AssemblyBoard

In thinking about the wolves in sheeps clothing who devour the flock, false prophets who make merchandise of God's people, and Pharisees who go to great lengths to make a convert and then turn him into twice the son of hell that they are, I pause to ask the question.  Does God really love everyone?  

Does God love people who know the truth, turn from it, and then go about harming his people?  Did Jesus die for them?  

Does Jesus love the Pharisees?

Does Jesus love those who crucified him?
 
Does Jesus love Judas?  

Does Jesus love Satan?

Does Jesus love the wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Does Jesus love all the people that will be cast into the lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever?

Should we love people like George Geftakys or Jeff Lehmkuhl?

Arthur

Arthur,

     The key issue for each of us, the real question regarding your question, is:  Does the answer have any bearing upon my attitude toward the Lord Jesus Christ?

     There is no "wrong" answer to that question, but the answer is important, because my attitude toward my Redeemer determines the steps I will take in following Him.  If I can trust Him implicitly, regardless of my inability to fathom the depths of His mysteries, all well and good.  But if I am stumbled by apparent inconsistencies, it is imperative that I address Him from that place:  Lord, I believe (up to thus-and-so point); help my unbelief, that I may believe ALL that is true of Thee.
     If you find yourself uttering that prayer, brother, the penitent to your left will probably be me...

al

What no takers?  I'm curious what people believe.  I know everyone has an opinion.  

I asked a young Christian woman this question the other day.  

She said "Yes of course Jesus loves everyone, 'he is not willing that any should persish".  

I asked, "Does he love Satan?  

She replied, "Yes."

I was a bit surprised at that one.  
I asked, "How could it be that Jesus loves Satan, he's pure evil."

She replied, "God is love."

I said, "There is no love without truth.  God can't love evil.   I think God hates Satan and it's not like there's any chance of redemption for him."

She maintained that God is love and doesn't hate.  

I said, "Oh yes he hates. It says in the Bible, 'God hates divorce.'"

She said, "That's divorce, not a person.  The Bible never says that God hates any person."

So I did some digging and I found the following instances where the Bible states that God hates or despises people.

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Psalm 11:5

And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Mal 1:3

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9:13

There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them. Psalm 53:5

So I guess God, who is love, can hate after all.

There are many other instances where his people, servants, prophets hate evil people and it seems to be a righteous hatred (e.g. Psalm 139:22, Hos 9:15)

There are concepts to the contrary, for example, Jesus tells us to love our enemies, etc. (Matt 5:43-44, Luke 6:27)  

But also in the New Testament, we see that Jesus will take vengence on his enemies, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

I think this issue ties in with a thread that H started a while back, "For whom did Christ die."  In some ways I agree with him.  Frankly, I find it hard to believe that Christ died for the pharisees, false prophets, wolves, etc.  However the Bible does say in Romans 5 that Christ died for us, who were enemies of God.

So that brings it down to the question, is there a difference in people?  Are we all sinners, no difference between us. Or are there the righteous and the unrighteous, and we've always been destined to be one or the other.

Arthur

You know, I looked up "woosies" on www.dictionary.com and it's just not there.  Then it dawned on me.  That's wuss'ies, as in fuss, not wuse'ies as in fuse.  Ok, that word I know.  Heh, I knew you weren't a wuss-boy, verne :)  I think I'm getting woozy. Ah, there I found it.  In looky up "woozy", I found "wussy" which I think is the correct spelling for the word in question.



Ah ha, I see were on the same page.  Sounds Calvinistic don't it?  You know, I hate labels like Calvinism, etc.  How about, "I believe what the Bible says."  Call it what you want.  I guess the only problem is that everyone believes a wee bit differently, so people, being the structured folk that we are, need to put things into categories.  Are you of this major branch or that?  Heh, funny, I think people and their opinions are generally uncategorizable, unless each gets their own category, but then what would be the point? Hey how about this.  Are you a Calvinist?  No, I'm an Arthurist.  

"If any man hate not his mother and his father and his wife and children he cannot be my disciple."

Be careful how you use the word "hate". When it says "God hated Esau" I do not believe that it means he didn't love Esau. I think the above text concerning mother and father gives us the true idea of what the word "hate" means concerning following Christ, and God's attitude towards Esau.

"If any man put their mother or father or wife or children first, they are showing they have left their first love"--I think this is really what is being said. If I'm wrong I'm open for correction.

Thanks,Joe

                   Verne,

                   Don't worry about it-- people on this BB have
                   said stuff that was a lot wuss!  ;D ;D

                   al ;)

Some Food For Thought:


     The source from which I first heard the above was the very man of whom you suggest you are thinking as a thoroughly wicked man.  Ironic, no?


     These thoughts raise in my mind the question:  Who is responsible for the crucifixion of Christ?  The eternally damned alone, or the redeemed as well?  
     I believe it is the latter.  With painful regret I must confess I cried out for His death.  I plaited the thorns.  I held the nails.  I swung the hammer.
     It was I he drove from the temple; I who was shamed by His simple, clear explanations which exposed my hypocricy, greed and self-righteousness.
     I cannot say Thank God I'm not as Osama, not as Adolph, not as Ghengis or as the caesars, not as GEORGE.  Man looks horizontally at his fellows and compares himself among them.  God sees vertically, from above:  I, I, crucified the Lord of Glory!!!
     Self-accursed and condemned forever, I heard Him say to the Majesty on High, "Father forgive him because he doesn't know what he is doing."  Greater love has no man than this... He saw me, His enemy, and He laid down His LIFE to make Himself my Friend.  
     Am I greater than my Lord, that I should be so righteous as to not forgive another?  If I, by my life, condemned the only righteous Son of God to death, how can another man's sin possibly be greater than mine?  If there is a man so foolish as to neglect so great salvation, he condemns himself and surely needs no help from me...
     Am I greater than faithful Paul, the apostle who calls himself the chief among sinners?  The work of Christ is all-conclusive.  It is finished.  To it I say Amen and Hallelujah; of it I testify and preach.  But it requires no such endorsement, no validation of mine.  It stands alone.  It is enough.
     Show me the error of my thinking...


     This, I suspect, is said entirely tongue-in-cheek.  But I remind that this was the great technique of assembly leadership:
1.  Choose a position that serves your goals.
2.  State the position as law.
3.  Find a verse that supports the position.
4.  Enforce the position by wielding the verse as a club.

     ...Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.  Amen

al

When Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."  Who was the "them" that he was referring to?

Was it:

A.  The Roman soldiers who were crucifying him
B.  The Pharisees and rulers of Israel who were the ones who wanted to see him die and delivered him into the hands of the Romans to do the deed
C.  The people of Israel who called out for his death at the prompting of the rulers
D.  Some combination of A, B or C
E.   Mankind as a whole


Arthur

Yes, God did. God was the one who planned, oversaw and carried out the whole matter.
Is the meaning of Christ's death dependent upon a person's choice?

Why did Christ die on the cross?  What did he accomplish?  
He paid for our sins, right?  What else?  Just a few things I gleaned:

-We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.
-We who were once afar off are brought near to God by the blood of Christ.
-Christ made peace through the blood of his cross.  
-By the blood of Christ we were justified and saved from wrath through him.  
-By the death of his Son, we are reconciled to God.  
-The church of God was purchased with his own blood.
-Through his blood we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus Christ accomplished all this by his death.  Where in the Bible does it say that any of the things he has done is dependent upon man's choice?  Jesus has done it.  If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved.  But obviously that is not the case.  Therefore the conclusion must be that he did all of the above only for his people.  Those whom he foreknew, predestinated, called, justified and glorified.

