Re:Guided by God

[vernecarty]

Verne,

This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

Careful my brother!   You are rapidly heading for the shoals of Arminianism!  

It was this very idea that caused the Calvinists to accuse Arminius of being a Jesuit sympathizer.  

Thomas Maddux

You have unocoverd my Achilles heel I am afraid...
The one thing that makes me a little nervous about some of my Calvinist friends is the inference  that could be drawn by some that He is he author of evil (as you well know). I like to distinguish His purposing the existence of evil and His being its Author. The former  does not necessarily imply the latter. In fact I contend that it does not and cannot...how's that?

Not that this is an important part of the conversation, but regarding the scene in Schindler's List, Ralph Fiennes as the cruel Nazi was going to execute a jewish boy because of the way he was brushing his horse(or something to that effect). Liam Neeson convinces Fiennes that it is a greater power to be able to pardon someone. So Fiennes puts his hand above the boy and says "I pardon you. I pardon you" and lets the boy leave. But by the time the kid gets to the field leading to the barracks Fiennes cannot control himself and picks up a rifle and shoots the boy in the yard. So, even though Fiennes had a "choice", his very character of cruelty overruled it, and he quickly returned to the person he was at heart.

--Joe

Great point. He did mangage to avoid murdering the love interest, despite her obvious  contempt for him.
I think the point you make so illustrates the fallen nature.
The one difference being that in the unregenerate, even the desire to do right is lacking.


Verne  

[Joe Sperling]

"Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight saith the Lord". (Jer. 9:24)

"He has told you O man what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love kindness(KJV "love mercy"), and to walk humbly with your God"(Micah 6:.

It's interesting to compare these two verses--God towards us, and us towards God and others. On God's list of what "he delights in" he puts "lovingkindness" first and on our list it's a close second. God's will for us is not a list of do's and don'ts, but a "walk" which will cause us to delight in the very things he takes delight in most of all. God loves to show kindness and mercy towards us--as we "understand and know him" we delight in showing lovingkindness to others also. I take great comfort in the fact that the number one thing God delights in doing is showing lovingkindess to us.

--Joe

[Oscar]

Verne,

This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

Careful my brother!   You are rapidly heading for the shoals of Arminianism!  

It was this very idea that caused the Calvinists to accuse Arminius of being a Jesuit sympathizer.  

Thomas Maddux

You have unocoverd my Achilles heel I am afraid...
The one thing that makes me a little nervous about some of my Calvinist friends is the inference  that could be drawn by some that He is he author of evil (as you well know). I like to distinguish His purposing the existence of evil and His being its Author. The former  does not necessarily imply the latter. In fact I contend that it does not and cannot...how's that?

Verne,

Some Calvinists just follow Huldrich Zwingli and say, "God causes everything, including evil.  Get over it."

Most Calvinists strive manfully to avoid this rather unpleasant bullet.  The two most common ways are Voluntarism and the idea of sin as a result of the fallen nature.

Voluntarism just says God can do whatever he wishes to, and since he is God, its OK.  God, by definition, cannot sin, so even if he does something that he calls evil if humans do it, its not evil for him.  This idea is held by many Calvinists, but most non-Calvinists find it hard to swallow.  The reason is that if God is the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world...it leaves little for the Devil to do.  Plus phrases like "blessed are the merciful" or "God is love" lose much of their meaning.

The sin from fallen human nature idea is probably the "go to" answer for most Calvininists.  At least in my experience.  But it has problems too.  God ends up being ultimately responsible for evil in this one too.

Everything God created was "good".  He created no evil.  Neither Lucifer nor Adam had a fallen, sinful nature.  So if your nature determines your acts, they could not sin.  The only other actor on the stage was God, so he must have caused their sin and fall.   Either way God seems to be the ultimate cause of all evil.

This is one reason Arminians believe in "free will" in the way they do.  Their view allows for spriritual and human evil to originate in the free choices of Lucifer and Adam, rather than in God's decrees.
To Calvinists, this seems to diminish God's sovereignty.

Arminianism has its problems too.  IMHO we either do not have enough information or enough ability to understand these things.  Therefore I usually don't describe myself with either term.

However, I have had so many enounters with Calvinists that are just plain nasty in their contemptuous treatment of anyone who dares to disagree with them, that I sometimes pull their tails a little.

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

Some Calvinists just follow Huldrich Zwingli and say, "God causes everything, including evil.  Get over it."

