of salvation.

technomage

September 21st 2005, 01:43 PM

My mind was really set in Egypt when I penned the OP. God was clearly judging Egypt and moving His own sinful people out. The Israelites then were a sad bunch. They didn't deserve deliverance. God displayed both His grace and faithfulness to Abraham by delivering this chosen people.

Maybe that's the point--human beings have free will, but so does God ... and God's free will was viewed (by both the Israelites and the Christians) as bigger than human free will. Humans could decide as they chose, but if God makes a decision, humans are not going to be able to countermand it.

And as for why God chose one group and not the other? We could demand answers for that ... but if we do, we should not be surprised to hear some of the same things Job heard. From the Judeo-Christian viewpoint (and the Islamic viewpoint, for that matter), why God does something is not to be questioned: humanity's only choice is to submit and be obedient, or rebel ... and be destroyed.

Champagne

September 21st 2005, 01:45 PM

Yes, God chose Israel. But not in the same sense that Calvinists say God chooses the elect.

As Tercel said, the issue in the OT was not that God chose Israel for salvation and damned everyone else. Any person of any nation who did what was right would not be damned.

The Jews believed that Gentiles only had to follow the Noahide covenant- a few basic moral laws- and they would be right with Yahweh as far as the afterlife.

And there was the option of becoming a Jew as well and putting yourself under the authority of Yawheh.

Calvinists are talking about God choosing certain people for salvation and damnation. Which is a different story.

God chose Israel and it was intended that through Israel all the nations would be blessed. Upon the coming of the Messiah, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, Yahweh would rule, the Jewish sacrificial system would be intact, and all the other nations of the world would know that Yahweh was God. They would no longer be contending with Israel and fighting- there would be peace on earth.

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 02:54 PM

Xmansmommy

September 21st 2005, 02:57 PM

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 02:57 PM

Maybe that's the point--human beings have free will, but so does God ... and God's free will was viewed (by both the Israelites and the Christians) as bigger than human free will. Humans could decide as they chose, but if God makes a decision, humans are not going to be able to countermand it.

And as for why God chose one group and not the other? We could demand answers for that ... but if we do, we should not be surprised to hear some of the same things Job heard. From the Judeo-Christian viewpoint (and the Islamic viewpoint, for that matter), why God does something is not to be questioned: humanity's only choice is to submit and be obedient, or rebel ... and be destroyed.I appreciate what you say here at the end of your post. I think it's on target. As to the beginning of your post, I refer you to a post I just wrote to seer in another thread. See below:

It's not about being hands off or on Gb. It really comes down to the nature of love and relationship. I certainly do not want to sound P.C. but I don't think that Calvinists take into consideration what kind of loving fellowship God may desire. Is it all reduced to God exercsing power? Or does genuine love require a degree of freedom from both parties...Love is involved. I'm not a Calvinist by name and I think that some of them are too wooden when it comes to love and relationship. Just some of them, not the majority.

The thing is, we love BECAUSE He first loved us. And part of the demonstration of that love is the exercising of power. In your view, I think, the love is shown in the cross (I see that love too), but then it just get's left there.

In my view, not only is the love seen in the Cross, but the power that raised Christ from the dead and that power also raises the spiritually dead elect, to new life, thus they believe the Gospel. So yes, I do revel in God's demonstration of His love in Christ, but I respond according to His power which works in me both to will and to do according to His good pleasure.

I think you think too much in terms of human relationships. If a guy wants a girl for a wife he must win her heart. He has no real power like that of God's Spirit power, to bring her to see that he is right for her and then hope she chooses him. That's all creature to creature stuff.

God is a Creator. His love works with power to give new life to the dead, thus these love Him for that. I really think I'm hitting a nail on the head when I say, you and those like you, think of God too much like He is a fellow creature looking for love. He is not looking for love, He is love and He gives love first. If the Almighty sets His affection on you before the world begins, you will come to know it and you will be saved by it.

You on the other hand have God "finding out" who the cooperators will be, and then He responds accordingly. Creating the whole world in arrangement to accommodate these creatures who have made themselves qualified by their intrinsic cooperative spirit which they "willed" into existence. God then becomes the great cosmic responder to all these types. But God didn't make them that way in your view.

In reformed theology, these future cooperators are such by God's doing and THAT is what you will not have. It smacks of robot. And I have been thinking about this more and you're going to hate this, but I'll take a chance.

In a sense, all creatures are robots of some kind. Man made robots are crude and have no souls. Insects are robots to the max. Spiders robotically spin webs from the computer chip that God placed in them. We watch them spin and we give God the glory for His marvelous robot, the spider.

Animals are more complex robots and even possess emotion on some level. Humans are the ultimate robots, made in God's image. They are not like metal robots, but robots with spirits and souls, whatever those are. They come into this world evil. They fight against their maker by nature.

Some of these robots get cured, others are left defective, fit for destruction.
Don't like it? Tough. Oh...and these robots that get cured, they can love too, they are God's highest order of earthly creation. Robots with soul and spirit. Amazing creatures indeed. And God receives glory unto Himself through them and takes pleasure in having relationship with them. Oh great mystery of mysteries.

But what you want, I think, is that man be a god himself. And the big creator God, seeks relationship with these little creator gods. As if these have always existed and have something God wants from them, if only He can get it. They are autonomous and can give God something of value to God, because what they possess they created, in your view...this is what I think.

Do you see it? You have said God knew what you would pray billions of years ago and that mattered to God. You see right there, you set yourself up as a little eternal god who actually moves the hand of the big God. You, seer, created a thought or idea apart from God and God responds to it. You are a god. You are something outside of God. God wants in. God wants your love. You've got what God is after.