Let me state it a bit simpler.  Who's sins did Jesus pay for with his blood in that once for all sacrifice?  Everyone in the whole world?  Well then everyone in whole world has their sins paid for.  So that means God holds nothing against anyone. No one is under his wrath and everyone is going to heaven, right?  Of course not.

Well, so either everyone is going to heaven or Jesus didn't die for everyone.

Just as he called and separated out from the world our father Abraham so too his church.  Just as he separated Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from Esau, Israel from Egypt he purified unto himself a peculiar people.  All of our forefathers in the faith were chosen by God. They did not choose him.  Indeed Jesus said that very thing to his disciples, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."  

What choice is it of an infant to be born?  Does he do any work or make any decisions about the matter?  Does a person then have a say or lend a hand in his spiritual birth?  I think not.  "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Who has the final say, God or man?  Who has the dominant will?

Who originated the plan of salvation?  Did man?  Who carried it out throughout the course of human history?  Did man have control over Jesus and force him to die?  Did man raise him from the dead?  Does man have control over his eternal destiny?


When I was in the assembly I discounted some of the reformed teachings, including election.  I firmly believed that God provided everything for men to be saved, it was only of matter of if they would choose it or not.
Now, the more I think about it, the more election makes sense to me.

Arthur

Sometimes a truth stated very simply with simple logic makes it easier to understand.  ;)

So what we are saying here is that if Jesus' blood covers all sin, but people are still going to be lost, then His blood didn't really do the job, which would be an  impossibility.
And what would follow is that since the unsaved rejected God's spirit, they weren't meant to have it to begin with, since it wouldn't be possible to reject it.  ???  There is something missing here.......

Arthur,

You said,

"When I was in the assembly I discounted some of the reformed teachings, including election.  I firmly believed that God provided everything for men to be saved, it was only of matter of if they would choose it or not.
Now, the more I think about it, the more election makes sense to me."

FYI. election makes sense to just about every Christian.  I have never met or read anything by a genuine Christian that didn't believe in election.

The question isn't "does God elect and predestine?".

The question in the whole Calvinist/Arminian discussion is, "On what basis does God elect and predestine?"

The Calvinist position requires that God does not act upon His omniscient knowledge, while the other side says he does.

Theologians would call this a discussion about God's independence, or "Aseity".

IMHO, the Calvinist position requires knowledge of God's thoughts to a degree that no one really has.

You also said,

"Jesus Christ accomplished all this by his death.  Where in the Bible does it say that any of the things he has done is dependent upon man's choice?  Jesus has done it.  If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved.  But obviously that is not the case.  Therefore the conclusion must be that he did all of the above only for his people.  Those whom he foreknew, predestinated, called, justified and glorified."

Here, the flaw in your logic is the statement, "If he did it for everyone, then everyone must be saved."

You have to sneak in the hidden premise, "Everyone for whom Christ died will be saved" to make that work.

But since that is what you are trying to prove, it is invalid.


Arthur, remember what John the Baptist said, "...behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn. 1:29)

Even John Calvin recognized that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.  The extreme Calvinist position that many adopt requires that the verse  say, "...who takes away the sin of the elect, or a few, or anything but "the world".

When a theological position requires a re-write of the Bible, that should serve as red light alert that there are some loose threads in the model.

"For God so loved a few folks, that he gave his only begotton son..."  (John 3:16).

The problem arises when we seek a simple solution to a complex problem.
God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Is not the simplest solution often the best?  In discussing this matter with my friends, they said that this discussion has been going on for centuries and we're not going to solve it in one night.  I understand that and I don't presume that I would know something that the rest of humankind has not discovered these past millenia.  However, I hope that there is an answer. And I wonder at why it would not be as plain and obvious as the message of salvation.  Or is this something that is not for us to know or be able to comprehend? If so, I would be disappointed.  

Tom, one thing that I don't understand about your disproof of what I said is the part about the flaw in my logic.


The first premise I started with is that Christ has already done all of these things (paid for our sins, turned away God's wrath, reconciled us to God, etc.).  Does not all of these things equal being saved?

I guess I didn't state it clearly enough, but my arguement is as follows.

P:  Every person that Jesus died for is saved.
P:  Not every person in the world is saved.
C: Therefore Jesus did not die for every person in the world.

From what I remember of my symbolic logic class, this is a valid syllogism.  Is it your contention then that the first premise is not true?

There are many verses that state "the world" or "the whole world" or "all".  I've seen an explanation that these places refer not to the world as in every single person, but the world of the Gentiles as opposed to Jews only.  For example, John 3:16 would then read "For God so loved not only the Jews but also the Gentile elect, that he gave his only begotten Son..."  

I can undertand that line of reasoning because a major theme of the New Testament is that God repeatedly gets the point across that the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  ref Luke 2:32 "A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel",  Eph 2:11-22 "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...",  John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd",  Acts 26:23, "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles", Acts 10, etc.

However, is that how those passages should be translated?  I dunno.  Do you?  It seems to be stretching it quite a bit to make it fit.  I need to look further into it.

Arthur

Maybe these "calvinists" believe in 7th day creation of man, too.  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D

Does a woman HAVE to marry a man who asks her to marry him? No. She has a choice. She can accept the man's love or she can reject it.

Does a child play a part in his birth? No. That's a result of the seed being RECEIVED.

Looking back, we can say that it was all of God. It was His plan, His love, His forgiveness.

I like the way Al stated it in another thread. Interestingly, it was the same way that my father-in-law said it, and he was a staunch CRC (reformed) believer.

Arthur,

When you say, "Is not the simplest answer often the best?"

I can only answer, often it is. (Occam's Razor y'know).

However, one cannot say that the simplest answer is always the best.  Plus, I'm not sure yours is the simplest answer.

One of the problems with this type of Reformed teaching is that they don't figure in the issue of time, or timelessness, as the case may be. We do not fully understand how God percieves time.  Most believe that all times are as present to his omniscience.

In other words...they have God making what they call "Decrees".   They argue about whether he decreed certain things before or after the fall...supralapsarianism versus sublapsarianism.

So...God didn't know who would be elect...then one "day" he suddenly decided to elect a bunch of folks to salvation, and damn the rest.  Supralapsarians think he just did it...sublaparianins think he waited until man fell, then decided.

Where does that leave God's omniscience.  Like He didn't know what he was going to do?  Then he found out what he was going to do?  

So, God doesn't even know what he will do in the future?

Huh? :o

Regarding your syllogism:

(BTW thanks for trying to think clearly...so many don't)

Your first premise was, "Every person Christ died for is saved."

That is the problem.  Is that true?

It seems to me that this makes Christ's sacrifice like pixie dust. (I am illustrating, not mocking, here)  If a flake of pixie dust falls on you...you can fly.  Peter Pan says so.
So, if Christ's blood atoned for your sins, at least potentially, you are saved.  I'm not so sure.

I don't know that that's how it works at all.  I think that Christ's blood is quite able to atone for every sin ever commited by every human being.  A few "lightweights" like Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus agreed with this.

