|
Post by melinky on Feb 9, 2005 22:08:07 GMT -5
I can agree with that... ...I think
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 10, 2005 1:21:58 GMT -5
Actually...God chooses...we choose...be careful of creating contingencies that the Bible does not explicitly set forth. Hope that is somewhat clearer. In the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 10, 2005 16:33:14 GMT -5
Actually...God chooses...we choose...be careful of creating contingencies that the Bible does not explicitly set forth. Hope that is somewhat clearer. In the name of Jesus Christ, Matthew (soulfyre) So, do you believe in the "horse and the fenced in yard" theory? What do you mean God chooses and we choose?
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 10, 2005 18:03:20 GMT -5
Sorry to be late in the game here. I was out of town on business a couple of days. Perhaps this following post that I made a couple years ago on the "Baptist Board" will contribute where I am on the issue of the eternal decrees of God. In short, I believe that reformed compatibilism is the teaching of the Bible period. End of story. I find no other solution to be adequately based in serious exegesis of the didactic portions of scripture. They all start with philosophy and then may throw in a couple non-didactic scriptures to show how their view can be found in the Bible. See William Lane Craig's defense of middle knowledge in "Only Wise God" and you'll see what I mean... That being said, as Matthew referred to earlier, I find that supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism both suffer ultimately from lack of solid scriptural support. That's not saying both historic reformed positions don't bring scripture to the table. I'm merely asserting that the Bible doesn't tackle this issue head on and the scriptures do not seem to me to compell any one answer. That being said, here's part of the post I made before that is still representative of a solution I think appears to be consistent with Biblical testimony, yet 100% compatibilist and predestinarian in nature and fully protects the free will of God (who is the only being in existence with true libertarian free will). Here it is: ---------------------------------------- There are two traditional streams of thought in reformed theology on this. The technical names if you choose to look it up are supralapsarianism (what you described) and infralapsarianism (God has mercy on whom he has mercy and passes over the rest who would never have come to him. Nobody would be saved if he didn't choose to have mercy on us). Please do a careful study on Romans 9:8-23 and you will see the centerpiece of centuries of argument. For a good summary of these views I will recommend a quick read from Philip Johnson's article at this web page. I am very influenced these days by John Feinberg. I will quote from John S. Feinberg's book "No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God" some serious issues I have with the basis of the positions you will find well laid out on Philip Johnson's site: " ... God as omniscient would see a whole interconnected possible world at once; in fact, he would see all possible worlds at once, and then choose to create none of them or to actualize one of them. Hence, God doesn't choose to create Adam, and then decide that Adam will sin; nor does God choose first to save Adam, and then decide to create him, and yet in a further (logically speaking) choice decide that he will sin. Rather God sees Adam as part of a whole interconnected possible world. ... But in choosing to actualize any given possible world he would already see Adam and everyone else as sinners or not, and either as saved or not. In worlds with sin which is paid for by Christ's atonement, God would see at once all the sinners, saved and unsaved, along with Christ's sacrifice. There simply is no logical sequence of choices to construct when what God chooses is a whole world, not individual events, actions, etc. Hence it is worng to ask whether God decreed first (logically) to create human beings, to save the elect, or whatever." There is much, much more too this than this little snippet, but I am currently leary of the very question itself. As you get into the discussion you will soon come to understand why Calvin spent like two pages in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion" warning people not to get carried away trying to understand the secrets of God. --------------------------- So do I have more to say on the topic now a couple years later? You bet! ;D But I think the quote from John Feinberg's "No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God" is a good starting point for where I am today. Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 10, 2005 18:44:45 GMT -5
So, do you believe in the "horse and the fenced in yard" theory? What do you mean God chooses and we choose? He means just that. God chooses and we choose. The Bible simply doesn't resolve the issue as well as man would like. Man wants to be autonomous. "Auto" means "self" and "nomous" comes from the root meaning "law". Man wants to be a law unto himself. There is no room in man's worldview for an omniscient, omnipotent God who works all things in accordance with His perfect will (Eph 1:11). Man still wants his independance and seeks to limit God at all costs. Below I have pasted in my case for the Bible's teaching of compatibilism from another thread on this board. I feel strongly that all discussions of this nature must look first to clear statements of scripture. Starting out with a colloquialism that sounds good to our ears is nothing short of dangerous. ----------------------------- When discussing this area I personally like to look first at what the Bible says regarding the relationship of God to our actions. I like to address this before addressing the state of man's heart in his fallen nature. Hopefully the reasons will become clear as I go. Two proverbs that I have looked at with great interest over the last few years are: Proverbs 16:1 - The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.Proverbs 16:9 - The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps. While these proverbs may