Most Calvinists strive manfully to avoid this rather unpleasant bullet.  The two most common ways are Voluntarism and the idea of sin as a result of the fallen nature.

Voluntarism just says God can do whatever he wishes to, and since he is God, its OK.  God, by definition, cannot sin, so even if he does something that he calls evil if humans do it, its not evil for him.  This idea is held by many Calvinists, but most non-Calvinists find it hard to swallow.  The reason is that if God is the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world...it leaves little for the Devil to do.  Plus phrases like "blessed are the merciful" or "God is love" lose much of their meaning.

The sin from fallen human nature idea is probably the "go to" answer for most Calvininists.  At least in my experience.  But it has problems too.  God ends up being ultimately responsible for evil in this one too.

Everything God created was "good".  He created no evil.  Neither Lucifer nor Adam had a fallen, sinful nature.  So if your nature determines your acts, they could not sin.  The only other actor on the stage was God, so he must have caused their sin and fall.   Either way God seems to be the ultimate cause of all evil.

This is one reason Arminians believe in "free will" in the way they do.  Their view allows for spriritual and human evil to originate in the free choices of Lucifer and Adam, rather than in God's decrees.
To Calvinists, this seems to diminish God's sovereignty.

Arminianism has its problems too.  IMHO we either do not have enough information or enough ability to understand these things.  Therefore I usually don't describe myself with either term.

However, I have had so many enounters with Calvinists that are just plain nasty in their contemptuous treatment of anyone who dares to disagree with them, that I sometimes pull their tails a little.

Tom,

In the above, you said:  ...we either do not have enough information or enough ability to understand these things.  Therefore I usually don't describe myself with either term.

The "I just call myself a Christian" idea is fairly common, in my experience, but is usually the expression of those who simply haven't studied the arguments deeply enough to have formed an opinion.

This board is exceptional in that respect:  other obviously intelligent, studious individuals, confessedly devoted to the worship and service of Christ, have similarly stated that there is insufficient information from which to draw conclusions.  Perhaps slightly fewer haved owned that they (we all) may lack the capacity for such knowledge.

Speculation, theorization, and "what if..." scenarios can be fun, challenging, and sometimes personally productive.  It is when they begin to lay demands upon others, based on hair-splitting uncertainties, that they become dangerous and oppressive.  The culprit is usually human pride (not minimizing extra-human spiritual influence).

We need sound doctrine regarding the essentials of our faith.  It is when we become so caught up in and attached to our favorite less-than-essential considerations that our egos begin to upstage our true spirituality.  Sadly, as doctrines go, there is often far more of "sound" than of soundness...

al

[moonflower2]

However, I have had so many enounters with Calvinists that are just plain nasty in their contemptuous treatment of anyone who dares to disagree with them, that I sometimes pull their tails a little.

Thomas Maddux

Ah...very good Tom. Perceptive.

Wish I could have been there to witness someone with enough guts to pull the tails.   Amusing....

Former CRC (Calvinist born & raised)

[Oscar]

Al,

You said:

Speculation, theorization, and "what if..." scenarios can be fun, challenging, and sometimes personally productive.  It is when they begin to lay demands upon others, based on hair-splitting uncertainties, that they become dangerous and oppressive.  The culprit is usually human pride (not minimizing extra-human spiritual influence).

The problem arises from not realizing what a thelogical system actually is.  Theological systems are attempts by scholars to organize the information the Bible gives us into understandable categories.  They all contain things that are held with a high degree of certainty, and things that are less certain.

Since they are human attempts to understand what God has said, they suffer from "ability deficit".  That,however, doesn't mean that we know nothing.  It just means that we know more about some things, less about others.  

For example, we know that Christ died for our sins.  Although there are different ideas about how this applies to us, such as the satisfaction theory or the forensic theory, all Christians agree on the basic facts.  But when it comes to church government or ordinances...many conflicting ideas.

Predestination is probably the most confusing issue of all.  What most folks don't realize is that Calvinism and Arminianism are actually attempts to use philosophy to organize revelation.  People take conclusions that, at best, are probably true, and make them "what the Bible teaches".

The Calvinists have a pretty sad history regarding this.  Verne has condemned the leading brothers of the assemblies in very strong terms.  But if you think about it, the wrongs were mostly in the emotional realm.  The money, of course, was a problem as well.