The Calvinist teaching doesn't flow out of a theory of the efficacy of Christ's atonement.

They subordinate all other considerations to their teaching of unconditional election.

But that's the rub.  What was God thinking when he elected?  How can we know?

Calvinists try to answer this by pointing to God's aseity.  God needs nothing, is independent of everything etc..
So, they reason, therefore he doesn't consider men's actions in his decisions.  Or, so goes the argument.

However, God's omnisicent understanding is internal to himself.  He doesn't need to act on the basis of reasons outside of himself.  He knows all things. Perhaps he does take all he knows into account.

I think the Calvinists are claiming to know more than they are capable of knowing.

The "that makes God dependent on mere man and therefore dishonors him" argument that one frequently hears at this point, is silly.

If God is as sovereignly majestic as they say he is...seems to me he can do it any way he likes.

Regarding verses like John 3:16 and 1:29.  That's the problem Arthur.  If you need to act like a Jehovah's witness to make your system work...seems to me you might just want to rethink your system.

Calvin knew about those arguments.  Even he rejected them.  The Bible says what it says.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     Verne, I wholeheartedly concur with your point here, but would carry it a wee bit farther:  The same may be said of any truth-- one either sees it or not.  Our best attempt at clear presentation may or may not be effective, but try as we will we cannot spare another the grief that comes of their frustration.  We each must do as we believe the Lord wants of us, and look to Him with confidence for the fruit thereof, whether or not it turns out to be what we expected of it.


     

     Arthur, I think all who love the Lord would like to know & understand as much as possible, and for the answers to be as simply grasped as possible.  But in the grand scheme, whether or not one of us would be (presently) disappointed is of little consequence...
     Nonetheless, we have the confidence Paul states in 1Cor.13:12, ...now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.  As for knowing, it is the "then" that matters, immeasurably more than the "now."  Now is the time for faith...



     Tom, your "seems to me" is of no more significance than Arthur's disappointment insofar as influencing reality (what is), however your points seem pretty clear to me, too. :D

     All these things considered, is it any wonder that when Paul is teaching us in 1Cor.13 that love is of the utmost priority, he begins its definition (v.4) with the attribute of patience?

God bless us all,
al

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about.  It was in the movie Contact :)


I also believe that all times are as present to God.  That being the case, then all of what is recorded in the Bible - creation, fall, Christ's sacrifice, Christ's second coming, our being with Him for eternity - is all known by God and in plain view.  Maybe it's kinda like reading a book.  We hold the whole story in our hands and we can easily jump from first page to last page.  So too all of humanity's existence must be to God.  God is the Beginning and the End, the Aleph and the Tau, the Alpha and the Omega.

In response to your statement, "So...God didn't know who would be elect...then one 'day' he suddenly decided to elect a bunch of folks to salvation, and damn the rest..."

Could it be that God always knew who the elect are?
Could it be that for so long as God was in existence (that is, eternally), so too it was determined whom the elect would be.  I think this notion goes hand-in-hand with the purpose of man's existence.  Why did God create anything at all in the first place?  Why is it that God created man, and created him in his own image?  Is it the case that for eternity there was only God and not man, and yet for eternity there will be God and man?  Seeing as how we will be united with our maker as a bride with a bridegroom, it seems reasonable to me that the eternal determination of which beings would be with God for eternity is as eternally firmly established as God himself.  

So what is the purpose of the rest of humanity that will not be with God?
Surely, hasn't God likened humanity unto a wheat plant?  There is the part which is the fruit and there is the part which is the chaff.  The fruit is for God, the chaff is to be burned.  The righteous are the fruit, the wicked are like chaff and shall be burned.  
We are God's plants, intended for his pleasure.  He plants us, waters us and causes us to grow.  The spiritual seed that comes into our life and makes us to live is God's Word.  God sent the spirit of his Son (aka the Word of God) to live in our hearts.  By the Holy Spirit we are born again, begotten of God.  Our whole lives are of his life.  He gave us birth, lives in us and will be united with us for eternity.  If God, who is eternal, gave us birth and lives in us, then are we not also eternal, and hasn't our existence been intertwined with our maker from all eternity?  I'm not saying that we are on equal par with God, nor that we existed eternally.  But I am saying that since God is eternal and his eternal purpose was to create mankind and then be with man forever, then it makes sense that it was eternally determined who would be with him. I say "determined" for lack of a better term.  What I mean is that the lives of the elect are inseparably woven into God's fabric of eternity.  There was never a time when one became elect.  The elect always were elect.


When the bulls, goats, rams and lambs were sacrificed, were they sacrificed for everyone?  Or were there were sacrificed for a particular people.  Atonement was not made for the sins of the Babylonians, Assyrians or the Phillistines, rather for God's chosen people--Israel.  It was quite a surprise to the Jews that the Christ was also the savior of Gentiles.  But it was still made clear in the New Testament that his sacrifice was for a people, God's chosen people, and not just everyone.  The difference was it was now a spiritual people and not just the earthly children of Israel--hence the new covenant.  

I agree that Christ's blood is powerful enough to atone for every sin ever commited by every human being.  But does he? Is that how God works?  He could have chosen more than just Abraham.   He could have given his law to more nations than just Israel.  He could have done it so many different ways, but he only chooses some and not others.  It doesn't sound fair but that's what's written as how he does it.



True.  We can only go by what is revealed in the Scripture..."According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world", etc.  From verses such as these Calvinists draw their conclusions I guess.



Heh, it's not my system.  I just want to get to the bottom of this issue and am exploring some lines of thought.  I may just write an equally passionate argument for free will if I have time.  ;)  This is something about which my mind is not made up.  Now, if we're talking about a 6 days creation on the other hand... well, y'know :)


Yes, I read somewhere that some of Calvin's followers tried to out-Calvin Calvin.  I'm sure it happens to this day.

Arthur

Don't both sides believe in limited atonement? Or am I wrong?

Arthur,

This has also been a topic that I've contemplated about in the recent weeks.

I guess if someone can explain the mystery of the Trinity, then the doctrine of unconditional election would be an easy topic.

I'm can say that God's Sovereignty is a comforting thought...if we are into classifications then I would classify myself as a 3/5 Calvinist.

Regards
Ray

Can you make some of the readings available to the rest of us?
Moonflower2

The book below that Verne mentions by John Owen is available through
"Banner of Truth Publishing" at $14.99/ea. Go to "book catalogue" at the top of the screen, then click on USA. and enter "death of death" or click on the letter d for books and the book is listed there for sale.

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/home.php


Thanks,  Joe

Thanks.
Isn't it telling that none of GG's "books" are listed for purchase anywhere?

I grew up with that one: God knew ahead of time that the elect would choose Him. But isn't it the person himself that God knows? The person's character is what determines his choices, isn't it? Aren't the two interwoven?

"...He gave them power to become....." but it's not given intravenously, so what are you saying here?

     The arguments are enticing, persuasive, compelling, but still inconclusive, which is to say that they are conclusive only to those whose minds are made up.  We will know when we know, and until then opinions shall abound, but it is strongly recommended that we treat them with respect & not wield them as weapons against one another.

