Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
This is my GUESS of how John Calvin might have rationalized this scenario.....
An elect man is predestined by God to go to a nudie bar,so God puts a non elect mugger in the nudie bar so the elect man can do something good even though the elect man is currently sinning by being in the nudie bar in the first place. Thus, all of this sin had to happen in order for God to accomplish His plan.
Problem is,that in this analogy,God would be responsible for the sin if He planned and predestined it to happen this way.
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Romans 6:2 meshes in nicely with 2 Peter 1:2-10. It’s a process of sanctification, and eventually, “you shall not sin at any time”.
Both are, first because in justice God recognizes the act as objectively good, and second, because anything good that people do is an expression of faith in Christ, however badly recognized by the doer. When an atheist helps a woman across the street, he is at that moment guided by the light of Christ.
Really? I have never heard this before. Does God really look at the act itself, rather than the heart behind it? Could an atheist work up enough good deeds such that his "expression of faith in Christ" would be sufficient to get him into Heaven? I think the Bible actually says just the opposite:
Eph 2:10 : For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Who do you think is "we"?)
James 2:18 : But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
James 2:22 : You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
John 14:15 : "If you love me, you will obey what I command.
John 14:23 : Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
And finally:
Gal 5:6 : For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Is the view you're expressing from the Fathers? I've just never heard before that God looks first at the outward act while ignoring the heart in judging righteousness. Does the Church have scripture to back this position? I don't understand how an atheist is accorded "faith in Christ" by doing what we would normally call a "good work". I don't see that in the scriptures anywhere.
[Re: my mother-daughter baking a cake analogy:] The mother bakes the cake in the first place in order to teach the girl how to love others. If the girl was not moved to help, the cake may still end up in her belly, but that cake would not be likened to salvation if the girl did not attempt to participate in its baking.
The mother offered to the girl that she "help". Because of the relationship, established by the mother, the girl naturally accepted with, and in, love. Had the mother been wicked, the girl would have had no interest in "helping", but since the mother was loving the girl NECESSESARILY had the interest.
This is a good analogy because the celebration requires the right attitude from the girl. The girl participated in the work of the baking just like a Christian will participate in the work of the Father on his soul, to culminate in the celebration of the beatific vision.
I'll accept that my writing may have sounded like that, but it isn't what I really intended. It was my intention that the little girl be young enough to be relatively helpless, and totally dependent on her mother (parents) for everything. She was not wise enough to know what was best for her, or even to avert dangers we grown-ups take for granted (in terms of avoiding, like hot stoves). That is how I truly see well developed Christians. That is, totally dependent on God for everything. How can it be that even the most devout amongst us still sins regularly? It's because we are still like that little girl compared to God. We NEED Him, not just sometimes, but at ALL times. This is one of my biggest disagreements with the Latin faith.
Whoa, indeed, MD! No one is accusing you, although I stand by my statemnent that what Lewis says about the amalgamated nature is pure heresy in the East, and Inwould imagine in the Latin West, but not necessarily in the Protestant communities.
I was responding to your question what I though of Lewis' book, and I told you that I strongly disagreed with what he says. Kolo then simply reinforced my statement by quoting Orthodox doctrine.
I don't think I think that. I don't even think Lewis thinks that.
You can tell us what you think, but what Lewis thinks is spelled out in his work "Why did Jesus have to Die?" Here is a quote from Chapter 4 on Perfect Pentient [my emphasis].
The Ecumenical Councils declared that Christ is one Person, two natures, unmixed , i.e. un-amalgamated, distinct, and without confusion.
I also do not agree with Lewis that God had to beocme man to "understabd" pain. If God is all-knowing then He knows what it's like to be an ant or a human being. Unless you agree with the bible that some things are hidden from God.
Very good. This is all correct. :)
Once dehumanized, the destruction of God's refuse in the Old Testament genocides become God's "justice."
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. :) BECAUSE God is personal, ALL humans are above the rest of God's creation, even the reprobate. ALL humans have significance.
Another way of looking at that is that what the OT God did to Abraham was cruel and sadistic. God would have known Abraham's faith and that Abraham's love for God was stronger than for his son. God did not have to test Abraham to know that.
One possibility is that Abraham didn't know it, and this is how he found out. He obviously grew spiritually as a result of this experience. How many of us can say with absolute certainty what we would do in his sandals then? I believe I have a strong faith, but I can't say I KNOW what I would do in THAT situation. In addition, God knew that this story would be recorded as a testament to faith for all future believers of all time. This story has certainly helped me with my faith.
FK: ......... God leading the Jews out of Egypt in response to their prayers.
From the Reformed point of view, that is an oxymoron. The Reformed can't say that prayers change what God predestined. If the prayers were predestined, then the Jews prayed not because they wanted to but because they had to. And God did not "respond" to their prayers, but simply did what His "plan" envisions would happen, since obviously even God is [held?] captive by His own "plan."