This is all so off base. God is the Creator of all things and the creature has nothing but what he has received from God. You give God nothing, but that which He has given you to give back to Him. You are not autonomous. You are a robot at some level. And creatures don't like to hear that. The Mormons really gave it the cure and express the true nature of the sinful creature, who wants to be a god himself. Having qualities, self created, that God then seeks to obtain for Himself. Can you see it?

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 03:03 PM

GB, I think it is pretty evident in scripture that the children of Israel knew that although they were the chosen vessel to bring light to the world, they were not to be puffed up or view themselves as better than other nations in their role as servant. Even as the Samaritan woman in the NT had obviously known her status in light of the position of Israel. As did Rahab and many others. I'm pretty sure that Abraham thought it pretty important to tell his descendants how God intended to bless the world through them. Yes, they knew they were chosen but they also knew why....to benefit the world, not to debate their superiority. :wink:That's all well and good. It would just seem that in the Arminian scheme, God would work more efficiently to reveal Himself and get the freewilling humans on track. Yet God is pleased to leave so many with nothing more than creation light and light of conscience. These lights do nothing more than condemn men and women. People need to be regenerated. They need the Gospel and God has been pleased to dole that out at His discretion.

Xmm, in your view, I think, many potential heaven bound people actually never arrive there. God loses that which He had hoped to gain, in non Reformed views.

Xmansmommy

September 21st 2005, 03:27 PM

That's all well and good. It would just seem that in the Arminian scheme, God would work more efficiently to reveal Himself and get the freewilling humans on track.

Why do you suggest that in the Arminian view God isn't efficiently revealing Himself to freewilled beings?

Yet God is pleased to leave so many with nothing more than creation light and light of conscience.

And that should give us a clue that we should reach out to them and help them come to know Him better since as Christians, we are the salt and light of the earth.

These lights do nothing more than condemn men and women.

Oh, but I beg to differ GB! These lights act either to accuse or excuse men and women. (Romans 2:15)

People need to be regenerated. They need the Gospel and God has been pleased to dole that out at His discretion.

I'm a tad confused, GB. Do they need to be regenerated or do they need the gospel? You believe a person is regenerated before hearing the gospel so what do they actually need it for?

Xmm, in your view, I think, many potential heaven bound people actually never arrive there. God loses that which He had hoped to gain, in non Reformed views.

I think you haven't studied my view enough to have made that assumption.

Jawa Man

September 21st 2005, 03:31 PM

Which I'm sure that they had gotten very Hellenized by then.

I don't agree with that statement. Is this just because the Jews were forced to live with Greeks? The Jews also lived with Egyptians for 400 years, with Persians and Babylonians for a shorter time... Why are these people and their beliefs not considered influencial on Judaism, but Greek beliefs are?

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 03:46 PM

Why do you suggest that in the Arminian view God isn't efficiently revealing Himself to freewilled beings?Because I think Arminians are too man centered. I can think of better ways than God has to get people on board the salvation train, so can you and everyone else, BUT WE CAN"T DARE THINK OF A BETTER WAY FOR GOD TO GLORIFY HIS OWN NAME THAN THAT WHICH HE HAS DONE AND IS DOING NOW.

So don't misunderstand me and think I'm being disrespectful of God. But if the goal were to save as many as possible, it isn't hard to imagine more efficient ways. Look at the atheists having a good old laugh at God's "foolishness" of preaching, yet it pleases God to have it this way. He gets all of His elect through it. That's all He wants and it's alot, not a select few.

And that should give us a clue that we should reach out to them and help them come to know Him better since as Christians, we are the salt and light of the earth.
Yes, but not because we can save them, but because we know God will save them through it. God won't fail through our failure.

Oh, but I beg to differ GB! These lights act either to accuse or excuse men and women. (Romans 2:15)
Ok and what do you mean by this Biblical language, flesh it out please.

I'm a tad confused, GB. Do they need to be regenerated or do they need the gospel? You believe a person is regenerated before hearing the gospel so what do they actually need it for?
I do not believe people are regenerated BEFORE hearing. They are regenerated by God through the hearing.

I think you haven't studied my view enough to have made that assumption. Well, that's why we talk, to correct one another, so correct me then.

Xmansmommy

September 21st 2005, 04:07 PM

Because I think Arminians are too man centered. I can think of better ways than God has to get people on board the salvation train, so can you and everyone else, BUT WE CAN"T DARE THINK OF A BETTER WAY FOR GOD TO GLORIFY HIS OWN NAME THAN THAT WHICH HE HAS DONE AND IS DOING NOW.

Can you explain why God used His chosen people in the OT to bless the world rather than thinking of a better way to glorify His own name? It's the way God determined to have a real relationship with His creation. You contend He didn't do His best in the Arminian view. I doubt any Arminian would agree with you though.

So don't misunderstand me and think I'm being disrespectful of God. But if the goal were to save as many as possible, it isn't hard to imagine more efficient ways.

Such as?

Look at the atheists having a good old laugh at God's "foolishness" of preaching, yet it pleases God to have it this way. He gets all of His elect through it. That's all He wants and it's alot, not a select few.

Why is it GB, that the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing? Because they choose to think it foolish. All you have to do is mosey on over to the Apologetics forum to recognize this.

Yes, but not because we can save them, but because we know God will save them through it. God won't fail through our failure.

Of course we can't save them. That wasn't the implication. But we can share the love and truth about God in hopes that they might come to better know Him.

Ok and what do you mean by this Biblical language, flesh it out please.

I think the passage is pretty self explanatory but to oblige you I'll just say, that Romans 2 tells us that the gentiles (non elect), who don't have the law of God do wickedness or good, their works, motives and conscience either accuses or excuses them.

I do not believe people are regenerated BEFORE hearing. They are regenerated by God through the hearing.

You're a rare breed among Reformers then. :teeth:

Well, that's why we talk, to correct one another, so correct me then.

I happen to hold to the Inclusivist view as I've shared with you before. You might read Spiderman&Co's, Tercel's and geebob's comments in The Exclusive (or Inclusive) Christ? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61716) thread.