     The following was just e-mailed to me:

      Lyman Beecher, the father of Uncle Tom's Cabin) author Harriet Beecher Stowe, was a New England minister who had a hard time with predestination, even though it was a tenet of his creed.  Once, as was often done in that day, arrangements were made so that he and another pastor would swap congregations on a Sunday-- each would travel to the other's church to preach.
The other pastor, upon conclusion of the arrangements, declared "It is preordained."  
     Beecher's reply was, "Well, in that case, I'm not coming."

     I can hardly wait to see what y'all do with that one! :D

al

Verne,

You wrote,
"Interesting. Some people argue that God chose because He knew what choice people would make. If you carefully look at the New Testament use of the word foreknowledge, (yes even Acts 2:23!) you find that it invariably refers to persons, never events. I wonder how those who argue that salvation is predicated on a response to the gospel deal with John 1:12, 13?"

I find the "persons/events" distinction used in this argument meaningless.  For example, try this:

You have a wife, right.  Right now, in your mind, separate her life history from her personhood.   What is left?

If it were possible to separate a person from their life history, would you even have an adult body left?  What "personality" would be left?

So what is God supposed to elect...sperms? Or maybe he just elects a concept...but that could hardly be called a person.  Plus, since it would be something God holds in his omniscient thoughts, why wouldn't he also be aware of everything related to that person.

Maybe he just elects piles of meat and bones.  That wouldn't seem to fit the definition of "person" either.

So, before you begin your end zone dance,  ;), I think you need to define "person" in a way that makes sense in the distinction you have made.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog, First class etc. etc.

Ramoni!  Or should I say, Raymond - much more distinguished :)   So who has explained the mystery of the Trinity?  60% Calvinist now, what would you say you were when you were in?  I'm sure what fraction I am since I'm not entirely sure what both sides say, I just know what I believe now and what I used to believe then, and yes what I believe now is a whole lot more comforting and restful.   The assembly kinda got legalism and the sense that I need to accomplish something for God out of my system.

Arthur

 ;D

Ah, yes.

I had to jump in. When ARTHUR, Dan and i lived together...Arthur and i stayed up talking about stuff Arthur brings up. (Dan was smarter than me -- he went to bed)  

Arthur kept me up late many times, but in the end our discussions were always pretty sweet because we both came away pretty encouraged. (What a neat concept!) Arthur always did ask the good questions about scripture.

I admit, it's FAAAAAAAR easier talking with Arthur than writing. I would write my fingers to the bone to the equivalency of our past conversations.  :P hee hee

Well, I never thought that there was anything in me that God would pick, so I guess that line of thinking won't work, especially when I look at what was accomplished, and why, on the cross. To make a finished product.....

But isn't God pursuing every man?
Can you really say that God would choose one person to give grace to and not another?
Zech. 12:10 says that God will pour his spirit on the Jews and THEN they will recognize Jesus.  It would follow then, that if God poured his spirit on the whole world that the whole world would get saved, eh?


A Moonflower is  favorite flower of mine. It is a large white flower that grows on a vine and doesn't open until late afternoon, blooms all night and is closed by morning. Its fragrance is incredible. It blooms in darkness...... :)

Does Jesus Love Everyone?

I don't think so, at least not in the same way and to the same extent. For example, look at what He said in Matthew 25:31-34, 41:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: ..."

These verses give me the distinct impression that the Lord Jesus Christ loves the people in the first group (His sheep) and doesn't particularly love the people in the second group (the goats). For additional examples, see my posts on the "What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the atonement?" thread on the Bible forum.

H----

I know I'm a bit unorthodox, but I do believe that
Jesus loves everyone. The verse you shared happens
AFTER this dispensation is over. During this dispensation (in my opinion) ANYONE can come to be saved---the door is open to ALL.  AFTER this dispensation is over, and God turns to judge the world, he will divide up, and make a difference, and hate those who rejected his Son. But right now he loves all men equally, and all men have a chance to come to him.

Again, this is my opinion(based on John 3:16) and "God is no repecter of persons".

---Joe

Welcome back H,  :)

Just a couple of observations.

1. Your comment, "Does Jesus Love Everyone?

I don't think so, at least not in the same way and to the same extent. For example, look at what He said in Matthew 25:31-34, 41:"

Now the part about "not in the same way and to the same extent" is very useful in trying to understand the verses that speak of the universality of his love or work.  That key could unlock some difficult verses.

2. You sure work hard at proving your point.  The trouble with your method is that even if you prove that a whole lot of verses do not teach that God loves all men or that Christ died for all men...that's all you have proved.  Those verses don't teach it.

But if just one single verse does teach it, like John 3:16 or John 1:9, all your hard work goes for nothing.

The argument that "since the preponderance of scripture teaches x, all of scripture teaches x is a flawed argument.

You are slipping in a hidden premise: If most of the verses in the Bible mean x, they all mean x.

You need to state that right up front and provide supporting arguments for it...and that is not easy to do.  Even Calvinists have difficulty in defining the parameters of the Analogy of Faith, which is what you seem to be appealing to here.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Virulant Dog, etc. etc.

Verne,

You wrote, "Is it possible that the persons the Scripture describes as being foreknown are the persons that God foreknew as eternally glorified in Christ? That is, God already sees the finished product! Just food for thought, but rife with possibilities...I  am out on a limb here and I usually reserve this kind of exploration for more personal exchanges as the waters here run fast and deep!
Verne "not- quite- ready- to- spike it" Carty"

Very interesting idea.  But it seems to me that if you argue that the foreknown persons are only the elect, then if would follow that God does not foreknow the lost.

Is that what you think?

Thomas Maddux
Virulant Dog, etc. etc.

Al,

Here is one of the Course Objectives written by one of my professors at BIOLA.

"By the end of this course, students will:

2. Have learned to value the privilege of thinking about the rational content of the Christain faith, and an understanding of how this aspect of our life with God is related to the emotional, experiential, and behavioral aspects."

We are "thinking about the rational content of the Christian faith" in this discussion...and it is OK to do so.

It is also OK not to do so.  This type of discussion is not everyone's cup of tea.  But in some sense, all Christians must do this if they wish to mature.

God bless,

THomas Maddux

In drawing conclusions from the Bible, is there room for inductive reasoning?

It is pointed out that counter-examples exist.  Some then say the counter-examples aren't saying what people think they are saying and so are not counter-exampels .  That is then refuted as not true.  So we're back where we started.

Tom:

I believe that you should call yourself "VIRULENT dog", not "VIRULANT dog"-- in short, "e" not "a".