But the Calvinist leaders who attended the Synod of Dort, which was pretty much a trial of the followers of Arminius, went much further.  They destroyed the livelihood of any who disagreed with them.  Many were banished from the Netherlands, at a time when to leave your country meant you could fall into the hands of the Inquistion.  Many were thrown in jail, and some were executed!    The famous legal theorist, Hugo Grotius, was imprisoned for what he believed about predestination!

Now, if browbeating people is proof positive that one is a wicked man....what about these guys?  They went WAY beyond browbeating.

There is a movement among Calvinists called Theonomy.  They want to bring all of society under their understanding of the law, enforced by the government.   Some folks just never learn.

My take is that human behavior is complicated, and that each case is different.  But persecuting one's Christian bretheren is just plain wrong.  Ideas have consequences.
Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

Careful my brother!   You are rapidly heading for the shoals of Arminianism!  

It was this very idea that caused the Calvinists to accuse Arminius of being a Jesuit sympathizer.  

Thomas Maddux

You have unocoverd my Achilles heel I am afraid...
The one thing that makes me a little nervous about some of my Calvinist friends is the inference  that could be drawn by some that He is he author of evil (as you well know). I like to distinguish His purposing the existence of evil and His being its Author. The former  does not necessarily imply the latter. In fact I contend that it does not and cannot...how's that?

Verne,

Some Calvinists just follow Huldrich Zwingli and say, "God causes everything, including evil.  Get over it."

Most Calvinists strive manfully to avoid this rather unpleasant bullet.  The two most common ways are Voluntarism and the idea of sin as a result of the fallen nature.

Voluntarism just says God can do whatever he wishes to, and since he is God, its OK.  God, by definition, cannot sin, so even if he does something that he calls evil if humans do it, its not evil for him.  This idea is held by many Calvinists, but most non-Calvinists find it hard to swallow.  The reason is that if God is the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world...it leaves little for the Devil to do.  Plus phrases like "blessed are the merciful" or "God is love" lose much of their meaning.

The sin from fallen human nature idea is probably the "go to" answer for most Calvininists.  At least in my experience.  But it has problems too.  God ends up being ultimately responsible for evil in this one too.

Everything God created was "good".  He created no evil.  Neither Lucifer nor Adam had a fallen, sinful nature.  So if your nature determines your acts, they could not sin.  The only other actor on the stage was God, so he must have caused their sin and fall.   Either way God seems to be the ultimate cause of all evil.

I must say that I am surprised at the prevalence of this line of reasoning by some theologians. While I think there are some dificulties understanding the existence of evil, the problem is complicated unnecessarily by thinkers' failing to distinguish sinlessness (Adam's original state) or even perfection (Lucifers original state), from immutability, an attribute belonging to God alone...

.  Verne has condemned the leading brothers of the assemblies in very strong terms.  But if you think about it, the wrongs were mostly in the emotional realm.  


Thomas Maddux

Do you really believe this Tom?
After all that I have heard, it seems to me a far stronger case can be made that the problems were primarily spiritaul!

The words of condemnation do not begin to equal the personal anguish...for opportunities lost... and lives broken...
Verne

[matthew r. sciaini]

Brent,

You wrote:

To set the record straight, the only reason anyone gets "into heaven," is God's Grace.  Certainly, without it, even a really good person like me wouldn't make it, because years ago I sinned several times....

Grace is not a potential force that needs to be set in motion by the human will.

All Calvinist and Arminian theologians are agreed on this point.  Their differences arise over the question of election, or to say it in different words, how grace is obtained.

Another way to describe the two "camps" is to say that the point of contention is over whether or not men have free will.
Calvinists say no, Arminians say yes.

Thomas Maddux

Not quite Tom.  Classic Reformed Theology does not precisely say that man has not  free will. Rather it speaks to the manner of the excercise of such freedom as he has.
It is manifest that all men are free to excercise the will in the pursuit of evil,  and with the single exception of Christ, indeed have. It is manifest that some men, though unregenerate are free to excercise the will in doing good.
Reformed Theology is very specific in the way it constrains the excercise of man's will viz. its unability to excercise saving faith in Christ apart from the agency and initiative of God Himself. There is a distinction between that and saying that man has absolutely no free will- clearly a false premise.
Verne

Verne,

All of the major reformers, Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli denied that man had free will.  In this they were following Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine taught that Adam was free to sin, or not to sin.  Since he chose to sin and fell, he lost the ability to choose not to sin. He could choose which sins to commit, but he couldn't stop sinning.  This became the lot of all his descendents.  So, although choices about which sin could be made, man's will was bound to evil...ie, not really free.