cause a lot of further questions, the ultimate point seems to me to be conclusive. We act in accord with what we desire to do in our hearts, but the Lord has determined how, when and where we will do it. I believe we see these proverbs clearly reflected in God's word in a couple of events. My first example is Joseph speaking to his brothers at the end of Genesis: Gen 50:19-20 - But Joseph said to them, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."Here we see the hearts of the brothers and God sovereignly directing events, in accord with their heart's desire. And again in Isaiah 10. Isaiah 10:5-7 - " Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few." Here we see that God is using the evil intentions of the hearts of the Assyrians and directing it in accord with his perfect purpose of judgement against Israel. Not only is he doing this, but he will then turn around and judge Assyria for it because their purpose wasn't God's purpose, but evil all along. Isaiah 10:12 - " When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes." I would also point to Acts 2 as the ultimate working out of the proverbs with which I began this post. God clearly predestined this to happen (Acts 2:23), but everyone is still guilty and we behaving in accord with their hearts at every point in the process. I believe these key passages conclusively make the case for compatibilism between God's predestinating purposes and man's will which is focused upon the heart. At the same time I believe they are devastating passages to the philisophical concept of "Libertarian Free Will". -------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Matthew's contention " be careful of creating contingencies that the Bible does not explicitly set forth." I'll only listen with interest and ponder with interest metaphysical philosophies that appear to be consistent with this clear teaching of compatibilism. Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 10, 2005 22:21:22 GMT -5
He means just that. God chooses and we choose. The Bible simply doesn't resolve the issue as well as man would like. Man wants to be autonomous. "Auto" means "self" and "nomous" comes from the root meaning "law". Man wants to be a law unto himself. There is no room in man's worldview for an omniscient, omnipotent God who works all things in accordance with His perfect will (Eph 1:11). Man still wants his independance and seeks to limit God at all costs. Below I have pasted in my case for the Bible's teaching of compatibilism from another thread on this board. I feel strongly that all discussions of this nature must look first to clear statements of scripture. Starting out with a colloquialism that sounds good to our ears is nothing short of dangerous. ----------------------------- When discussing this area I personally like to look first at what the Bible says regarding the relationship of God to our actions. I like to address this before addressing the state of man's heart in his fallen nature. Hopefully the reasons will become clear as I go. Two proverbs that I have looked at with great interest over the last few years are: Proverbs 16:1 - The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.Proverbs 16:9 - The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps. While these proverbs may cause a lot of further questions, the ultimate point seems to me to be conclusive. We act in accord with what we desire to do in our hearts, but the Lord has determined how, when and where we will do it. I believe we see these proverbs clearly reflected in God's word in a couple of events. My first example is Joseph speaking to his brothers at the end of Genesis: Gen 50:19-20 - But Joseph said to them, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."Here we see the hearts of the brothers and God sovereignly directing events, in accord with their heart's desire. And again in Isaiah 10. Isaiah 10:5-7 - " Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few." Here we see that God is using the evil intentions of the hearts of the Assyrians and directing it in accord with his perfect purpose of judgement against Israel. Not only is he doing this, but he will then turn around and judge Assyria for it because their purpose wasn't God's purpose, but evil all along. Isaiah 10:12 - " When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes." I would also point to Acts 2 as the ultimate working out of the proverbs with which I began this post. God clearly predestined this to happen (Acts 2:23), but everyone is still guilty and we behaving in accord with their hearts at every point in the process. I believe these key passages conclusively make the case for compatibilism between God's predestinating purposes and man's will which is focused upon the heart. At the same time I believe they are devastating passages to the philisophical concept of "Libertarian Free Will". -------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Matthew's contention " be careful of creating contingencies that the Bible does not explicitly set forth." I'll only listen with interest and ponder with interest metaphysical philosophies that appear to be consistent with this clear teaching of compatibilism. Yours In Christ, Ron Thanks for the verses. So, how would you go about trying to persuade someone that believes in 100% predestination, everything we do God makes us do? Just give them this verse: Proverbs 16:9 - The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps. ? lol
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 11, 2005 1:06:03 GMT -5