Matt Sciaini

  Beloved of the Lord ;)
  I have generally avoided this discussion, though I do see how it could be important for former Assembly members to understand.
  What piqued my interest this time was the contrast between logically reading the principles found in scripture and does this by itself lead to a complete knowledge of God. (I expect to be asked what that might mean ;))
   The question, "does Jesus love Everyone?" sounds like a simple question on it's face, but it is as Verne stated,"deep waters."  If it were true, that God loves everyone, would not all, no matter how fallen, eventually find salvation?  Not necessarily, because God has given us free will, and because He does love His creatures, He will not force His love upon us.
  God loved Adam and Eve (and I believe Lucifer as well) and created these creatures with free wills.  "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to salvation" so, as Tom has shared, it would take considerable verse twisting to limit this verse to a select group.
   Does the above paragraph corrupt the correct view of God's sovereign grace?  After all, if the difference between me being saved, and somebody else being lost, is found in the human will does this not mean some kind of merit theology?
  No wonder so many don't want to try to figure it out and just adopt the view that, "well God loves me and I know that I'm saved."
  The clearest revelation of who God is was accomplished when "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."  The written message was to point to God's incarnation in the Son, the crucifixtion, and ress.  In Jesus we have "seen the Father", and so it seems to me, that we need to develop our theology from reflection on His Passion (this is not a plug for the movie), the central purpose of His incarnation.
  The Cross was God's passion (love) and Jesus even prayed for those crying,"crucify him", that they might be forgiven for,"they know not what they do."  Mercy for the ignorance of those involved in the monstrous evil of rejecting God Himself?!  Was Jesus just praying for the Jews who were elected to salvation, or for all those crying out against him?
   When I consider what God did in Christ I am convinced it was because he loved all mankind and wanted them to have his salvation and that they might love Him back.  God in His sovereignty gave us free will and somehow our choice must be involved.
   Does this make me better than the unsaved and worthy of God's gift to me?  Better in one sense: I, like the Publican, was aware that I am very sinful.  Jesus said that those who remain in sin are there because "they will not come to the light", or "they say that they see, therefore their sins remain."  Neither the Publican or the Phairsee deserved salvation, but the Publican was aware of his need and the Phairsee was not.  The choice of the unsaved that leads to salvation is not one of "works of righteousness that I have done" rather an awareness that I am very poor of spirit.
  It is indeed "better" to be honest about our sins, but it is because it is the proper choice, not because I am essentially better in my person (in other words, the term "choice" does not describe a superior ontological description of an individual believer).  Judas, Satan, many of the Pharisees refused to admit to the truth and allow the words of Jesus to convict them of their sins.  Jesus said it was because of pride(a condition of the human will) that they rejected Him and remained in their sins.  In Jesus love he came to bring them to repentance and salvation; without the change of mind necessary they never would come to the correct choice of admitting their need.
  Why do you attend a Reformed church then Mark?  I'll have to answer that in another post.
                              God Bless,  Mark C.
 

     In talking with those who reject Christ, I have found an interesting variety of simpler, better plans than the gospel.  Many an agnostic, atheist, humanist or adherent to one of  numerous other disciplines or non-disciplines has come up with a plan that is more fair, more inclusive, more attractive.  But in whose judgment?

     I have considered some of these arguments, contemplating what my own concoction for eternal life would consist of, and why, and how it would be implemented.  I highly recommend such thinking as an utterly humbling experience.  In view of the variables to be taken into account, which outnumber even the lives involved, my conclusion is that to arrive at a plan that is truly equitable from every standpoint, one would have to be... well... God!

     The advantage I have over unbelievers is that the Holy Spirit enables me to accept unquestioningly the truth that any plan of God's is right, whether or not I can explain why.  I have, in a state of unbelief, insisted that God's ideas were wrong, unreasonable, prejudicial, and in some respects I have not, to this day, clearly seen why my ideas were wrong.  But I have seen that they were wrong, and because of God's grace that knowledge is sufficient for me.

     I have been absolutely thrilled to learn of the grace through which I am redeemed, and I am soundly persuaded that man has free will.  While I recognize through the words of others that these concepts can seem to be mutually exclusive, I am not compelled to seek the final word on the matter.  It is enough to know that God has a design that suffices for all His creation, that has excluded no one from His consideration, that leaves nothing and nobody to chance or an arbitrary fate.

     Would I discourage others from exploring the scriptures in quest of knowledge concerning these things?  No.  The truth is that I think on these things whenever I read the Bible or anyone's opinions regarding them.  I eagerly look forward to understanding the mysteries of God.  I am not even distressed when others obsess over such points-- I am only careful that I do not.
     We are blessed in that the discussions on this and other threads are sincere, knowledgeable and reasonable, decidedly not obsessive, and presented with the intention of glorifying God.
     I would be unreasonable to not consider every thought about my Lord, new or old, that comes my way.  Prayerfully.  And I will declare all that I see to be essential to the faith.  But I mean to keep my affection and my trust fixed on the Person of Jesus Christ, so that whatever He may reveal to me of Himself will enhance my appreciation for, worship of, and service to Him.  Whatever He may choose to withhold, short-term or long, I will trust Him for and await the time of His choosing in which to learn.
 
     I do not sit the fence regarding the questions of free will and grace.  But I walk it, comfortable trusting Christ to be with me and keep me from falling to either side.  My cautioning others is not that they avoid the issues, but that they approach them with an open heart and a singleness of mind that Jesus Christ be exalted and pleased in all they believe and do.  Amen.

al

For the benefit of those who haven't read a book on logic lately, there are two types of arguments:

1. A deductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

2. An inductive argument is one in which if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.  (this is why there is no such thing as "scientific proof".  Science can only produce higher or lower degrees of probability, since all scientific conclusions are inductive.)

There is an excellent example of deductive logic in Matt 8:1-10 where the Centurion reasons to a belief that Jesus can heal his servant without going all the way to where he was.  Jesus called this, "great faith".

I think that you are asking a very valid question, Arthur.

Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem would tend to agree with you here, I think.  In discussing the limited atonement teaching he says,

" In conclusion, it seems to me that the Reformed position of "particular redemption" is most consistent with the overall teaching of scripture."

That sounds like an inductive conlcusion to me.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Vir-u-lent Dog, etc. etc.   ;)

Yes, that's it.  It seems to say it more one way than the other, we get an overall feel for it, so we lean that way.  And hey, the reformed stance is very restful.  Man, can you imagine believing the other extreme in which your eternal soul is always at stake based on your every deed--better not blow it!  Oh wait, I forgot for a moment that I'm talking to recovering assemblites  ;D jk
 
I'd say that most of the conclusions I make in life come from prior experiences.  Some of it is from what others have told me.  It seems the older I become, the more I trust my own experiences and the less I base my decisions and judgements upon what others tell me.

When it comes to personal theology, I base it upon all that I've gathered from the Bible and from life experiences.  A question arises and I try to answer it to the best of my knowledge.  To some questions the answers are readily available and most people are in agreement.  Yet there are other questions for which no one has come up with an irrefutable answer. For these, I just go by the gist of it, something like: The Bible says here, here, here and here that God has chosen the elect from the foundations of the world, etc. Yet it says here and here that he loves the whole world.  Well, it makes more sense that God does the choosing, so I'd say it's predetermined.  Ok, that's one way of ariving at a conclusion, but the more weighty reason why I choose to look at it one way or the other is based on my experiences.

I'd say the number one reason why my view of predestination vs free-will has switched is my recent experience that I had in the assembly.  In other words, I had never encountered men like that in such a manner--to hear their foul cry, see them bare their fangs as they feed on people, smell the dead carcasses they leave behind.  I remember not knowing what the Bible was talking about when it mentioned wolves, false prophets, the evils of the Pharisees etc.  I just knew that they were "bad".  But now I've seen first hand just what evil it is.  And now all the verses about these men make sense.  I can point to verse after verse and say, wow that fits. So now I believe some men are bad and that's how it will always be.

Also, since my experience in the assembly, which was legalistic, I now view that man's efforts are, for the most part, fruitless.  It seems all so clear now that the choice and action is up to God.

