Posted on 01/20/2002 5:02:48 PM PST by CCWoody
Of course there is such a verse. Such a conversion requires a prior act of God:
Jeremiah 24:7 And I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.
Thanks!
Actually, what I find offensive is that WM claims that such beliefs are Christian!
Thanks woody, I have one more for you
Matthew 5
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Amen Amen and Amen!!
This does answer your question. Does God love some more than others? It says that He doesn't show favortism or partiality.
Think about it, Mom. If that verse is LITERALLY true, then God by His very nature CANNOT treat one human better than another. Therefore, if this verse is true, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to arbitrarily send some to heaven and some to hell. There must, then, be some basis for any action that would send one to heaven and another to hell. It cannot be "just because He's sovereign," because that's the same as saying He arbitrarily chooses and that not possible based on the verse.
The Bible gives a possible answer about what reason would make legitimate God's sending some to heaven and some to hell. If they choose to believe in His Son, "as many as received Him to them He gave power to become sons of God."
Now, let's say you don't like my answer about "receiving Him." That's OK. But it doesn't solve YOUR dilemma.
The Bible is clear that God doesn't show partiality or favortism. Can't argue with it. You must reconcile that with so-called "sovereign selection." That is not an easy task. How do you do it in a way that takes "God does not show favortism" at face value?
(Didn't know half-Calvinists could be trekkies!! LOL. :-)
Did God create the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Did He place it in the garden? If your answer to these questions is yes, then you must believe that the Tree was there for a good purpose.
Genesis 6:6 Genesis 6 Genesis 6:5-7 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
This shows that humans can misuse what God has declared to be good. And it shows that God loved the world so much that His heart was saddened. It also shows that God reflects on His decisions.
Anthropomorphism? You're sounding like a liberal college professor instead of a Bible believing Christian, Mom. If the Bible says it, and I've got no contextual reason to "spiritualize" it, then I believe what it says.
Hosea 6: 6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. 7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-- they were unfaithful to me there.
You left one out verse from the above selections I sent you. I agree; it was a tough one. It clearly shows that God had a covenant with Adam. What was that covenant? The only one mentioned in the entire bible is the simple command NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
First, this proves man was created with free will. (Which should be obvious since we're made in the image of God and God has free will.)
The tree was good. It was misused. Adam broke his contract with God. He did it knowingly and willfully of the free choice given him by God. His punishment because of that choice was death.
Did God know ahead of time that Adam would fall? I'd say yes because we're told that "The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world?"
BUT
Did God create Adam with free will? The answer must be yes, because he was made in the image of God.
So the real question becomes: "Why did God allow creation to go ahead knowing that there would be a lot of tragedy resulting from a host of bad choices through time....anger, hatred, sorrow, lostness?
Answers
1. To achieve the Bride.
2. To give his only begotten Son.
3. To ensure all heaven and all eternity knew his judgement of those fallen ones, to include Satan, was entirely, irrefutably, undeniably just.
You said that you admit that you don't have all the answers. Neither do I.
But you also said that for the natural man to grasp the things of God is impossible....until he has a spirit.
But before the era of the spirit there were men who heard from God. Not just when men were under the law. Not just those of the Abrahamic covenant.
But God spoke to men and men responded to God. The method of responding to God that Paul explains in Rom 2 is probably the method. God left a communication device, a remnant of the image, inside us.
That's silliness. I mean, it doesn't even make sense.
When Paul quotes "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." it answers the question regarding the Gentiles, but it still means the same thing it did in Psalms. Through all the earth and all languages. Paul's response has a broader message.
J. Ronald Blue's words are much clearer than mine. (Chairman and Associate Professor of World Missions, Dallas Theological Seminary.) I clipped the relevent parts from an article of his:
Scripture confirms that God indeed does abandon or give up those who, not knowing of Christ’s redemption, have suppressed divine truth. God has revealed the nature of His arrangements in Scripture.
The only valid resolution to the seeming dilemma over the state of the unevangelized is to be found in God’s Word. All other solutions are mere conjecture. Man’s attempt to bridge the gap between a holy God and a depraved human race is a part of that continuing conjecture. The average unbeliever makes God a little less “hard and judgmental” and thereby a little less righteous and just than He really is. The average Christian makes man a little more “sincere and searching” and thereby more righteous than he really is. These futile attempts to bring God down or to lift man up are shattered by Scripture.
Paul makes it very clear in the opening section of his letter to the Romans that all men are by nature sinners and all stand under God’s just retribution. Already under condemnation, no one has any rights before an almighty God. This is not some new truth. Paul quotes the Old Testament to show that “there is none righteous, not even one...there is none who seeks for God”
Paul makes it clear that God’s revelation has been both penetrating and persistent. He explains that the truth of God has been revealed to all men. Those who have never heard of Christ nonetheless know of God. Consequently man is held inexcusable (Rom 1:20).
There is sufficient knowledge for each person to be criminally liable for sin. The issue therefore is not that the unevangelized have not put their trust in a Person of whom they have never heard, but that they have suppressed the truth they have both received and understood.
No matter how isolated a man may be from the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel of Jesus Christ, that man is entirely without excuse. God might be charged with injustice were He to send people to hell on the basis of their failure to respond to revelation they have never received. His judgment is not on unrevealed truth but on the clear revelation received and rejected by those who are condemned.