This is fairly close, but not spot on. The prayers were ordained, BUT that does not mean they were not genuine and heart felt when they were made. Of course they were. They absolutely did look to God for help. Also, God is not held "captive" by anything. A perfect God makes a perfect plan and then executes it perfectly. Therefore, there is no need for deviation and no forcing. If God DID deviate from His plan, or even want to, then He wouldn't be God. He would be something else.
FK: ... God testing the mettle of His son Job, and then MORE than fully restoring him...
God had no reason to test Job. God would know what's in Job's heart. God was making a bet with Satan, who said he could make Job curse God. What I see in all this is Zeus, not Christ, not even a foreshadow of Christ. What I see is a deity that acts like a man would, a God made in man's image.
You have said something like this a few times. Is it the case that if it doesn't make sense to YOU that the OT account must be false? It sure seems that way. Of course God did not "need" to test Job, but He obviously wanted to for His reasons alone. I do not question those reasons, whatever they were.
Christ had a very select group of followers, a dozen of men and a few women, that you could say had any personal interaction with Him, none of which was a friendship of any kind, but a strict relationship. He told them what, when and where to do, where not to do, where to go, where not to go, how to pray, etc., etc.
Wow! :) I totally disagree. My vision of those times is that Jesus was the leader of a brotherhood of followers. I think they shared stories with each other, laughed together, cried together, and shared everything together. What do you think they talked about as they shared thousands of meals together, the weather? :) No, they shared as any family would. Christ loved and treated His disciples as His spiritual children, ..... because ...... they WERE His children.
When we read the NT, we do not get the impression that Christ was a standoffish, elitist, ruler-type. He was humble and He was caring for His flock. He LOVED them in a familial way. Your description does not fit the text at all. As just one example of dozens, in a "strict relationship", as you term it, would Christ have washed the feet of the disciples?
***Another way of looking at that is that what the OT God did to Abraham was cruel and sadistic. God would have known Abraham’s faith and that Abraham’s love for God was stronger than for his son. God did not have to test Abraham to know that.
One possibility is that Abraham didn’t know it, and this is how he found out. He obviously grew spiritually as a result of this experience. How many of us can say with absolute certainty what we would do in his sandals then? I believe I have a strong faith, but I can’t say I KNOW what I would do in THAT situation. In addition, God knew that this story would be recorded as a testament to faith for all future believers of all time. This story has certainly helped me with my faith.***
If I may, Abrahams faith was not tested so that GOD would know his faith, but that ABRAHAM would realize it. Testing usually has the effect of causing us to realize where we are strong or weak, something that God already knew.
Yup. St. Jude's is a big hospital in Memphis (famous for treating children and doing research on children's medical issues) and in association with it, there is the St. Jude Classic, a regular PGA Tour event.
As well with you my brother. :)
THANKS BIG.
Oh, plueeeese, FK, that is such a banal answer. It is also an oxymoron, with all due respect. If God ordained some people with the specific purpose for them to go to hell eternally, it is difficult to argue that He made them in imago dei (image of God)! God did not make them in His image so they can be evil! For it is precisely imago dei that sets humans apart from other living beings, i.e. being higher—"above the rest."
[Going by the Reformed logic] If the reprobate are creatures rejected by God before they even existed, the ones He predestined to be evil, they could not possibly be anything even remotely similar to those God considers His children! For they are even lower than animals, for animals are not evil.
Ah, but you will say "we don't know who is saved and who isn't." Even though it is not up to us to judge, is there any doubt in your mind that Hitler was bound for hell? But what if he wasn't? What if he repented before he died? You will say something like "it's God's decision, and I don't question that."
The horrible conclusion we come to, based on Reformed theology, is that God predestined Hitler for salvation before the foundations of the world knowing the evil he would commit (because God predestined it!!!) , and He did that for some "greater good." (what "greater good" came out of Hitler? Did it stop wars and suffering and hunger; did it give us "faith?").
And this brings us to Abraham. Love doesn't use Russian roulette as a teaching tool for appreciation of love. Abraham was predestined according to Reformed theology to believe and to appreciate his faith. Why does it matter if we know or don't know. Our knowledge, as our prayers, as our good works, matter not to God according toy this theology...they are made to look like they do, but in reality all this is pre-choregraphed and cannot change, and it's not done for us but for God's glory alone.
Reformed theology implies that we are actually deceived by God into believing that our prayers are real, when in fact they cannot change anything. So, one must conclude that the Reformed God is a deceiver. Please show me that his is not so.
All I said was that to me the Old Testament God is something more Zeus-like then Christ-like. As far as what makes sense to me, isn't that what you Protestants/Baptists preach and promote? If it is not you that is a measure of your faith, than what is? The Baptist Church? The Reformed "Magisterium?" The official truth? The most popular view? Or is it that which "makes sense" to you regardless how many others agree with you?