I do believe that Proverbs 16:9 is one of the best Biblical ways to end a discussion concerning what God "makes" man do. But always say it with a slightly inscrutible but otherwise beatific smile (I've always found the appearance of absolute piety an incredible tool in ending arguments!) ;D Oh...now there I've gone and revealed a professional secret that they teach us in seminary! God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 11, 2005 1:27:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the verses. So, how would you go about trying to persuade someone that believes in 100% predestination, everything we do God makes us do? Just give them this verse: Proverbs 16:9 - The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps. ? lol Hmmm... Do you think I'm using this argument against predestination? I'm not, I'm using it in support of absolute predestination. But I'm doing so to demonstrate that "God chooses" AND "man chooses" is not a contradiction, but that the two concepts are "compatible" with one another (hence the term compatibilism). In regards to the argument of compatibilism as a whole, one verse is never enough. On this board, however, I have given countless different angles and arguments to support the truth of every verse of Ephesians 1:1-2:10. That being said, I absolutely do believe this to be a powerful verse in support of what Matthew said earlier which is what I was seeking to expound upon. Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 11, 2005 1:30:32 GMT -5
I do believe that Proverbs 16:9 is one of the best Biblical ways to end a discussion concerning what God "makes" man do. But always say it with a slightly inscrutible but otherwise beatific smile (I've always found the appearance of absolute piety an incredible tool in ending arguments!) ;D Oh...now there I've gone and revealed a professional secret that they teach us in seminary! God bless and keep you, Matthew (soulfyre) I don't see any other way of interpreting it and the other proverbs and direct statements by God Himself on the matter. And thank you for giving us lay people the insight as to what they are REALLY teaching you guys in seminary! ;D Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Feb 14, 2005 2:43:25 GMT -5
Hi Kenny, I know you didn't ask the following of me:
...but I thought I'd give you my reply anyway. Some of what I say will probably be repetitions of what others have already said.
I would usually love discussing this with terms like Infralapsarianism and Supralapsariamism and other words I have to look up to spell, but today horses seem much more interesting to me. You said:
I don't agree with everything you say here, but I do agree that God restrains mankind so that we cannot sin in every way possible. If it is God's will to keep someone from committing a certain sin he restrains them. Lets say there's this horse in the Edenic Corral. The rancher told this horse not to eat the apples that fall from the tree in the midst of the corral. This rancher can see the future... he knew that the horse would eat the fallen fruit before he even built the fence around the tree. It if was his will he could have restrained the horse by making sure the tree was outside the fence. If it was his will, the horse would not sin. Was it God's will that Adam not sin?
You said:
First off, Amen on that last part: "Why did God create us? So that we can bring him Glory, that's what we are made for..." I agree 100%. The goal of God's plan is to glorify himself. God did not, in his plan, choose to glorify himself by restraining all sin. He chose to use the free acts of creatures to accomplish his will (when I use the word "free" here I mean when man is free to actually do what he wants to do). This is where compatiblism comes in to play.
Compatibilism simply means that man is free to to what he wants when his will matches God's will, whether or not his motives are the same as God's. God's motive is to glorify himself in any act he wills, and man's will can be to either glorify God or his own self in any act that he wills. When God and man will to do the same act, regardless of whether their motives are the same, man is free to do it. If man wills an act that is not in God's will, man is restrained–he is fenced in.
An example of God restraining is this: Joseph's brothers wanted to kill Joseph. They said, "let us now kill him" (Gen. 37:19), but they were not free to do it. It was not God's will. It was not how God chose to glorify himself. He chose to glorify himself in Christ coming and dying. Christ would come as a child of Abraham in order to save Abraham's children (Heb 2:14-17) and he would be born of the line of Judah. So if Joseph's brothers killed Joseph, then Joseph would have never gone to Egypt, which means Egypt would have been taken over by the famine, which means that Jacob's children would have starved with no food, which means that there would be no children of Abraham left for Christ to save, and since Judah would be dead, Christ would not be born of Mary. God would not be glorified in Christ if Joseph was dead. So what happened? God willed that Mary's ancestor, Judah speak up and say, “Let us not kill him... Come and let us sell him” (Gen. 37:21, 27). Although it was not God's will for them to sin by killing Joseph, it was his will that they sin by selling him (this sin ultimately glorified God in Christ), so they were not restrained. This is compatibilism, and it is perfectly described by Joseph to his brothers:
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today" (Genesis 50:20).
This story is a perfect example of freedom and restraint. It is a horse in the corral. God gives man the freedom to do the things God freely chooses, and God restrains man from committing sin that is outside of his plan. These notes of freedom do not oppose predestination, they harmonize with it. Nothing happens apart from the will of God. Nothing happens apart from his design. Nothing happens outside of his control.
You said,
Although I don't believe that this makes us robots, I do believe that he predestines everything that ever takes place, including sin. That God predestines sin can be seen clearly from scripture. All we have to do is look at the greatest act of sin that has ever been accomplished. The most wicked and immoral act that mankind ever committed was predestined by God. Note the following prayer from Acts. They begin by calling God sovereign. Then they tell us that he was sovereign in creating the heavens and earth. Then they say that God is sovereign in that he raised up people "against" Jesus, predestinating their very actions in crucifying our Lord:
"And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, 'Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed"--for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place'" (Acts 4:24-28).