Kevin Wayne

September 21st 2005, 04:19 PM

This is all so off base. God is the Creator of all things and the creature has nothing but what he has received from God. You give God nothing, but that which He has given you to give back to Him. You are not autonomous. You are a robot at some level. And creatures don't like to hear that. The Mormons really gave it the cure and express the true nature of the sinful creature, who wants to be a god himself. Having qualities, self created, that God then seeks to obtain for Himself. Can you see it?

Well GB, from what I can see you’ve pretty much created a pretext for rehashing the same old Calvinist arguments. Just moved the playing field over a bit.

I don't think you can set up a dichotomy between God as the Creator of all things and his choice to have Man as his Covenant Partner like that. I think if God has both saved us [I[and[/I] originally created us for relationship, then that’s still saying all things are from God. Therefore I think Non-Calvinist Christians can pretty much say with integrity the same things you do, just not arriving at the same general conclusions.

From a monograph on Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Sanctification (http://jsrhee.hihome.com/diss2.htm) :

For Barth, the proper object of theological anthropology is “the real man” (wirkliche Mensch) rather than the abstract ideal man of philosophical anthropology, and the real man is a cosmic being created by God to be His covenant-partner (Gottes Bundesgenosse). It is “his true reality” as well as his ground of existence. Therefore, he is responsible before God the Creator to participate actively in “the common history of the covenant” and create it together with God. However, because it is one side of man seen “from above, from God,” Barth attempted to discover the authentic humanity which is acceptable to both sides, with the conviction that “between the determination of man as God's covenant partner on the one side, and his cosmic and creaturely being on the other, there is obviously an inner relationship.” He demonstrated this correspondence in the relationships between the divinity and humanity of Jesus, and man and woman.

Because Jesus is the “true man” and “real man,” Barth based his anthropology on Christology. As Christ can be called “man for God” and “man for man,” his humanity may be described as “fellow-humanity” (Mitmenschlichkeit). As Jesus was sent and ordained to be the Deliverer of men, it is inconceivable to imagine Him as a solitary man--Jesus without His fellow men: “If we see Him alone, we do not see Him at all. If we see Him, we see with and around Him in ever-widening circles His disciples, the people, His enemies and the countless millions who have not yet heard His name.” Furthermore, because “He is originally and properly the Word of God to men,” “His orientation to others and reciprocal relationship with them are not accidental, external or subsequent, but primary, internal and necessary.” Therefore, his fellow-humanity is essentially different from a mere occasional help, but is “a matter of dying for them.” His being is freely offered up to “be prescribed and dictated and determined by an alien human being,” “to be so fully claimed and clamped by His fellows, by their state and fate, by their lowliness and misery,” so “that they may live and be happy.” On the other hand, this mysterious fellow-humanity of Jesus is rooted in the mystery of God Himself, the triune God of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is not alone but exists in “a co-existence, co-inherence and reciprocity,” and thus He is “the original and source of every I and Thou.” And, this trinitarian relationship in the inner divine being is repeated ad extra and “reflected in God's eternal covenant with man as revealed and operative in time in the humanity of Jesus.” Therefore, he concluded, it is only in the humanity of Jesus that “the connexion between God and man is brought before us.”

Athanasius (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm#ch_2) echoes similar themes in his treatise on the Incarnation:

For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us. He saw the reasonable race, the race of men that, like Himself, expressed the Father's Mind, wasting out of existence, and death reigning over all in corruption. He saw that corruption held us all the closer, because it was the penalty for the Transgression; He saw, too, how unthinkable it would be for the law to be repealed before it was fulfilled. He saw how unseemly it was that the very things of which He Himself was the Artificer should be disappearing. He saw how the surpassing wickedness of men was mounting up against them; He saw also their universal liability to death. All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery, rather than that His creatures should perish and the work of His Father for us men come to nought, He took to Himself a body, a human body even as our own. Nor did He will merely to become embodied or merely to appear; had that been so, He could have revealed His divine majesty in some other and better way. No, He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father—a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt. Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.

He pretty much argues like that throughout the whole 1st two sections of the tract, mainly inferring from the falleness of all of humanity to explain that Christ died for all humanity. Eventually, I’m going to be getting more into Barth’s theology of the Atonement, because I think that’s where a lot of this is going to come down.

The only other issue that isn't addressed her eis the fate of the unevangelized, which you refer to in your discussion with Xmm, the issue of general light being sufficient to salvation. I actually prefer to remain agnostic abotu the fat of those not evengelized, or those who didn't hear before Christ came.

Kevin Wayne

September 21st 2005, 04:22 PM

I don't agree with that statement. Is this just because the Jews were forced to live with Greeks? The Jews also lived with Egyptians for 400 years, with Persians and Babylonians for a shorter time... Why are these people and their beliefs not considered influencial on Judaism, but Greek beliefs are?

Well actually this would take a lot more time to answer than I have here. Pretty much I think you should look up any good historical; references that will point you to the reality of Hellenistic culture on Jewish thought. But as far as the issue wioth the Persians, Babylonians, etc. - I think there was influences as such, yes.

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 04:28 PM

Can you explain why God used His chosen people in the OT to bless the world rather than thinking of a better way to glorify His own name?No and I never said, nor implied otherwise, rather I established it in capital letters that God has done all things perfectly in order to glorify His name.

It's the way God determined to have a real relationship with His creation. So you assume.

You contend He didn't do His best in the Arminian view. I doubt any Arminian would agree with you though.
Of couse

Such as? Using angels for one thing. Visitations in everyone's bedroom. At least ensure a Bible in every house, not Korans.

Why is it GB, that the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing? Because they choose to think it foolish. All you have to do is mosey on over to the Apologetics forum to recognize this.
What about the fall? The Devil? God sending them delusion so that they believe the lie? You have reduced it all down to the good choosers versus the bad choosers. Or the smart versus the stupid.

