Posted on 08/23/2003 3:48:39 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
Actually, I was taken aback by it myself.
I got it out of Vance,(p.300) who quoted it from Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers
As for no Calvinists on FR singing that song, that I would disagree with, I think at least a few would.
No, that is an explaination of a position.
I do not think the Calvinist theologians have any problem defining love or justice.
Thus, when they come to why God is Decreeing some to be saved and others not they have to appeal to a secret Counsel that is not revealed in Scripture yet does not contradict those attributes.
I got it out of Vance,(p.300) who quoted it from Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers
So you've never heard it yourself. Are you just trying to incite? May I suggest that we take the discussion back to the Word of God. I'd still like to see your exegesis of John 6:35-65.
BS?
What is that suppose to stand for?
From a Christian!
What are you so upset about, I wasn't thinking of you!
I will not name them because it is my opinion of what they believe but I do believe I have a right to my own opinion do I not?
How is that definition flawed if it is Biblical?
So, you saying what God defines in the Bible as being fair is really not true at all, that God can contradict that view of fairness and still be fair?
I accept both Arminian definitions of Justice and Love as stated above and do not regard them 'flawed'.
What is 'flawed' is when the Calvinist goes to the Decrees he has to contradict what he has just stated in his definitions of God's attributes, or run to a secret counsel that explains away the contradictions between what is revealed and what is 'hidden' in the Decrees.
Augustine described it as the 'inscrutable Justice' of God.
So, we cannot really understand these attributes as they are revealed to us?
On that basis Christianity becomes just another mystery religion, not a revealed one.
14But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.
You KJV-Onlyists prefer BD to BS?
(1Thess.5:22)
I was hoping that you were not saying what it appeared you were saying and I am glad you were not.
But using Barbara Streisand (intials) name on FR is quite a sin in and of itself!
***I will not name them because it is my opinion of what they believe but I do believe I have a right to my own opinion do I not?*** If you don't have the courage to name names, why not keep your generic accusations/libel to yourself?
Now what 'libel is there if no names are mentioned?
Now, it would not take 'courage' to state what is my opinion on what others think.
However,I have a good basis for thinking that they are happy that people are going to hell, as would any consistent Calvinist since it is for the glory of God, is it not?
That most Calvinists would not stand up for the Glory of God and His rightful wrath against the unregenerate who deserve the fate that the Sovereign God has Decreed for them shows your own inconsistency with Calvinism, not theirs.
I believe they are consistent Calvinists who take Calvinism for what it logically states, that the wrath of God is for the Glory of God and thus those going to the Lake of Fire have been chosen for that fate for the same reason that the elect were chosen for their fate, for the Glory of God.
That is the view of Double-Predestination and of John Calvin.
I own the Vance Book and have for years. But the truth of the word still brought me to the Doctrines of Grace. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (not Vance)
I know exactly what you said and said that they were not flawed.
I also rejected your notion that believers measure God by our standard of fairness, but rather they measure it by the standard of fairness revealed to them in scripture. (Matt.7:11)
"God's love requires affording all the ability to accept or reject it."
[1] Can the Son reject the Father's Love? or vice versa? [2] Do we have the option to reject God's love in heaven? If not, how can He love us there?
So we are to compare what occurs within the Trinity with the relationship that the Trinity has with its creation who are not infinite?
Where does Sovereignity exist within the Trinity?
All members are co-equal and co-eternal and equal in every attribute.
So I guess we can reject Sovereignity as an attribute we have to relate to as well.
As for heaven, it is like marriage.
I made a choice to enter into it, the choices are now over due to my one choice.
I had the freedom to make that choice which meant giving up 'choosing' anything other again.
We often make choices for happiness that entails giving up certain 'freedoms'.
Freedom is a means to find happiness, thus, the giving up of it for happiness is wisdom.
Want to restate your position?
So, when do we get to how many angels can dance on the head of the pin?
Save your 'clever' arguments for the members of the Cabal, they are impressed with that scholastic nonsense, frankly, I am not.
No need to.
You got your views from 'Doc' who convinced you that you were smart enough to reject what scripture actually taught.
No, because humans are not God, so God has to give them free will (which He did not have to give Himself) and then God has to maintain sovereignity over that same creation (which He doesn't have to do with Himself either)
Thus, God attributes reflect what He is, they neither exhaust what He is, nor contradict what He is.
Since God was not sovereign within the Trinity (it not being necessary)we must not really be able to understand sovereignty either.
The only 'Dualism' is that of Calvinism that makes appeals to 'hidden purposes' and 'secret counsels' and makes God a 'mystery God', not a relationship God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.