So there you have it, some men are bad, always bad and God does the choosing. Hence, sign me up for Calvin College (about one-fifth of my high school graduating class went there, I chose the heathen public school and ended up in the assembly, go figure.  While they were going to parties and being worldy Christians, I was going to prayer meetings and being an assembly Christian.  Heheh, life is funny  :P ::)  Another fifth went to Dordt and a sixth or so went to Trinity.  The rest of us took advantage of tax-payer dollars.)  

This is how my theology develops, mostly by experiences.  I'll bet it's similar for everyone else.

Arthur

Hey Gordon,

Yeah, I think I have carpal tunnel, lol.  Anyways, did you realize at the time that those 9 months were probably my happiest in the assembly.  I should have stayed instead of going down to Gehenna...I mean Rod's house..er...I mean Fullerton ::)

I do remember those late night talks.  I also remember some video game sessions :)  Still carrying on that tradition.  ;)

Arthur

Joe,

I believed the same as you do, that God loves everybody, for the first 10-15 years after I accepted Christ.  But the more I studied the Bible, the more difficult it became to reconcile that idea with some of the things that the Bible says.

If God loves all men equally, why did He choose Abraham and not Nahor? Why did He choose Isaac and not Ishmael? Why did He choose Jacob and not Esau? Why did He say that He loved Jacob but hated Esau? Why did He harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did He kill the firstborn of the Egyptians but not the firstborn of the Israelites? Why did He deliver Moses and the Israelites but drown Pharaoh and the Egyptian army? Why did He tell the Israelites to utterly destroy the inhabitants of the Promised Land ("the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite", Deut. 20:16-17)? Why does it say that the sons of Eli "did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them." (I. Sam. 2:25)? Why did He tell Saul to utterly destroy Amalek (1 Sam. 15:4)? Why did He kill 185,000 Assyrians in 2 Kings 19:35?

It seems pretty obvious to me that God loved Abraham more than Nahor; Isaac more than Ishmael; Jacob more than Esau; Moses more than Pharaoh; the Israelites more than the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Amalekites or Assyrians; and Samuel more than the sons of Eli. Besides, Psalm 11:5 clearly states that "The Lord tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ said "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight." (Luke 10:21). If God really loves all men equally, why did He hide the truth from "the wise and prudent" and reveal it to "babes"?

The Lord Jesus Christ also said "it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." (Matt.13:11)? If God really loves loves all men equally, why didn't He give "them" "to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" like He did to the disciples?  

In John 17:9, the Lord Jesus Christ said "I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me". If He loved everybody equally, why did He only pray for those whom the Father had given Him (and NOT for the world)?  

In Romans 9:18, Paul said "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." If God loves all men equally, why does He have mercy on some but "harden" others?

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, Paul said "And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." If God loves all men equally, why will He send some of them "strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned "?

This IS interesting.
The environment in my Calvinistic upbringing was extremely legalistic. We  couldn't ride bikes, play catch or wear pants on Sundays.  ;D
I went to Calvin College for one year, to watch us smoke cigarettes out of our dorm windows, where the dorm wardens could see us from their windows  ;); sat in our dorms while they had a floor by floor search for liquor, which they of course found, heard about the marijuana busts in another dorm; heard about my friends' week-ends away at a cabin with their boyfriends; listened to discussions about how certain "sin" in the Bible wasn't really "sin", lived with parents who argued and drank and thought the saying 'do as I say, not as I do' was funny.  Of course, everyone was saved because they were "baptized" as infants. What I learned from that experience was that Christians indeed can do what unbelievers do.
What this group of Calvinists believe, is that they are working to bring Christ's kingdom to earth, i.e., we are living in the millenium now, if there is one. Most of Revelation cannot be literally translated, in their minds, at least at the time I was growing up.
Somehow, I still grew up with the idea that I could lose my salvation, that maybe I wasn't one of the "chosen to be saved" group, even tho I was with the "God's Chosen Calvinists" group. I loved to hear the gospel preached at special events where they hoped to reach the "underpriviledged" non-Calvinists, and wondered why they couldn't preach it to us like that. But we were supposed to "know better". I'm glad I'm out of that environment. I still blame infant baptism and what goes along with it for many of the problems there.
What I say is "wake up". No Christian can live like the world/unsaved and expect a pat-on-the-back when he dies. Whatever happens then, it isn't going to be pretty.

Hi Arthur:

It was fun during then...living together. I DO REMEMBER, the time I had food poisoning and throwing up and running back and forth to the bathroom. You know what you asked, "Are you ok?"

I wanted to sock you in the stomach. OF COURSE I wasn't. (heee heee).

Anyways, my video game days are few these days. Besides, I heard you play a mad game of AGES.

Moonflower----

I really enjoyed your post. It's very interesting that the Assembly often spoke of "Carnal Churches" and "Carnal Christians" and I would think of things such as you mentioned: cigarette smoking, marijuana, drinking and sexual sins, etc.  Though the Assembly was basically free from this stuff(although who knows went on privately) there was a different type of carnality very present there: Carnal Pride.

The sense of being "Elite", of "being different than other churches who don't have the vision", and being critical of other christians and christian groups was a strong type of carnality and a sin of the spirit rather than the flesh. "When you say I am of Cephas, or I am of Appollos, or I am of Paul, or I am of Christ(the Assembly fits in here well) are ye not carnal?"  "WE are the true flock of God, the little flock, though small in numbers, we are following the true pattern of God. We need to all be of the same mind--the mind of George, oops, I mean of Christ, and take up our cross and follow "him", oops,  I mean "HIM"."   ;D


--Joe

Moonflower,

     Don't throw out the baby with the baptismal water :)...  All my Christian life I had been taught that baptism is for believers & therefore not for infants.  At the reformed church I now attend, I was surprised to see the ceremonial "baptism" of infants in an entirely different light:
     These children may not be baptized until the parents have sat through and agreed with a series of instruction on what their responsibilities are to Christ, as regards their home and children.  The service itself is very similar to (waterless) "dedication" practices in other churches, connoting no transference of status to the child, but signifying the public commitment of the parents to rear the child in all the ways of the Lord.  I find the practice exciting, encouraging, and was thrilled to find living examples of its fruits attending the church as children and as adults.


H,

     The nature of the many questions you present as evidence of the correctness of your position is troubling.  The whole "If God means thus-and-so, why would He do such-and-such?" concept seems too similar to the "If God is Love, why does He allow suffering?" arguments of the heathen (who rage & imagine a vain thing! ;)).  These they pose as questions, not really seeking answers, but in hopes of stymieing believers and thus shutting down their witness.
     I hope I'm wrong, but I get the impression that your questions are not asked in search of greater understanding, but to persuade others of your viewpoint.  Let me be clear:  I do not believe the desire of your heart is less than to honor Christ!  It is only the method of your presentation that I question.  Is it honest?

     I ask you in all sincerity:  What is the urgency of your point of view?  How has believing what you now do, as opposed to what you once did (and please define the two clearly) affect your relationship to Christ, and your daily life?