Of course we can't save them. That wasn't the implication. But we can share the love and truth about God in hopes that they might come to better know Him.
And if we fail, will one of the elect be lost? Yet I do not say this to encourage failure.

I think the passage is pretty self explanatory but to oblige you I'll just say, that Romans 2 tells us that the gentiles (non elect), who don't have the law of God do wickedness or good, their works, motives and conscience either accuses or excuses them.
What does accuse and excuse mean to you? How are they excused?

You're a rare breed among Reformers then. :teeth:
Not at all. No Reformed believer holds that a person is regenerated apart from the hearing of the Gospel.

I happen to hold to the Inclusivist view as I've shared with you before. You might read Spiderman&Co's, Tercel's and geebob's comments in The Exclusive (or Inclusive) Christ? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61716) thread.
Thanks

Xmansmommy

September 21st 2005, 04:49 PM

No and I never said, nor implied otherwise, rather I established it in capital letters that God has done all things perfectly in order to glorify His name.

So if it is true that God did create mankind with a freewill, in your opinion, that wouldn't be orderly or it wouldn't glorify His name?

So you assume.

Yes, of course.

Of couse

:smile:

Using angels for one thing. Visitations in everyone's bedroom. At least ensure a Bible in every house, not Korans.

Assuming the reason God created freewill beings is to have a genuine relationship with them, how would He accomplish this if there were no need for faith? Many people claim to have had visions from God. Many non Christians even. Many have read the bible and still choose not to believe. So I highly doubt those methods would prove any more effective than they have been.

What about the fall?

What of it?

The Devil?

What about him?

God sending them delusion so that they believe the lie?

Who does God send strong delusion to GB? Does the passage say He arbitrarily sends delusion? No, but we see God sends strong delusion to those that don't have a love for the truth.

You have reduced it all down to the good choosers versus the bad choosers. Or the smart versus the stupid.

No GB, you have reduced it all down to that, not me. Myself and many others have attempted to address why some choose and some don't. You have never heard me say that they were good or bad choosers, smart versus stupid. What you have heard me say is that there are many factors that influence people's decisions. Sometimes I wonder if you ever actually read the answers that us non-reformers post. :sigh:

And if we fail, will one of the elect be lost?

I would say that a person isn't elect until they are saved GB, so the point is moot.

Yet I do not say this to encourage failure.

Understandable.

What does accuse and excuse mean to you?

Accuse means to be charged with an offense. Excuse means to remove blame from.

How are they excused?

By God judging their secrets and their deeds. He then applies the precious blood of the Lamb to those who have responded to the light and conscience righteously.

Not at all. No Reformed believer holds that a person is regenerated apart from the hearing of the Gospel.

Surely you're kidding?

Thanks

You're welcome. Glad to oblige.

GoBahnsen

September 21st 2005, 11:46 PM

So if it is true that God did create mankind with a freewill, in your opinion, that wouldn't be orderly or it wouldn't glorify His name? Well, for argument sake, if it was true, in the way Arminians define freewill, I would shut my mouth rather than take issue with the Almighty...so would you if the shoe were on the other foot.

Assuming the reason God created freewill beings is to have a genuine relationship with them, how would He accomplish this if there were no need for faith? You know XMM, I'm not an accomplished philosopher so I can't go very far with you here, but I'm assuming from Scripture that God doesn't need relationship with any creature. He simply has no needs. Assuming that is true, any relationship we envision ought not to be thought of in a creaturely way.

We humans NEED relationships. Especially one with God. We ought not to mistakenly impose that need back upon God.

Many people claim to have had visions from God. Many non Christians even. Many have read the bible and still choose not to believe. So I highly doubt those methods would prove any more effective than they have been.
I agree and if your view was right we ought to see those measures more effective. The fact is, that only God can open hearts, not freewill.

What of it?

What about him?

I'm merely pointing out that these are factors that play in beyond freewill.

Who does God send strong delusion to GB? Does the passage say He arbitrarily sends delusion? No, but we see God sends strong delusion to those that don't have a love for the truth.
So now, will you pat your own back for your love of the truth? If indeed you do love the truth?

No GB, you have reduced it all down to that, not me. Myself and many others have attempted to address why some choose and some don't. You have never heard me say that they were good or bad choosers, smart versus stupid. What you have heard me say is that there are many factors that influence people's decisions. Sometimes I wonder if you ever actually read the answers that us non-reformers post. :sigh:
Not cool

I would say that a person isn't elect until they are saved GB, so the point is moot.
at least you're consistent here...there are no elect.

Understandable. thanks

Accuse means to be charged with an offense. Excuse means to remove blame from.

By God judging their secrets and their deeds. He then applies the precious blood of the Lamb to those who have responded to the light and conscience righteously.
ahhhh...inclusivism at it's best. God knows the people who are "good", so even if they don't hear the Gospel, God still takes into account their good hearts. The Gospel is just a side issue, not really a necessary message. Just be a good person and God will apply the blood?

Surely you're kidding? Surely I'm not. Let a Reformed person side with you here. Where are they?

Xmansmommy

September 22nd 2005, 12:16 AM

Well, for argument sake, if it was true, in the way Arminians define freewill, I would shut my mouth rather than take issue with the Almighty...so would you if the shoe were on the other foot.

Of course I would. But it isn't. :wink:

You know XMM, I'm not an accomplished philosopher so I can't go very far with you here, but I'm assuming from Scripture that God doesn't need relationship with any creature. He simply has no needs. Assuming that is true, any relationship we envision ought not to be thought of in a creaturely way.

Well GB, I'm no theologian either but I simply asked for the sake of argument for you to give some thought into considering more efficient ways of God saving as many as possible. Your response was, "angels, visitations, bibles in every home". I think my point was made that those means didn't work all throughout history necessarily so obviously those forms aren't exactly efficient.