They could not crush or wound or kill him apart from the will of God. Isaiah tells us Christ was sinned against by man: "[he] was despised and rejected by men... he was wounded ...he was crushed" but this was the will of God: "it was the will of the LORD to crush him... he has put him to grief..." he was "stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted." Thus we can see that their evil actions were predestinated. They were raised up by God "to do whatever [his] hand and [his] plan had predestined." It was God's will for them to do these actions, and it was also their will to do these actions. God and mankind willed the same action, and so they were free to do it. They were not restrained as they were on other occasions (such as the account in Luke 4:29,30. God's plan was not that Christ die off a cliff for our sins, so they were not free to commit that sin.)
So mankind willed and killed Christ to glorify themselves, God willed and killed Christ to glorify himself. God was completely righteous and just to predestinate this act, and those whose motives were to glorify themselves over God were not "robots" but were free to do what God wanted them to do.
I know that I have not here answered the question of how this exactly works (and I am also probably defining "freedom" in a different way than you were). I am more interested in just showing that scripture says these things are true. I have many questions about these things, but I believe what scripture says even though I am not always sure in my understanding of how various truths fit together exactly. -KC
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 14, 2005 17:16:41 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, I am thinking that I believe the same as you though, I was just not as articulate as you were expressing it.
I am not sure what you don't agree with though.
Obviously, it was God's will for Adam to sin. Obviously God wanted suffering in the world so that he could glorify himself all the more.
Since predestination is the doctrine that God has foreordained all things which will come to pass yet He is not the author of sin. He does, however, use sinful things for His glory and purpose. For example, the crucifixion was brought about by sinful men who unjustly put Jesus to death (Acts 4:27); yet, in that death, we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10). Predestination maintains that God is the one who decides who will be saved and that it is not up to the desire of the person. God is the one who ordains the Christian into forgiveness, "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Also, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and who He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified" (Rom. 8:29-30). Further verses to examine are Eph. 1:4,11; Rom. 9. (See also Election and Sovereignty.)
In Romans 9:16 it says: So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it. 17 For the Scriptures say that god told Pharaoh, "I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth."
Paul quotes from Exodus 9:16, where God foretold how Pharaoh would be used to declare God's power. Paul uses this argument to show that salvation was God's work, not people's work. God's judgment on Pharaoh's choice to resist God was to confirm that sin and harden his heart. The consequences of Pharaoh's rebellion would be his own punishment.
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Feb 16, 2005 14:20:16 GMT -5
You said:
Sorry, I meant I didn't agree with everything in your post, such as thinking that predestination makes us robots (I know that was confusing the way I wrote it). Your fenced-in-horse idea appears to me to be a way of harmonizing scriptures that might otherwise appear to contradict one another. I thought that your own Corral idea was a good way to show that predestination can be true & yet not make us robots.
Amen! Glory be to God alone!
If you think of this using the horse-in-the-fence, Pharoah, due to being born in sin, if left to freely roam, would have hardened his heart in every way he turned. There would have been no fence to restrain him at all. But God restrains all men (common grace) and so there were ways in which Pharaoh's heart was not as hard as it could be. For instance, he mourned for his son when his son died, showing that his heart was not completely hardened in this way. God could have hardened Pharaoh in this way by moving his fence out a little, but Pharaoh's love toward his son was God's will because Pharaoh would command Israel to leave based on it (when his son was killed). It was, however, God's will to harden Pharaoh's heart in regard to letting the people of Israel go based on God's command (not his love for his son). We can see that God was restraining Pharaoh from being as evil as he could be toward Israel–when God hardened Pharaoh's heart Pharaoh made the people of Israel work harder. This shows that Pharaoh's heart was not as hard as it could be. God was restraining him to a certain extent. Then compatibilism comes into play. When it was Pharaoh's will to harden his heart in this way, and it was also God's will to harden Pharaoh's heart in this way, God stopped restraining him in this way. He moved the fence out a little.