I think in order to be fair to the sense of what these men taught, one has to understand how the term free will was actually defined.
Does it mean men have no choices?
It clearly does not. All men make many choices daily.
It is therefore clear that Luther's concept of the bondage of the will (which you will recall was in response to Erasmus' treatise on the matter) is limited and specific in its significance.
None of the reformers contend that it is impossible for unregenerate men to make right choices. Clearly unregenerate men do.
There is a remarkable scene in Schindler's List, where Liam Neeson convinces the sadistic and murderous German commander that forgiving a transgression is a greater display of power than killing someone for it. We then see several occasions on which this cold-blooded killer pronounces forgiveness, in circumstances where he previously would have killed without a second thought. That scene was incredible.
So when we speak of freedom or bondage of the will, I think we have to be clear about freedom and bondage with respect to what!?

With regard to the use of my time for example, I can will to be at the communion service at my church every Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. This is a sphere in which I am permitted to excercise the right of choice freely.
To be present, or not to be is entirely my own choice.
I am not free, even as a born-again believer, to will that I never fall prey to carnal affections. It is indeed that recognitiion of the limitation of my own freedom in that sphere, that causes me to understand the Biblical necessity of being filled with the Spirit (literally to continue to be filled!). The indisputable truth of Paul's contentions in Romans 7 regarding the specific sphere of the bondage of our will, that is a willing that eventuates in actual performance of that which is willed, will be affirmed by every Christian who has made a committment to live a holy and devout life before God.
When I hear people talking about their own spiritual perfection and completeness, I know for certain they are unregenerate, and don't the first thing about holiness, which is dependence, not its opposite.
Brent is quite right that for the question of the will's freedom to be properly considered and discussed, the sphere of any such freedom has to be defined.
Verne
p.s I have read both Erasmus and Luther's arguments many times and I always come away with a sense of awe of both of these men....
p.p.s I like to think of the excercise of God's will in terms of His ability to determine outcome.
I remember how astonished I was the first time I understood that you could formulate an equation to perfectly describe any line - provided you were permitted an unlimited number of varaiables!
This is one way to think about God's omnipotence - He is the God of infinite variables!
He can turn every single choice of every single human to the accomplishment of His own purpose...and does!!!

Verne:  

What do you mean you know for certain that people talking about their "spiritual perfection and completeness" are unregenerate?  Do you mean that these people are saying they are spiritually perfect and complete?  Or do you mean that they are talking about the process that God is working in their lives toward spiritual perfection and completeness?

Your certainty of someone's spiritual state on that level is amazing.

Please clarify.

Matt

PS -- I have to agree with Tom--at least in my case;  most of the stuff regarding the Assembly leadership was "emotional", so it seems--how to separate the soulish from the spiritual, though,  is God's work.

[vernecarty]

Verne:  

What do you mean you know for certain that people talking about their "spiritual perfection and completeness" are unregenerate?  Do you mean that these people are saying they are spiritually perfect and complete?  Or do you mean that they are talking about the process that God is working in their lives toward spiritual perfection and completeness?

"Perfection" and "completeness" seem to me a state and not a process Matt. Choose whatever interpretaion you prefer it, makes no difference.
People who are saved, even the most devout ones I know, do not deny that they are sinners.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8  

Your certainty of someone's spiritual state on that level is amazing.

Please clarify.

If someone claims to be sinless, I will immediately conclude that they are not saved Matt. You should too.

PS -- I have to agree with Tom--at least in my case;  most of the stuff regarding the Assembly leadership was "emotional", so it seems--

If by emotional you mean that they failed to take a stand because of fear or some such thing as opposed to ignorance or disobedience, then I am indeed completely mistaken in my indictment of them based on the conviction that they were accountable as leaders. Those of you who want to make that case on behalf of these men, be my guest.
It is interesting that Adam's explanation for hiding was that he was "afraid". The real question is why???

how to separate the soulish from the spiritual, though,  is God's work.

And therefore nobody challenged George Geftakys.
There you have it folks. What more can I say?

Verne

p.s. Matt I don't want to appear cynical. Don't you understand then when we talk about spiritual leadership the standard of judgment we have to apply is far different?
If God does not give them the wisdom to effectively discern between that which is spiritual and that which is not, how can He ( or we for that matter) expect them  to function effectively as shepherds??!!!
Sometimes I wonder  just how much we have learned from what happened in the assemblies...