We humans NEED relationships. Especially one with God. We ought not to mistakenly impose that need back upon God.

For the record, I don't believe anyone here has suggested God NEED relationships. But that doesn't negate the fact that He HAS them.

I agree and if your view was right we ought to see those measures more effective. The fact is, that only God can open hearts, not freewill.

I'm merely pointing out that these are factors that play in beyond freewill.

Yes, as any Arminian would agree there are many factors that influence our decisions.

So now, will you pat your own back for your love of the truth? If indeed you do love the truth?

Have I suggested that I should pat myself on the back GB? That completely came from left field. Do you have a love for the truth GB? Do you pat yourself on the back for having it if so?

Not cool

What specifically is not cool? The part where I questioned whether you read the non reformers posts here on TWeb? Well, I didn't say it to be rude but I honestly question that because you never seem to ackknowledge what we do say and you constantly say things we don't say. It's a bit frustrating. If you are reading what we say why do you insist on twisting our words?

at least you're consistent here...there are no elect.

Prime example, GB. Did I say there were no elect? Not at all. But what I did say is that they aren't elect UNTIL they are saved.

thanks

Welcome.

ahhhh...inclusivism at it's best. God knows the people who are "good", so even if they don't hear the Gospel, God still takes into account their good hearts. The Gospel is just a side issue, not really a necessary message. Just be a good person and God will apply the blood?

I'll ask you like I asked Nang in the other thread, GB. How do you explain Romans 2:7-32? I'm primarily interested in your interpretation of vs 14-15 ...those whose conscience excuses them?

Surely I'm not. Let a Reformed person side with you here. Where are they?

I honestly cannot believe you are saying that some reformers don't say/believe this. Wow! I'm hoping reformers here will step up and admit that they believe that the elect are regenerate from before the foundation of the world and have evidence of their regeneration before they even hear the gospel.

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 12:43 AM

I honestly cannot believe you are saying that some reformers don't say/believe this. Wow! I'm hoping reformers here will step up and admit that they believe that the elect are regenerate from before the foundation of the world and have evidence of their regeneration before they even hear the gospel.
This is classic of how you get things mixed up. You'll be waiting a long time for any agreement from anyone. Chosen? Yes. Regenerate before the world? No.

I'll work on your other remarks. This reminds me of old times. You haven't changed much, and I suppose you would think the same of me. At least we're not too much smarter, one from the other...sorry about that slam. :lol:

Xmansmommy

September 22nd 2005, 12:47 AM

Yes GB, I did goof in saying that reformers believe they were regenerate from before the foundation of the world. My apologies. But I have heard many reformers say that they were regenerate before they heard the gospel and it was evidenced by the fruit they were bearing. I would say that is what we Arminians would equate with the drawing of the HS not regeneration.

micah4

September 22nd 2005, 12:49 AM

Surely I'm not. Let a Reformed person side with you here. Where are they?

It seems to me a large number of Reformed theologians hold to a position which says that infants of believers are assured salvation (usually tied to their inclusion in the covenant); combined with their insistence that regeneration is necessary to enter into the kingdom, one would have to conclude that these infants must undergo regeneration, even though they have never heard the gospel. In my experience it seems that the majority of reformed theologians hold this position.

Xmansmommy

September 22nd 2005, 12:59 AM

Taken from this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60342&page=1&pp=16&highlight=regenerate+evidence) thread and posted by a Calvinist:

You also wrote: "Can you show where he was regenerated before he was saved?" It's the Calvinist that says, God has to regenerate man in order for him to be saved, so I'm not sure what your asking. Unless your either A. a Calvinist, or B. stating that man can regenerate himself. Because regeneration (which can only be God's work) that preceeds faith, is a uniquely Calvinistic doctrine (monergism). The Arminian argues that man "believes" and based on his "belief," then, he's regenerated by God (synergism).

You might also find this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=886&highlight=regeneration+proceeds+faith) thread helpful. I suggest doing a TWeb seach for "regeneration proceeds faith" and see what you find. You might be surprised.

Trout

September 22nd 2005, 01:12 AM

That's all well and good. It would just seem that in the Arminian scheme, God would work more efficiently to reveal Himself and get the freewilling humans on track. Yet God is pleased to leave so many with nothing more than creation light and light of conscience.

That's an interesting thought, GB.

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 01:17 AM

It seems to me a large number of Reformed theologians hold to a position which says that infants of believers are assured salvation (usually tied to their inclusion in the covenant); combined with their insistence that regeneration is necessary to enter into the kingdom, one would have to conclude that these infants must undergo regeneration, even though they have never heard the gospel. In my experience it seems that the majority of reformed theologians hold this position.Not my OPC. Not any PCA I know of either. I don't want to venture too far from the barn I know. The Reformed circle can get broad at points. We have our disagreements within. I'm not up on baptismal regeneration and who holds to it. I think the RCC does and certain Reformed traditions didn't make a clean break there. Sorry about that.

Calvinist4Him

September 22nd 2005, 01:23 AM

Not my OPC. Not any PCA I know of either. I don't want to venture too far from the barn I know. The Reformed circle can get broad at points. We have our disagreements within. I'm not up on baptismal regeneration and who holds to it. I think the RCC does and certain Reformed traditions didn't make a clean break there. Sorry about that.

While the Westminster Confession strongly encourages infant baptism, it doesn't state baptism as a necesary condition of salvation, as a matter of fact, it is consistant with the five solas and the doctrines of grace.

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 01:23 AM

That's an interesting thought, GB.Thanks Trout. Hey...congrats on becoming an ADMIN! You look good in orange. Remember when it was red? I never did like the color changes though.

It is interesting how God has done things thus far...so un-naturally.