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 18, 2005 4:03:06 GMT -5
Obviously, it was God's will for Adam to sin. Obviously God wanted suffering in the world so that he could glorify himself all the more.... I believe we should show great care in drawing conclusions concerning God's eternal decree (including the mechanism of predestination). There is also a tendency among our Reformed brethren to emphasize God's glory to the virtual exclusion of His love, which appears to be the overriding characteristic of God as attributed by John in His epistles. I would be uncomfortable speculating the God "wanted suffering in the world so that He could glorify Himself all the more." While this may, in fact, seem logical, it does rather make God seem [God forgive my use of words] an ogre whose apparent arrogance delights in human suffering. This is the inevitable problem of attempting to encapsulate the Infinite Eternal in words limited by our own human experience. We must not dare to presume beyond what the scripture sets forth. Didn't Jesus weep over Jerusalem? Did he not, on the cross, say, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"? Are we to suppose that He spoke of and to only the "elect"? Such a conclusion might be "logical", but we must take care that it doesn't spring from a Western rationalism that ill befits the mystery of holiness. Actually, we must differentiate between what me might logically conclude that predestination-foreordination mean, and the manner in which predestination-foreordination are used in the Bible. William Klein, in his book, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, argues cogently that words such as "election" and "predestination" tend to be used in a particular sense when referring to His purposing individuals to perform certain functions, but tend to be used corporately when referring to salvation (as in a "chosen people"). His careful work bears equally careful consideration. When dealing with "all things", I think it is far better to maintain a humble "agnosticism", realizing that the human mind can scarce encompass the manner in which the Infinite God interacts with his creation. I realize that this may seem inadequate, but if we deny God's sovereignty, we deny God, making Him effectively dependent upon His creation. But if we deny the true significance and unconstrained choice of the human being, then man effectively becomes a puppet, and the imago dei becomes a mere taunt, rather than a majestic reality. To maintain both, without feeling the necessity to explain one in terms of the other, reflects what I believe to be a healthy respect for our essential creatureliness, and humility before our loving creator whose love is His preeminent glory. God bless and keep you always, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Feb 18, 2005 14:12:08 GMT -5
Kenny said this: To which you responded: Let me know what you mean regarding his comment... I definitely think we should always show care in drawing our conclusions. I have to admit, I have a hard time taking off my reformed glasses and seeing why someone would not agree to Kenny's statement here (OK, I'll admit it. The real reason I can't take my Reformed glasses off it that I had Reformed Lazik surgery). I'll be your Mary and you can be my Laura Ingalls Wilder. Tell me 'cause I can't see! I'll list what I think I see, and you tell me the specific concerns you see: First he said, "Obviously, it was God's will for Adam to sin." We don't have to speculate about much of what God has decreed because it has happened. Although our knowledge of the past may be flawed, God's knowledge is not, and he told us through scripture that Adam sinned in the past. Hence Kenny said it was "obvious." Why is it obvious? Not because we are trying to pry into pre-temporal thought. It is evident in time. It is also evident in time that God could have chosen to restrain him (as in the examples in scripture where he restrained others) but God did not will to do so. It was not God's will to keep Adam from sinning. Then Kenny said, "Obviously God wanted suffering in the world so that he could glorify himself all the more...." Although I am tempted to say, "God didn't decree suffering in order to glorify himself less" I'll try a different approach. You focused on love in your response, and so I will too. 1) God has chosen to glorify himself by his love. 2) Suffering is from sin. So I am going to phrase the statement this way: "Obviously God wanted sin in the world to glorify his love all the more." Here are your comments about love: Does it glorify God's love "all the more" that he show love to those who love him, or to sinners? We don't have to speculate, Jesus told us clearly: "Love your enemies... if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them... He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful" (Luke 6:27-36). No, it glorifies God all the more that he loves his enemies. God loves those who love him (which brings him glory) but he also loves sinners (which brings him even more glory). This was his decree before time, which we know because it was manifest in time: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). And: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." So, we can see from history that it was obviously not God's will to restrain all sin. We ask "why?" and we can see that scripture answers that it brings more glory to God, and one way is through the glory of his love toward sinners. Let me know specifically what you see in this that concerns you. -------- On another note, you said, "There is also a tendency among our Reformed brethren to emphasize God's glory to the virtual exclusion of His love." Being reformed I feel the need to respond to this. This is not the type of statement that can be shown to be correct or incorrect in its meaning because it is making a category error (at least through my reformed eyes). To me it is like saying that someone could emphasize God's glory at the expense of his wisdom or justice. It just doesn't make sense. Wisdom, justice, and love are a part of God's glory. His exercise of these attributes glorifies him. So in effect you are saying, "There is also a tendency among our Reformed brethren to emphasize God's glory to the virtual exclusion of His glory." If you could rephrase this that would be great. God bless, KC
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 20, 2005 0:59:32 GMT -5
Just a note to let you know I am working on a thoughtful response to your equally thoughtful response. And, as usual, your keen eye and reasoning cause me to review my thoughts and correct my inevitable inaccuracies. I will post my response probably later Sunday (3-20). God bless and keep you, my brother, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|