Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
So God loves everyone?
Scripture tells us otherwise. I urge you to read the Bible more often. It's all there. To say God loved Judas, who was the "son of perdition" and not a son of God, is to actually demean the love God has for His elect.
God's justice condemns all men. God's mercy saves some men. His love is not so ineffectual that it does not accomplish exactly what He wills.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:13,15-16"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
I notice you guys seldom, if ever, post Scripture to support your assertions.
That should tell you something. Return to the Bible and read for yourself. It's all there.
Did God love Esau, too? Please cite Scripture, along with a link to an authoritative source for your offered interpretation, for your answer.
Astounding, yes. But totally scriptural.
And some don't wish to carry out the reading. What you excerpted from Bishop Minatios is not what he teaches on Esau and Jacob. To know what he teaches you will have to read about half way into the article. Look for a phrase that contains "This is how we must understand the blessing of Jacob". I do recommend that you read to the end, but if you make the effort that far, you would be able to comment on that the bishop has to say about Esau and Jacob.
Seldom, if ever, is the wisdom of the scripture contained in a single verse. I gave you a relatively short and lucid essay tro read on predestination. It speaks of nothing but scripture. You ignore it and post a quote from St. Paul that does not contradict what the treatise said. Then you act astounded. Read the treatise and review the scripture it cites abundantly. If you find error there, post it.
I think Luther agreed with Paul and Augustine and the early Reformers regarding the truth of double Predestination. Single Predestination is really no different than what the RC and Orthodox posters are saying.
Here's a link to an excellent article:
Humanism has attempted to work its magic on men and God's will since the garden, day by day trying to chip away at God's sovereign decrees. Single predestination seems to be just more hedging of our bets, giving men the credit that belongs to God alone.
Yes, God loved Esau. Esau had a choice between lentil soup and inheritance, and he chose lentil soup. God gave him what he wanted. That is love.
I agree with Dr. Eckleburg. If salvation by faith alone is understood, following Luther, to exclude human cooperation with works of free will, then single predestination makes no sense, it is double or nothing.
"1)Faith is a gift of God.
2)Not all men have faith.
3)Therefore God doesn't give faith to all men.
Augustine saw this clear logic. Cyprian taught it to Augustine. Even I understand it. But understanding and wisdom are also gifts from God."
My comment:
I'd be cautious with claiming logic for your position, dear HarleyD. The very nature of a gift is that it can be refused. You left out the fourth point: God can give a gift but a gift is not truly a gift until a recipient accepts it. If someone forces something on you it ceases to be a gift. If the Bible truly means "gift" then it has to mean a refusable offer.
To be quite blunt about it: we've been trying to give you a gift of deeper insight into biblical theology but you've steadfastly refused to "get it." No matter how hard we try we can't force you to accept our gift.
Or to put it another way: if I give my sister-in-law a gift of some tickets to the New York Knicks game and she angrily refuses them because I forgot to pass a message on from her to her mother-in-law and her mother-in-law is now not speaking to her, my "gift" to her has become nothing but a pair of tickets. Had she received them, I would have gifted her and she would have been gifted and grateful. True, my intent to gift her, to be kind to her, is still very real and true even if she refuses to receive. But as real as my intent is, she has received no gift--no gift-reality exists, no gift exists. She was offered one, true, but she has not received it and no gift was given.
Therefore, the fact that not all men have faith could result from two possibilities:
1. God did not give them the gift of faith
2. God did give them the gift of faith but they refused it.
Your logic is elementarily fallacious.
Of course, you do have a way out, which I'll be so kind as to point out to you: you could try to argue that "gift" here doesn't really mean gift but an unrefusable imposition by God on us.
Of course, if that's what God meant to say, one does have to wonder why he didn't say it.