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 01:30 AM

While the Westminster Confession strongly encourages infant baptism, it doesn't state baptism as a necesary condition of salvation, as a matter of fact, it is consistant with the five solas and the doctrines of grace.The false doctrine is... that people are regenerate apart from the Gospel. Xmm entered into the area of covenant. Infants of believers are in the covenant and baptism is the seal or sign of it. That doesn't mean they are regenerate. But it does bode well for them, unless they should be found apostate.

Calvinist4Him

September 22nd 2005, 01:35 AM

The false doctrine is... that people are regenerate apart from the Gospel. Xmm entered into the area of covenant. Infants of believers are in the covenant and baptism is the seal or sign of it. That doesn't mean they are regenerate. But it does bode well for them, unless they should be found apostate.

I agree which you brutha.

The following is generally true... Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it."

Xmansmommy

September 22nd 2005, 01:35 AM

The false doctrine is... that people are regenerate apart from the Gospel. Xmm entered into the area of covenant. Infants of believers are in the covenant and baptism is the seal or sign of it. That doesn't mean they are regenerate. But it does bode well for them, unless they should be found apostate.

GB, I didn't address the covenant or infant baptism whatsoever. I addressed the issue you had with me saying that Calvinists believe they are regenerated before hearing the gospel. Again, another (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=18754&highlight=regeneration+proceeds+gospel) thread where much information regarding this view is given by Calvinists.

Pereynol of Sheer Dread

September 22nd 2005, 11:47 AM

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 12:40 PM

Well GB, I'm no theologian either but I simply asked for the sake of argument for you to give some thought into considering more efficient ways of God saving as many as possible. Your response was, "angels, visitations, bibles in every home". I think my point was made that those means didn't work all throughout history necessarily so obviously those forms aren't exactly efficient.
You continue to miss my point. (BTW, I said I was no philosopher) I'm saying that I do not think God's goal was to convert as many freewilling humans as He could. Because if that were the goal, then just like selling cars, you've got to sell hard. When we look at God's "no hurry, no rush" program, we hardly get the idea that He wishes more humans would find out about Him and give Him their love.

His goal is to glorify Himself His way. If that meant that He was only going to redeem 10 humans, then so be it. Thankfully He decided to redeem countless millions and He also decided to not redeem millions.

For the record, I don't believe anyone here has suggested God NEED relationships. But that doesn't negate the fact that He HAS them.
I think you guys imply a need. You stress human freedom so God knows He is getting real love, that implies a need on God's part. So He has to create these autonomous creatures who can produce love for God to enjoy. When in fact it is the giving of love that pleasures God and He will get love from whomsoever He wills. And you people call this forcing and it makes you sick. You can't imagine a big enough God who can get people freely doing what ever He wants. You've got more of a big man.

.

Have I suggested that I should pat myself on the back GB? Yes

That completely came from left field. Then get out of left field

Do you have a love for the truth GB? I hope so

Do you pat yourself on the back for having it if so? I would and did when I was an Arminian

What specifically is not cool? The part where I questioned whether you read the non reformers posts here on TWeb? Yes...not cool...ad hom to the max...out of left field, but you do that to me. You tend to do it by saying, "I've noticed, along with the others..." You make it sound like you and Tweb have noticed my problem. Well of course you and the other freewillers think I don't read your posts. I don't agree with you, so you resort to personal attack.

Well, I didn't say it to be rude but I honestly question that because you never seem to ackknowledge what we do say and you constantly say things we don't say. It's a bit frustrating. If you are reading what we say why do you insist on twisting our words? Ahhh you sound like Ormly here. People like seer and pereynol don't pull this stuff. It's just pure ad hom.

Prime example, GB. Did I say there were no elect? Yes, by implication.

Not at all. But what I did say is that they aren't elect UNTIL they are saved.
Thanks for proving my point

I'll ask you like I asked Nang in the other thread, GB. How do you explain Romans 2:7-32? I'm primarily interested in your interpretation of vs 14-15 ...those whose conscience excuses them?
I'll come back to this

I honestly cannot believe you are saying that some reformers don't say/believe this. Wow! I'm hoping reformers here will step up and admit that they believe that the elect are regenerate from before the foundation of the world and have evidence of their regeneration before they even hear the gospel.
I think you already admitted your error here, so I won't beat a dead horse

Champagne

September 22nd 2005, 12:51 PM

Xmansmommy

September 22nd 2005, 01:39 PM

You continue to miss my point. (BTW, I said I was no philosopher) I'm saying that I do not think God's goal was to convert as many freewilling humans as He could. Because if that were the goal, then just like selling cars, you've got to sell hard. When we look at God's "no hurry, no rush" program, we hardly get the idea that He wishes more humans would find out about Him and give Him their love.

I never claimed that you claimed to be a philosopher. I even acknowledged your comment by suggesting I am not a philosopher either. There is nothing there to argue about. As for God wanting to convert as many as possible, this is exactly why I asked you what more could God have done to draw more to Him without taking away their freedom to exercise genuine faith, than that which He has already done?

His goal is to glorify Himself His way. If that meant that He was only going to redeem 10 humans, then so be it. Thankfully He decided to redeem countless millions and He also decided to not redeem millions.

I'm aware this is your view.

I think you guys imply a need. You stress human freedom so God knows He is getting real love, that implies a need on God's part.

A need or a desire? Huge difference GB!

So He has to create these autonomous creatures who can produce love for God to enjoy.

So He chose to create freewill beings who can fulfill His desire for reciprocal relationships.

When in fact it is the giving of love that pleasures God and He will get love from whomsoever He wills. And you people call this forcing and it makes you sick. You can't imagine a big enough God who can get people freely doing what ever He wants. You've got more of a big man.

Have you ever heard me say that your view of God makes me sick GB?

Yes

When and where?

Then get out of left field

Sigh

I hope so

Does that admission imply you should pat yourself on the back? If not, why should it for me if I make the same comment?