Paul’s argument in Romans not only outlines the basis of God’s judgment but shows that God does not send people to destruction, He simply lets them go on that self-designed course. It is abundantly clear that God has judged the unevangelized billions of the world. His judgment is just. It is based on revelation clearly received and willfully refused by the defendant. His sentence is fair. It is a release by God for man to pursue his own destruction and eternal death.
Contrary to the restricted views that Paul is simply describing the moral condition of the pagan world when he wrote the letter to the Romans, or that Paul presents in Romans 1:18-32 a theological interpretation of the religious history of the nations as it took place after the dispersion of the people from Babylon as recorded in Genesis 11:1-9,31 the extent of Paul’s arguments are clearly of a broader scope. He is speaking of mankind universally.
***
I hope you find some value in this.
Peace,
JWinNC
Adam's physical body, yes. If you are interested in the background on that, see my #1292 (the three big paragraphs), and LDS Topical Guide: Council in Heaven (click any of the links or scroll down to the end of the page and click the Display References button).
I normally don't post all this LDS stuff on a Calvinist thread, but Woody is in attack mode and RnMom is asking all these questions.
We had been told all along that the day would come, we didn't know when, when all worthy male members would hold the priesthood, and how anxiously we looked forward to that day. When it came, in June 1978, we all were jumping-up-and-down delighted! To my knowledge, we still don't know why the Lord wanted it that way, or why in the Savior's time the Gospel was preached only to the Jews until they rejected their Messiah, at which time the Gospel went to the Gentiles.
Regarding the rest of your post, see my #1434 to RnMom.
And our doctrine most definitely is Christian, not as Catholics or Protestants define it, but as the Only One Whose Opinion Really Counts defines it. But not to worry. Everyone of every stripe is denounced as non-Christian by somebody around here.
This does answer your question. Does God love some more than others? It says that He doesn't show favortism or partiality.
Amen. Romans 2:11 says it all and totally refutes the concept that God is only saving some of the people arbitrarily.
Our own free will allows us to decide whether to accept God's gift or to reject it. God allows everyone the chance to accept it or reject it.
It is so clear that strict calvinistic electionists have a tremendous hurdle to overcome when they have to deal with the BIBLICAL revelations about the nature of God.
God does not show favortism or partiality. That's clear.
We cannot say, "Well, everyone deserves hell." If that's so, then the ONLY response that wouldn't violate the "God doesn't show partiality" rule would be for God to PUT everyone in hell.
To arbitrarily decide that some go in and some don't is to violate the "partiality provision."
Therefore, we must come up with some different basis for God's sending some to hell and some to heaven.
The bible says its on the basis of "whoever received Him, to THEM gave he power to become the sons of God." That isn't based on partiality as long as all who choose have entirely unrestricted abilities to choose God or to not choose God. They must be able to WANT God or to not WANT God. That is true free choice.
To say that God made some so that they cannot WANT Him is again to violate the "no partiality" provision.
Thanks for being aboard as a supporter of free will.
Everyone?
How about the millions who have gone to their graves having never heard the Gospel? What "chance" did they get?
We have no problems with believing that all men deserve Hell, and that God is not showing partiality by electing some to salvation.
This is due to the fact that God elects irrespective of any merit in humans. He selects from a population of totally undone, totally flawed and worthless humans who are only fit for damnation. He is "no respector of persons" in that He chooses without respect for any (non-existent) value in those persons. This is a cornerstone of the doctrine of election, and something that should be acknowledged by anyone attempting to understand our position.
"To say that God made some so that they cannot WANT Him is again to violate the "no partiality" provision."
That is not what we say. He created us in His own image, it was our fall in Adam that made it impossible to please Him. He, in accordance to the pleasure of His will, chose to save some, irrespective of merit ("for by grace you have been saved"). No fallen man "wants" to please God, he needs the work of the Holy Spirit to change his "want to's".
Please represent our position fairly, or take the time to learn, it prior to condemning it.
You state: "They must be able to WANT God or to not WANT God. That is true free choice."
We affirm that man is free to WANT God or to not WANT God. However, he doesn't WANT to WANT God.
You also state: "Thanks for being aboard as a supporter of free will."
Do I also get thanked?
Jerry, we both believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. So many of your points, for instance, those derived from the passage about God hardening Pharaoh's heart, very CORRECTLY demand of Christians that they read that verse at face value.
It is not possible to say you're using a face value interpretation of "God does not show favortism" when you have to shuck and jive around it with this "all men deserve hell" approach. That explains it entirely away as if it didn't exist. It's a contortion of language brought about by attempting to make the words fit a philosophy rather than letting them speak for themselves.
Above, I've admitted that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is a weakness in the free will argument. So are the verses about potters making faulty vessels in Romans.
But I cannot ignore verses that say there's choice. I cannot ignore verses that say that God does not show favortism. I will champion them so they will not be forgotten.
I'd far prefer to find a group of honest Christians, who banded together as brothers in Christ, would affirm ALL of these scriptures and STUDY AND PRAY that God enlighten us with a correct understanding of these apparently contradictory passages.
I believe with all my heart that there is an understanding that ties them all together literally, appropriately, unarguably, and peacefully. Let us pray for that day.
Oh, Father, that you would raise a group of brethren who cherish your words as you've written them, who would open themselves again to you, so that the Truth on this subject would become apparent and would become easily explainable to those who need your salvation. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
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.