And if that's what God meant by "gift," we would only know it because you, an interpreter for God, have told us what God really meant. It's very kind of you to help God out like this--he used the word "gift" but he really meant the opposite, an unrefusable imposition, but thankfully, you know what God really meant (crafty old Guy, that God, who uses words that mean the opposite of what he meant to say). I mean, it's not like God didn't have other words at his disposal that meant what he meant--"law" or "nonnegotiable obligation" or "imposition"--there are words for these meanings in Greek, yet, puzzlingly, God chose the word "gift." Ah, well, God's ways are mysterious. How grateful we are that you have penetrated behind the veil God put over Scripture when he used a word that means the opposite of what he meant. Frankly, I don't know how God got along without your help for millennia before you came along.
In any case, I'll add my thanks to what I'm sure is immense gratitude that God has toward you for for reinterpreting the plain meaning of Scripture to us.
If you had not set us straight on what God really meant by "gift," I would have said that by no stretch of the imagination can "gift" mean "law" or unrefusable offer. We never use the word gift for something that we cannot, absolutely cannot, refuse. But your imagination stretches quite a ways, since you offered "gift" as the proof that your position of non-refusability is Biblical.
So, I'm glad to see that we agree on one thing: the interpretive elasticity of Scripture. Except that you make it so elastic that I scarcely recognize it. I'd prefer not to stretch the meaning of gift so far as to turn it into its opposite. But if you wish to strain at gnats, I guess I can't stop you--after all, I believe you have free will. It's you who don't believe that.
As for me and my house, we'll stick with gift meaning refusability. Hence our belief in free will.
And I think Cyprian would be amazed at how far you stretched Scripture in this instance. I don't think he taught to Augustine this meaning of "gift."
But then, I could be wrong. You have a direct pipeline to Cyprian, I presume. (But I thought you didn't believe in appealing to extra-scriptural authorities?)
Which scripture is that?
Everything good comes from God.
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." -- James 1:17
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." -- Romans 8:28
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
Thus, the all-wise, all-just, omniscient God loved Jacob, for He foresaw the God-pleasing disposition of his heart. He hated Esau (saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau [Malachi 1:2,3] Trans.) for He foreknew his evil disposition. He is merciful to whomever He wishes, for He foreknows that the person will be good and of an obedient will.
You mean it depend on how nice a person is going to be whether God will love him. As Augustine states there isn't ANYTHING that you have that you have not been given-including your obedient will. This hole gets deeper and deeper.
BTW-Jacob was not a very nice person until after God came to him and revealed himself.
Very well put Dr. E. If that response isn't clear to them, I don't know if there's any more you can say.
LOL. No, Professor, not only did I not ignore it, I read it and posted excerpts from it.
short and lucid essay...
Well, it was pretty short anyway. But it was filled with errors in understanding and misuse of Scripture, as I pointed out to you.
Which you seem to have chosen to "ignore."
People think they can "refuse" the gift that God sent. The problem is they don't even know the gift exists. Consider this exchange:
Amen, Harley.
How much greater is the gift that cannot be returned, made void, broken, replaced, refused, altered or denied?
"Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ."
Not "saved by grace and our good efforts, clever works, acceptance of the gift, righteous choices or striving will."
Saved by grace alone.
God giving people what they want is all over the scripture. They want a forbidden fruit, they get a forbidden fruit. They want a child, they get a child. They want lentil soup, they get lentil soup. They want firstborn's blessing, they get the blessing. They want freedom, they get freedom. They want salvation, they get salvation.
Or as the Mormons put it, "Saved by grace, AFTER all we can do."
This is not what Christ said when he was asked what one needs to do in order to be saved. His answer was, obey the commandments (work); give everything to the poor (work), pick up the cross and follow Him (work). And if you fail to show mercy and charity (work, work) do not call on Christ with your faith because He will say, "Do I know you?".
I am sure you recognize the scriptures I am referring to. How many scripture references are there in the above paragraph?
Yes, every good work comes form God. That has not been denied. You have a habit of posting scripture quotes that do not contradict anything you object to, then pretend that your argument is scriptural. This only works in a calvinist echo chamber.
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.