I would and did when I was an Arminian

I'm sorry that was your mindset. Why do you believe it is my mindset?

Yes...not cool...ad hom to the max...out of left field, but you do that to me. You tend to do it by saying, "I've noticed, along with the others..." You make it sound like you and Tweb have noticed my problem. Well of course you and the other freewillers think I don't read your posts. I don't agree with you, so you resort to personal attack.

GB, my comment was not intended as an ad hominem attack. It was my observation and I mentioned it because you keep misrepresenting what I have said. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know. I'm willing to consider how you can take them as ad hominem that's why I'm clarifying. No offense meant. I'm sorry if you take offense to them. Are you willing to at least consider that it's possible that you are quick to take offense when none is intended?

Ahhh you sound like Ormly here. People like seer and pereynol don't pull this stuff. It's just pure ad hom.

Personal observation, GB. Nothing more. I wasn't trying to be meanspirited or rude to you. And I have no doubt that others have made the same observation.

Yes, by implication.

Howso?

Thanks for proving my point

Saying they aren't elect until they get saved is NOT the same as saying there is no elect GB. Why are you making this so difficult?

I'll come back to this

Great! I look forward to your response.

I think you already admitted your error here, so I won't beat a dead horse

I clarified my position and rescinded the portion that was error. I even provided evidence for my claim. Have you read any of the links I provided GB? Any comments?

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 03:08 PM

Just to chime in here, in support of GoB:

Reformers believe that grace is given by God, one means is via the sacrament of baptism. It was very important to be baptized as an infant, bc if the infant died beforehand, it would not be saved.

Their position wouldn't be that anyone could be elect without being baptized. Baptism was vital.

Of course, it brings up the question, "Isn't baptism a work?" According to Luther's Small Catechism, it is not a work. It is a means through which God provides saving grace to the elect.

So there would be no elect in nations that have never heard of Jesus. That's why missionary work was important. Those people needed to hear the gospel. Without hearing it, there's no way they could be one of the elect.I think you may well be describing Lutheranism, not sure though. The Presbyterian Reformed don't believe unbaptized infants are lost.

What about those who are still born? We believe that infants of at least one believing parent are sanctified and holy to God (Paul teaches that clearly). Baptism is sought early on, as an act of obedience on the parent's part, to place the seal of the covenant on that child. It has nothing to do with regeneration and in no way guarantees that they are elect of God. They simply are a covenant child and enjoy the benefits of that covenant. Time will tell if they truly are one of God's chosen ones. Parents have every right and hope that they are, and work hard unto that end.

GoBahnsen

September 22nd 2005, 03:40 PM

I never claimed that you claimed to be a philosopher. I even acknowledged your comment by suggesting I am not a philosopher either. There is nothing there to argue about. This is almost comical. You accuse me of not reading my opponents posts and you give evidence of at least not reading carefully. Go back and check it out. I had said I wasn't much of a philosopher and you came back with "I'm no theologian either..." Unless you meant to say "hey GB, you may not think yourself much of a philosopher and I don't think myself much of a theologian" Maybe that's what you meant. It's really silly anyway. No big deal. Let's drop it.

As for God wanting to convert as many as possible, this is exactly why I asked you what more could God have done to draw more to Him without taking away their freedom to exercise genuine faith, than that which He has already done? If His goal is numbers, He could send angels into bedrooms. You say that that doesn't work. Well, why not xmm? If the humans all have freewills that just need to be prompted, alot of them have never been prompted. But I agree, an angelic visit cannot regenerate a heart, only God can at His good pleasure. "Who are born not of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13)".

If freewill is what makes or breaks the deal, then yeah...overwhelm all the freewills in this world with the gospel and with flare. There certainly were more true converts to God in that wilderness group out of Egypt, that saw God first hand, then there was going on in China or the Philistines at that time. God could wake up a lot more freewills if He wanted to.

I'm aware this is your view.

A need or a desire? Huge difference GB!
I don't know. Does a man need a wife or desire a wife? If he desires one it implies a need for one. He needs one or he won't be as satisfied and happy. God doesn't need us, we need Him.

So He chose to create freewill beings who can fulfill His desire for reciprocal relationships.
I don't buy it. It places man on an undue pedestal. I won't say God doesn't pleasure Himself through His works, He does, the Bible says so. But you've got this too mixed up with human relationships. Like a sinful man trying to win a sinful woman for a lover.

God is God and He is more than a seeking lover, He is a Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Redeemer, High Priest, King and more. He is not a gentleman, He is a gentleGOD and He is also wrathful.

Have you ever heard me say that your view of God makes me sick GB? I've felt it

When and where? Everywhere

Sigh sigh

Does that admission imply you should pat yourself on the back? If not, why should it for me if I make the same comment?
Because your view doesn't eliminate boasting

I'm sorry that was your mindset. Why do you believe it is my mindset? If you haven't thought your view through, it may not be your mindset.

GB, my comment was not intended as an ad hominem attack. It was my observation and I mentioned it because you keep misrepresenting what I have said. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know. I'm willing to consider how you can take them as ad hominem that's why I'm clarifying. No offense meant. I'm sorry if you take offense to them. Are you willing to at least consider that it's possible that you are quick to take offense when none is intended?
Only if you will admit the same:wink: .

Personal observation, GB. Nothing more. I wasn't trying to be meanspirited or rude to you. And I have no doubt that others have made the same observation.
Yes, other freewill folks, including atheists, they have sided with you in your observation. But I have found freewill folks, like seer, pereynol, brett, Jaltus, Sheepdog, Rando, most mods, etc., that don't get into telling me that I'm not reading their posts.

Howso?

Saying they aren't elect until they get saved is NOT the same as saying there is no elect GB. Why are you making this so difficult?