I promise you, I want to know...

al

Al,

The only problem is putting the baby IN the bathwater.  ;D Infant baptism isn't scriptural.
They say that infant baptism takes the place of the ceremonial circumcision of the Jews. They do believe that their children are saved and that the baptism is a sign and seal that they belong to the Lord. I was in the CRC and maybe the form that they read there is different from the form read in the reformed church.
I agree with you that they place great value on their children and take seriously the job of raising the children that were given them by God.  :)

Moonflower2

I agree with you, but the CRC had the same mentality of the assemblies in the older generations. Your paragraph above accurately describes the CRC when I was a child. We kids rebelled from the legalism when we went away to school. I, myself wondered why the other kids went to church on Sunday when there was no one there to make them go.  Pretty sad.
The CRC had rooms and clubs named after Calvin.  Calvin was the way, the truth and the light to them.  ;)
When I first came out to the assembly, I wondered why all the legalism, but figured that maybe they would mature and "grow" out of it.  ;D
The church I'm going to now is a peaceful place compared to the assembly mentality, and it is not run by a thieving dictator.  >:(

Anyone out there want to join a IHGG club? We could make all kinds of dart boards, if anyone has any pictures around that haven't been burned yet.

IHateGeorgeGeftakys

Excuse me, I'm just having a senior moment.  ;)

Hi Moonflower,

Were you in the Calvinettes (I think you're a female based on what you said, if not I'm sorry)?  I was in the cadets for four years.  
"Thankful to God for his gifts to me, I pledge myself to be ready to serve God, my parents, my country, my church, my neighbor, and my corp."  
"A cadet is reverent, obedient, compassionate, consecrated, trustworthy, pure, grateful, loyal, industrious, cheerful."

heh :)

Though there may have been elements of Phariseeism and Pharisacial people in the CRC, no doubt that was/is the same in most churches (maybe even more so before the revolutions that took place in the 60's and 70's).  However, it was nowhere near like the assembly.  I do remember some elite thinking, some hypocrisy, etc., but I also remember the love there and that it was a safe place to grow up.  Overall, I'd say that most of the people in the reformed churches that I know are pretty balanced and good-natured people. There are some exceptions of course.  

As far as how it was years ago, I heard that movies, dancing and playing cards were taboo.  My dad also told me that when the reverend (that's what the called the pastors back then) came over, the TV had to go in the closet. Sound familar?  lol, but that was until they heard the preacher's wife talking about what a good episode she saw on Gunsmoke.   ;D


You know, it's funny you mention that.  Those were my thoughts exactly.  I thought that overall we've got a good thing going here--some good ideals and love for God, living by the Bible, etc.  There's some strangeness here, some taking things too far, but I'm sure that if we keep close to the Word, in time we'll all mature past that.

Well, that was before I learned of all the skeletons in the closet, and that was before the true nature of the beasts in leadership were revealed.  I don't think I would have been quite so hopeful, scratch that, I would have never set foot in the door in the first place.

Arthur

 ;D ;D ;D
Yeah, I was in Calvinettes.  ;D It's been a while, but I remember having to sew little badges on a white scarf that had to do with character or something. I think we had to learn a few verses in order to earn a badge. Frankly, I learned more at the Bible school in summer at the local Bible church in Berwyn, and a girls camp that was not run by the CRC than anything in sunday school, catechism or Calvinettes  ;D.
I needed this smile tonight.
Hey, did your grandparents come over on the boat like mine from the "old country", ja?

My dad and his fam. from Delft in '47 via boat, my mom and her fam. from Hgroniegen in 62' via airplane.  I think I spelled the H-word incorrectly.

Those scarfs were cute.  I think I had my mom sew mine on that snazy merit badge holder that the boys wore.  

Arthur

Arthur,

I just found your second paragraph.
I guess it depended on which CRC people you were with. One side of my family was easy-going and fun to be around. Grandma soaked raisins in whiskey for the annual treat of buden younges or something that sounded like that, and would gobble them down before Christmas even came near.
The other side was really straight-laced and couldn't even listen to the ball game on the radio on Sunday. Playing cards were called something like"duivel kuiten" = devil cards.  ;D
Maybe it depended on the group of people you were with. A cousin of mine described our Christian school as, "...sure, we went to a "Christian" school; we had Bible class."  

You are from California? That may be the difference right there. We had the influence of Al Capone in our back yard that we had to constantly be guarded against.  ;D I had a couple of great room-mates from California who were CRC bred. They were more laid-back and innocent than we hoods from the outskirts of the windy city.  But we taught them how to smoke, you know, they had to learn to enjoy the real things in life.  :P

But yeah, even some CRC vistors that we brought out to an assembly meeting said that it was just like the CRC church to them. It might just be the area and the particular people in the area. Our particular group of people were originally from the Groningen "Quarter" (ghetto) in the city.

How about olie-bolen for new years?  I think that literally means fat-balls.


Oh yeah, and how about that you can't go to McDonald's on Sunday (or buy anything else for that matter).   Reason-being that it's not right to work on Sunday or even make other people work.


Yes, from the golden state.  I heard about what happened to my friends when they go away to Calvin, including the heavy smoking. I've also heard of some churches being a bit more prejudiced in the midwest. I had a friend who, when in high school, highly criticized smoking and drinking.  Then he went to Calvin College and came back a changed man.  :P


Interesting.  I would think it would be different in that there was no organ, no bulletin indicated the church service structure, no passing of the plate, and not just one pastor spoke but three brothers from the laity.
I brought one fellow CRC'er to an assembly worship time.  After it was over I asked him what he thought.  He said that he thought it went a bit long and he asked me if there were any checks on the leadership's decisions or doctorine.  Sharp guy.  

What is this Groningen ghetto?  The people that are there are from that part of The Netherlands?

Arthur

Dear al,

thanks for your thoughtful comments. Sorry to hear that my post has given you a negative impression. I readily admit that my questions are mostly of a rhetorical nature and are primarily designed to try and persuade others of what I believe to be the truth. The Apostle Paul sometimes used rhetorical questions to make a point, so I believe that it is a legitimate and Biblical method, but perhaps I shouldn't have used it in this case. Do you want me to delete the post? I am perfectly willing to do so if you want me to. I am also willing to re-write it so as to remove the rhetorical questions and simply present a list of Biblical facts and passages which have led me to conclude that God does not love all men, at least not equally.

As for the "urgency" of my point of view, I did not start this thread and lots of others had posted their views before I finally decided to contribute, so I don't think I have exhibited all that much "urgency." But I do think it is important to believe and speak the truth about God, and I think it is not good to believe and speak things about God that are not true.  

As for how my change in belief has affected my relationship to Christ, I would say that it has strengthened it considerably. Before, passages such as the ones I cited bothered me, since I had a hard time seeing how to reconcile them with the idea that God loves everyone. Once I realized that the Bible doesn't teach that God loves everyone, at least not equally, the problem disappeared, and these passages no longer bother me. God's love has also become much more personal and much more precious to me, for which I am profoundly grateful.

May the Lord bless you!

H

H,

     You have answered my questions , and I am grateful.  I would never ask someone to delete or alter a post for my sake.  It says what it says.  I have questioned it, and you have answered me...
     Thank you.


     Again, thank you.  My use of the word "urgency" may have been misleading...  By it I meant to divide between what must be believed and what may be believed.
     My own personal awakening to the realty of God's grace shown us in Jesus Christ has had much the same effect upon me as the sentiments which you: ...and Verne:...have expressed.  Yet I get the impression that you both think that I (every saint) must decide at once and for always on the question of free will or I (we/they) cannot advance to the "next level" (be a real Christian).  That is what I meant by "urgent."  Is it, or isn't it?  