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

[vernecarty]

I do not believe it is  possible for the unregenerate soul to desire to do right.
You may argue that from man's standard of righteousness but nof from God's.
Like the ruined physical creation, apart from the moving of the Spirit of God, all is spiritual darkness.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Making a distinction between "desire" and "motive" simply shows how little we truly understand what sin is.
This is why Scripture tells us that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Phairsees, we will not enter the kingdom.
Why?
Even doing the "right" thing with wrong motive merits the condemnation of  Jehovah!

God looks at the heart. Who can change his own heart?

The regenerated soul differs from the one still in darkness in that once the light has come, he can now desire to do good.
But how to do so, he finds not within himself (Romans 7)
These things are elementary tenets of the faith folks.
Verne

[vernecarty]

.  Verne has condemned the leading brothers of the assemblies in very strong terms.  But if you think about it, the wrongs were mostly in the emotional realm.  

Verne:  


PS -- I have to agree with Tom--at least in my case;  most of the stuff regarding the Assembly leadership was "emotional", so it seems--

If by emotional you mean that they failed to take a stand because of fear or some such thing as opposed to ignorance or disobedience,

I frequently get reminded not to jump to conclusions when I respond to BB queries. By way of explanation, I have understood Tom and Matt to imply that the failure of the leading brethren was one of the affections (emotions) and not of the intellect or the will.
I therefore concluded that the failure, according to them, could not then be attributed to either ignorance or to disobedience which would obviously be the sphere of operation of the intellect and will respectively. Sorry if I was a bit obscure.
Verne

[editor]

I do not believe it is  possible for the unregenerate soul to desire to do right.
You may argue that from man's standard of righteousness but nof from God's.
Like the ruined physical creation, apart from the moving of the Spirit of God, all is spiritual darkness.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Making a distinction between "desire" and "motive" simply shows how little we truly understand what sin is.
This is why Scripture tells us that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Phairsees, we will not enter the kingdom.
Why?
Even doing the "right" thing with wrong motive merits the condemnation of  Jehovah!

God looks at the heart. Who can change his own heart?

The regenerated soul differs from the one still in darkness in that once the light has come, he can now desire to do good.
But how to do so, he finds not within himself (Romans 7)
These things are elementary tenets of the faith folks.
Verne

Ahem! Look here, who do you think you are telling me I can't choose to do right?

I chose to pick up these filthy rags, and both God and I say they are righteous!

Of course, we (God and I)disagree about one thing.  He says they are merely man's righteousness, but I say they are good enough, and that He shouldn't be so judgemental.  I chose the right thing and that's worth something!

The verse in Romans that says, "There is none righteous, no not one," doesn't really mean what it says.  What it means is that there are plenty of righteous, if they CHOOSE to be righteous.  You must choose to seek after God, then you are righteous!

(Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "There is none who seeks after God, not even one.)  Ignore anyone who tells you something like this.


Also, it doesn't ever say, "They have all turned aside."  That would mean that everyone turned aside!  How could that be?  

Let's face it, man is free to choose righteousness, and those who seek God become righteous, because they didn't turn aside.

If the above paragraph contradicts a certain chapter in Romans, I suggest that we develop a complicated system of theology to  explain away the "easy" interpretation of these verses.

I like my free will, and I don't desire that anyone take it from me.

Brent

[editor]

Oh, yeah.

One other thing I forgot to mention below.

When the Bible says that we were His enemies, it doesn't mean that we were somehow in a position of enmity with God.  

If that were so, how could we have chosen to be saved?

He loves me, because I first loved Him.  (paraphrased, but you know what I mean)

I was never guided by God.  In fact, I guided Him to me when I decided to seek after Him.  His presence instantly appeared when I said the sinner's prayer.

The problem with reformed theology is that it gives way to much credit to God for my salvation.  Sure, He should get alot, but when you get right down to it, I made the choice.

Brent

[M2]

Verne, re. leaders, IMO most were fresh ground when they became leaders, and were trained by George.  Some were already saved.  Some spoke out because they had some spiritual discernment, but they ended up leaving the system or were pushed out.  Others were deceived.

Those who remain, "choose"   to do so??

Marcia

[vernecarty]

Oh the love that sought me
Oh the blood that bought me
Oh the grace that brought me to the fold
Wondrous grace that brought me to the fold...
Verne