You consider yourself a Reformed Baptist. The Reformed in the Baptist community represent only 10% of the members of this community. What makes you a Reformed Baptist if not because Reformed theology for some reason makes sense to you? Do you have a certificate of authenticity somewhere posted in the sky that says "Reformed theology is true?" No, of course not. You are Reformed and Baptist because it makes sense to you.
But, I think that my individualism bothers you only because it disagrees with you, because it doesn't make sense to YOU.
Oh, I am guilty, as charged, that if something makes no sense to me I will question it. John 6:57 makes no sense to me at all! But neither do official commentaries on it; neither the verse itself, given who Jesus is, nor with respect to the context of the whole chapter. Christ says:
"I live because of the Father"
Wow! This is the same Word who was with God in the "beginning" (what beginning?), the same Word who was God?
But someone will say, this is Jesus speaking in His human nature, which is then true. But the Bible tells us that it was not the Father but the Spirit that overshadowed Mary, yet the whole context that precedes this verse talks about life coming from heavenly manna, and that by eating His flesh we shall live.
Jesus never had to eat anything in order to live, so there is no comparison (the eternal Word took on human nature and became man, so if this is about His human nature is is not related to the rest of the chapter.
Jesus made it very clear to His disciples and to everyone else for that matter that He and they are not the same. He always taught them and commanded them.
They never referred to Him in any other way but "Teacher" or "Lord," never by His name. You don't form friendships with someone you are not on a first-name basis but someone you call "Lord." When He spoke, they listened.
They could ask questions and His answers were either examples of good or evil or parables. They were His "groupies," His followers. They are referred to as His disciples (students, pupils), not His family. The only thing the Bible says about Christ's human family is that they thought He was not altogether right in His head.
Do you drastically test your loved ones? Would you load a revolver with blanks, unbeknown to them, and then make them play Russian roulette? If someone did that in real life, he would be locked up and deservingly so for sheer cruelty.
Does this mean that you see Jesus as sort of an Apollo (son of Zeus) figure because he was also susceptible to human failings and sin? It seems like you are saying that the condition of Jesus was the same as Apollo's, it's just that Jesus behaved better.
It all depends what "saved" means. To you it means here and now. To us it doesn't. We believe that after death those who in God's eyes are deemed saved will be eternally saved. Those who die unrepentant will remain eternally lost.
While I agree that we disagree on the timing, I can agree that everything you're saying here are true statements.
FK: "BTW, no one is double-predestined to anything. That doesn't even make sense."
That's the most Orthodox thing you ever said! Double-predsetination is the pillar of the Reformed superstition.
Double predestination is simply a one-term expression of two ideas. The first idea is that God is sovereign and He predestines those who will be saved. The Bible is clear that this is so:
Rom 8:29-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined , he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Eph 1:4-6 : 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
Eph 1:11 : In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ...
Now, the second idea is merely the logical inference that we draw from the first. That is, if God predestines some, but not all, that means He does not predestine some, and they will be lost. Doesn't that sound logical? I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
God's "plan" (according to the Reformed): God makes man, God makes man sin, ...
First one true, second one false.
... God is so offended by man's sin he tortures and kills his Son (who is really one and the same God, so he kills himself) so that some men, whom he preordained from all eternity to be saved are saved, and some who are preordained from all eternity to be roasted are roasted. Reformed theology in a nutshell.
What does the word "sacrifice" mean in Orthodoxy? You appear to deny that Christ gave His life willingly. Who do say was the first cause of His death?
Mental note: why does all-knowing transcendental God need a plan?
It's not a matter of need, but of His choice. The Bible says He had a plan so we believe He had a plan. It shows a rational God, not one who is irrational and random. God acts with purpose, not merely reacting to whatever happens outside of His control.
AMEN, AG! Thank you for your wonderful post. I see we're even quoting the same scriptures. :)
AMEN, Dr. E.! Great post. :)
I do? LOL! Talk about a thorn in your neighbor's eye and ignoring the log in yours.
There are posters here who call God "Daddy." Forest keeper says the disciples were like Jesus' family (Jesus didn't get along with His faily, and he denied His mother and his step-brothers), the Old Testament God is about as man-like as Zeus—powerful, moody, jealaous, biased, hateful of his enemies and excessively forgiving of "his" people, a very humanized Giant.
And I always "try to put man's feelings and emotions and give them to God?"
It is precisely Orthodoxy that considers God a supreme Mystery. God is "beyond" everything and all, including our comprehension and words. But we see God only through Christ's humanity. It is only in His humanity that we can relate to God personally, to tlak to him, to ask him, to thank him, to presume that he cares, that he loves us, that he hears us, etc. These are all man's feleings we give to God.
But, we are reminded that even in his humanity, Christ is nothing like the God of the Old Testament. And he is also nothing like the rest of humanity. No one expected the King of Kings to be born of a virgin, unwed teenager, in poverty, and to die as He died, because we have this preconceived notion how God should be.
Good point ,Dear Kosta, and since we KNOW that God made man in His image and likeness(higher than animals),this would mean that the reformed version of God is also in the likeness of evil as well as good.
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.