Think about it, if a person isn't elect he won't ever get saved. You've got a blind spot here in your reasoning. Surely you must see it. Maybe what you mean to say is that a person doesn't demonstrate his/her election until they get saved or believe. That would be ok to say.

Great! I look forward to your response. So do I :lol:

I clarified my position and rescinded the portion that was error. I even provided evidence for my claim. Have you read any of the links I provided GB? Any comments?
I haven't had a chance to yet, but I have read your post :tongue: .

Oh let's be friends xmm, I don't want to fight with you. We can dialogue, but let's not express our observations about the other person's behavior on Tweb. I don't have time to read everything and neither do you. We're all less than thorough here in dealing with our opponents. Certainly I'm no glowing example of one of the harder working members. I do what I can and it falls short of the glory of God, so just forgive me for not trying harder.

Xmansmommy

September 22nd 2005, 04:33 PM

This is almost comical. You accuse me of not reading my opponents posts and you give evidence of at least not reading carefully. Go back and check it out. I had said I wasn't much of a philosopher and you came back with "I'm no theologian either..." Unless you meant to say "hey GB, you may not think yourself much of a philosopher and I don't think myself much of a theologian" Maybe that's what you meant. It's really silly anyway. No big deal. Let's drop it.

That's exactly how I meant it, GB. Just like you, I'm not much of a philosopher.

If His goal is numbers, He could send angels into bedrooms. You say that that doesn't work. Well, why not xmm? If the humans all have freewills that just need to be prompted, alot of them have never been prompted.

Alot of them have never been prompted by an angel I agree GB. But that goes for the Calvinist paradigm too. Not everyone has a Damascus road experience. They didn't in those days and they don't today.

But I agree, an angelic visit cannot regenerate a heart, only God can at His good pleasure. "Who are born not of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13)".

You suggested in your prior posts that God would be "doing more" if He sent angels, etc. Sending angels didn't necessarily mean a person would become a believer. This much you agree on. Why would you suggest it's something God should do in the Arminian view if we know already that it isn't something that has always worked in the past? Surely God knows it didn't always work, yes? Perhaps that's why He doesn't do more in this fashion.

If freewill is what makes or breaks the deal, then yeah...overwhelm all the freewills in this world with the gospel and with flare.

That would be Calvinism, not Arminianism. :wink:

There certainly were more true converts to God in that wilderness group out of Egypt, that saw God first hand, then there was going on in China or the Philistines at that time. God could wake up a lot more freewills if He wanted to.

Even those that saw God's power firsthand didn't always believe GB.

I don't know. Does a man need a wife or desire a wife? If he desires one it implies a need for one. He needs one or he won't be as satisfied and happy. God doesn't need us, we need Him.

I disagree that desiring one and needing one are equal in terms of relationships. Also, mankind was designed to be one with his wife on more levels than just spiritual unity. There are aspects to marriage that we don't experience with God. Those aspects are intrinsic in us.

I don't buy it. It places man on an undue pedestal. I won't say God doesn't pleasure Himself through His works, He does, the Bible says so. But you've got this too mixed up with human relationships. Like a sinful man trying to win a sinful woman for a lover.

Although I never asked you to agree with the view, I did ask you to consider the implications, if it were true. I also think your assessment here is unfair to the Arminian view.

God is God and He is more than a seeking lover, He is a Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Redeemer, High Priest, King and more. He is not a gentleman, He is a gentleGOD and He is also wrathful.

Arminians don't disagree.

I've felt it

I don't deny that I disagree with your view GB. But I have never said or implied that it makes me sick.

Everywhere

sigh

Because your view doesn't eliminate boasting

Many Arminians have said time and time again that they have nothing to boast of. If you disagree with that GB, then it is simply your opinion against their supposed sincere claims. I know I don't boast as an Arminian although often accused of having reason to.

If you haven't thought your view through, it may not be your mindset.

I have thought my view through and still find no reason to boast.

Only if you will admit the same:wink: .

I haven't claimed ad hominem, nor have I been offended.

Yes, other freewill folks, including atheists, they have sided with you in your observation. But I have found freewill folks, like seer, pereynol, brett, Jaltus, Sheepdog, Rando, most mods, etc., that don't get into telling me that I'm not reading their posts.

GB, it was my observation. I am entitled to it. I have seen at least one of those listed express to you that they feel you weren't reading their posts in the past.

Think about it, if a person isn't elect he won't ever get saved.

If a person is elect they are already saved in my view.

You've got a blind spot here in your reasoning. Surely you must see it.

No actually I don't see it if I do have a blind spot in my reasoning.

Maybe what you mean to say is that a person doesn't demonstrate his/her election until they get saved or believe. That would be ok to say.

I don't believe God elects people to belief GB. I believe God elects those that do believe.

So do I :lol:

:cool:

I haven't had a chance to yet, but I have read your post :tongue: .

No hurries GB. I do think though that when you do read those links you will be surprised.

Oh let's be friends xmm, I don't want to fight with you.

GB, I am not fighting with you. I thought we were having a respectful conversation.

We can dialogue, but let's not express our observations about the other person's behavior on Tweb.

No problem. Again, my apologies if I came across as argumentative.

I don't have time to read everything and neither do you. We're all less than thorough here in dealing with our opponents. Certainly I'm no glowing example of one of the harder working members. I do what I can and it falls short of the glory of God, so just forgive me for not trying harder.

Nothing to forgive GB. I did the search and found the threads to help you in understanding where I was coming from. I made the claim and felt the need to provide the proof. So I did. I attempted to make it as easy for you to consider my claim as possible. I hope that you will check them out, at your leisure.

Not every post is meant to be a slam GB. I hope this comes across the way I want it to...but I don't have any problems speaking what's on my mind. I rarely intend to personally slam anyone, although on occasion I have done it. I have always felt regret and remorse for it when I have. I have even apologised about most of those occasions. I would appreciate if you would try to believe that about me in the future. Thanks. :smile: