| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2004 7:52:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread has 183 abuse reports. It’s now locked. Maybe you can all get along better on the next thread. |
Posted on 03/10/2004 9:37:27 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
The rest is in God's hands. I generally don't mind seeking help for my brother; but, for myself, I'm not one to put anyone out on my behalf if I can find a way not to. I walked a mile to work in subzero weather last winter and got really ill rather than put anyone out at the last minute. It ended me up in the hospital.
Another hint on how to allow others to do for you ... (what you and I need to learn to do) ... when you are in need of assistance ...... Look for that person (or persons) whom God has positioned (in the right now) to be of service to you.Remember Jethro's advice to Moses.
Is there any reason why you should try and do it all yourself, ... when God has positioned others to help you ?
You should know that we Baptists were around before Augustine.
I must have missed this one. I try to answer every post unless they become redundant.
The rejection of God along with Malachi question; “If God is absolute sovereign why does He allow sin?” are some of the greatest mysteries of the Bible in any denomination. At the risk of sounding trite, no one knows for sure. What is written in the Bible is for our salvation and walk with God. It is not intended to be a historical documentary of Heaven.
Does the Reform doctrine says that humanity was predestined for Hell from the outset. Yes.
On what basis? This is like me asking you of your theological position why a loving God would throw someone into Hell who never was given the opportunity to hear the gospel. There are no real answers.
I don’t know specifically what the Reform doctrine says on this but I can tell you what I believe.
[speculation on]
One of the most interesting questions in my mind is God created the angels as perfect beings and they lived in a perfect environment. What was it that caused a third of them to go bad in a perfect universe? We know from the Old Testament (in Isaiah and Ezekiel) the sin was pride but not how pride entered a perfectly created Satan and the rest in a perfect environment. We also know from Ezekiel 28 that God was not the author of this evil. I think we would also agree that God knew sin would manifest itself in some of these creatures before they were created.
I find it intriguing that the Reform doctrine is essentially a mirror image of this angelic conflict-all humanity are vile and are in Hell to begin with-as opposed to the angels starting out in Heaven. God in His grace saves some-just the opposite of God casting out some of the angels. I’d even go so far as to wonder if 1/3 of humanity will be saved (the same number of angels casted out of Heaven.) I can’t explain how this plan (or your theological position for that matter) justifies the condemnation of Satan & company to Hell for all eternity but we know from scripture God is righteous, merciful and just and it does.
[speculation off]
No one of course really knows. There are certain things that just are not revealed.
Zuck, R. B., Merrill, E. H., & Bock, D. L., A Biblical theology of the Old Testament, Moody Press state it more succinctly than I can
Though the Lord would use Assyria as His instrument of judgment against His people and several of the surrounding nations, He would eventually punish this proud empire (10:5–34; 14:24–25; 30:27–33; 31:4–9). The Assyrian king was nothing but a club in the hand of the Lord, but he arrogantly taunted Jerusalem, suggesting the Lord was unable to deliver His people from the powerful Assyrian army (10:5–14, 32; 36:4–20; 37:9–13, 24–25). Sennacherib’s speeches indicate his belief that he was the sovereign ruler of the world before whom none of the gods of the petty western states could stand (cf. 36:18–20; 37:11–13). The Lord compared this proud king to a tool or weapon trying to brandish its user. Once the Lord had used the Assyrians to complete “his work against Mount Zion” (cf. 10:12; 28:21), He would direct His judgment against them.
As with the other cases, it is the attitude of their hearts
Sorry, I guess I'm not being clear enough. I am familiar with the history. What I am asking is on what basis God judges them, as a proxy for the question "what is sin"? In particular, what is the relationship between sin and God's will?
I rrepeated the question 3 or 4 times to various Calvinists yesterday. I thought I was clear.
SD
Yep. Understand it, too.
Is this true?
You betcha.
That grace is completely under YOUR CONTROL, not Gods You make the decision to go to communion. You are in complete control of that grace ...you decide if you get the grace by going to communion or not You have earned the grace by your action..God is your debtor
That's a perverse understanding. Why not answer what I asked yesterday? When your children came to you for lunch, were you indebted to them to give them food? Did that make them sovereign over you? Did they earn the food? Or did you give them lunch cause they needed it? And you loved them?
You might as well say that if I go out into the rain I have earned the rainwater that falls upon me and God is under my command cause my rainbarrel fills up.
So by clear implication the fall was an ordained plan of God .
So why does God then torment human beings for the consequences of His own plan? If people are born destined for hell, how is that their own fault? Would you contend that an eternity of damnation is a gift from God compared to non-existence?
SD
Well, duh, for us it is a no brainer. Since we affirm that man has a free will. What we are asking is how you can say man has no excuse when he is merely following the nature that he was born with and that God pre-ordained that he would have? What else could man have done, other than what God wanted?
Sin is a violation of A KNOWN LAW of God.
Known by whom? What is the Law of God and how does it differ from God's express will? Do you believe God tells us to do X, but He really pre-ordained that we would do Y? And that we then deserve to die for this?
SD
Infuriating, isn't it? Apparently the separation between church and state only works in one direction.
What about the right of free association of the rest of the church members?
I suppose if they are "forced" to take the malcontents back, and then everyone shuns them, they'll get a judge to forbid that, too.
And I echo Quester. Needing help is providing an opportunity for another to do a good work.
SD
Can you explain how both of these can be true?
It appears that they don't affirm the second proposition. At least I've never heard any do so. My questioning along these lines is repeatedly ignored.
SD
No matter how many times I hear it, it still gives me a chuckle. Thanks. :-)
SD
Sure. But there's a fine line between courageous and foolish.
Who's closest to Indiana?
Ironically, it's probably me. But it's not close enough to drive him to work. ;-)
SD
Ahhh... You finally touched on what I was driving at.
I set up an apparent contradiction:
God is absolutely sovereign.
Sin is contrary to God's will.
As I see it, there are only two possible responses to this:
1. Both of these statements cannot be true.
2. Despite the apparent contradiction, both statements are true; how this can be is a mystery.
Now, Calvinists have asserted a similar apparent contradiction in the free will position:
God is absolutely sovereign.
Man has a truly free will.
Again, there are a number of ways to reconcile them.
1. Both cannot be true (free will is rejected).
2. Both are true; how this can be is a mystery (SoothingDave's position).
3. God's sovereignty allows for man's free will (my position).
I personally find the latter pair of propositions to be less problematic. In either case, though, you ultimately reach a point where you have to say that the ultimate resolution of the contradiction is a mystery beyond our understanding. And that you accept the truth of both of the propositions as axiomatic, rather than attempting to prove them.
Good summation. I would say, however, that #3 and #2 don't necessarily or always conflict. Or for that matter, I can even see where #1 (free will being curtailed or highly "influenced") doesn't conflict. Both number 3 and number 1 can be true at times in service to the position of #2.
Of course that's what you get for embracing a duality as a mystery. :-)
SD
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.