***In reference to your quote (underscored) above, H:  
     Are we discussing what is or is not absolutely and unquestionably true, or what you believe, but cannot prove beyond doubt to be true?  The debate that has continued for centuries between seemingly equally committed believers would appear to indicate the latter, making specious any implication that faith on the wrong side of the question is inferior.


...still learning...still hoping to learn,
al

When Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", I  think that he was not referring to the Pharisees.  Reason being that they knew what they were doing.  I believe this because of the parable of the husbandmen(tenants) which Jesus declares as found in Matt 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20.  

The Bible states that the Pharisees knew this parable was in reference to them.  In the parable, the tenants know that the last representative sent by the Father was the Father's only Son and they premeditated his murder for the purpose that they may then gain his inheritance, since by the death of his only Son, the Father would be left without an heir, or so they reckoned. They did not take into account the resurrection, which they later also tried to deny, even to the point of creating a false account of it.

This being the case, how could it be said that Jesus was referring to the Pharisees when he asked the Father to forgive those who crucified him in ignorance?

Thoughts?

Arthur

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.  Matt 21

Arthur,

     Maybe it's just me, but I can't see that they understood anything more than that Jesus was somehow speaking about them.  They were angry that this laborer dared to speak out against them, angry that the people listened to Him & "took Him for a prophet," and, perhaps angriest of all because while they understood that He was painting them in a bad light, they had no idea what He was really saying.  They readily admitted that the husbandmen who killed the landowner's son were "wicked men," before they understood that Jesus was referring to them.  
     They were insulted that He dared to challenge their understanding of the scriptures, and that He dared tell them that God would take away His kingdom from them & give it to another nation, but there is no indication that they grasped His reference to Himself as the Head Cornerstone...  I think their intent in seeking His death was to shut Him up from making them look bad before the people & the Roman government, but I can't see that they ever believed He was sent from God.

Solamente mis dos centavos,
al

They had raisins in them, didn't they? And how about that yummy banket, the long pastry with the almond filling?
Exactly. And the Sunday no-swimming rule on vacation. Lots of pier shenanigans and the ensuing public humiliation and consequences. The water really was warmer on Sunday! The devil made it that way.  ;D

I agree that the Midwest is more prejudiced than the east or west coasts. But I have to relate an incident that may have put a few churches in an unfair light. Tell me if you see it differently.
There was a Christian school in Cicero to which some black families wanted to send their children. The town of Cicero mobbed the first meeting that the school held to discuss the matter, so that the meeting couldn't be held. The town threatened to blow up the school. The police of Cicero said that they would not/could not give police protection to the school or any of the kids. Would the town have blown up the school. Yes. With the kids in it or out if it? Yes. Would they have blown up a re-built school? Yes. Again and again. There were 3 other Christian schools that would have accepted the black families, and in fact, there was an alternate offer made to take the children to the Desplaines Christian school, but the black families turned it down, saying that it was too far. Eventually, someone donated money to the Cicero schools and they were rebuilt further west, in Elmhurst. This was in the 60's.
Let me relate another incident that occurred at the dividing line between Berwyn and Cicero. A man rented his upstairs flat to a black family. The neighbors broke into the flat and threw all the families' belongings into the street from the upstairs window. Including the sinks! This was in the early 50's. Somehow we kids were sheltered from most of this insanity.

At the time, the mafia had a stronghold on the town of Cicero. I'm guessing a connection. The current mayor, whose deceased husband had mafia ties, just received her sentence to do her time behind bars.
A couple years ago, the KKK was planning to march through Cicero.  ???  It became an issue, and some of the residents spoke up against it and it didn't happen.  :o  
The formal atmosphere is what I think our guests were referring to.
Another man I brought who was the same age as the accursed, said that the accursed was a phony. Pretty perceptive, eh?
Yeah, most of the Groningen immigrants settled in what was called the Groningen Quarter because there were so many of them. They even had a church there on Paulina that is still standing. Only a few of the houses are still there. It is prairie or ballfield now. Looking at the pictures, it seemed like they were in a ghetto. The homes were so close together and the "el" went right thru the settlement, directly next to some of the homes. But the whole family of 11 kids, was together, again. Back in the old country, the kids had to leave, before high school age,and live with and work for the Boer (farmer).

It was kind of fun going down memory lane, here, with Calvinettes, and all. But I don't want to begin playing what my dad's second wife (who was not dutch) referred to as the "dutch game": how we are related.  You wouldn't belive how many kids I went to school with were relatives of this fertile branch. And since your mom was from Groningen........ ;D

God help us. We're just like the Jews with keeping geneological records......
Couldn't find a king back there, though.  ;)

Perhaps you are right, Al.  In looking through the scripture references dealing with Pharisees, I see quite a few instances where they say they don't believe in him and think he's a fake.  I don't see much other support for my theory other than the fact that they had miracles performed before their very eyes or were reported to them.  e.g. the blind man in John 9 and raising Lazerus from the dead in John 11.  The stupidity of the Pharisees is clearly seen in that one, as they thought of killing Lazerus, whom Jesus raised from the dead.  Makes no sense.

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.    Acts 4

However, consider the passage in Acts 4:8-12.  Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, lays the blame on Christ's crucifixion directly on the Pharisees and rulers of the people.  
He doesn't say, "We crucified him by our sins."  He said "whom you crucified." Similar statements are made in Acts 2:23, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" and in Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. "

These latter two statements were made to the people.  So it would appear that the Holy Spirit holds both the children of Israel and their rulers responsible for the death of the Christ.  However, within that same message in Acts 2 is also given the hope of salvation--yes, to the very same guilty people.  


Also, after both the Matt 21 parable to the Pharisees and the after the Acts 4 declaration by Peter we see that "stone the builders rejected" statement.  Question is, did they reject it because they knew what He was and yet wanted the preeminence?  Or did they reject it because they did not know His worth?

Arthurr, Al,


  The Pharisees knew...they definitely knew...at least that Jesus was sent from God.

John 3:1  Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2  This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

   The same ones said that His miracles were by the power of the prince of demons....

Blessings, Tony

I think Nicodemas was different than the other Pharisees.  Perhaps when he said "we know" it was really only him and the mouse in his pocket.

50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. 53 And every man went unto his own house.  --John 7

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. -- John 19

 DOES GOD LOVE EVERYONE

1).God is love (and life).  He created and loves everyone and offers true life to all.  But, nobody receives love or life, by knowing that God loves them!

2).The love of God for each person … remains with God, until the individual accepts and receives God’s love in Christ, (by grace), for themselves.

3). Those who reject/ignore the love and life God offers in Christ … do not receive or have either God’s love or life.
   (“I knew you not” – is not God’s failure to recognize the individual, but, the individual’s
                    refusal to be known (loved) by God)

4).   Therefore, while God loves all people; All people do not have God’s love.

5).   The same principle applies to Christ’s death on the cross:
a).   Christ satisfied justice and paid “the wages of sin” for ALL.
b).   While Christ died for ALL, only those who personally accept His sacrifice as payment for
                       their sins, have salvation or life.

                     John - CLM

  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8   

At variance with love's definition is it not?
Verne