"The Parable of the Pebble and the Pond" God's gift to us.

04/15/2010 | J. Knight

[WhatsItAllAbout]

"The Parable of the Pebble and the Pond" God's gift to us.

"The Parable of the Pebble and the Pond" Answers the question when the Pebble parts the Pond what makes the waves, the Pebble or the Pond, and what does it mean to me?

In today's World "The Parable of the Pebble and the Pond" takes on an even deeper meaning.

God sees "The Parable of the Pebble and the Pond" written on every soul, so what have you wrtten?

[Dutchboy88]

"So again I would ask what's the point if the universe is deterministic, and how could a man be held responsible for his actions if God controls every molecule, in his body and every thought he thinks and there is no randomness in the universe?"

In this you are at least beginning to catch the implications of Paul's description of the Gospel, even if you are walking right into the very question he knew Roman believers would ask in 57AD..."You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?"

You just have not come to grips with his answer,"On the contrary, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, O man, who answers back to God?..." Check it out. Romans 9:19, one of the most troubling verses in the Reformation.

[fish hawk]

Right on Dutch Boy! This is more interesting than most Bible studies I’ve been to. Sometimes truth is hard to understand but it is always truth. Maranatha

[MarkBsnr]

I will add as a postscript that you might argue one could find all kinds of places where Scripture calls you to "decide". Such demands do not address whether such a decision is entirely yours to make. It simply states, "Decide". You are reading into it that the decision is to be unaffected, unmanaged, uncontrolled by God. This is often the claim regarding John 3:16. But read the verse closely, John simply states a fact. He does not make an open offer. John 6:44 makes it crystal clear that "No one comes to Me unless the Father draws him."

This is perhaps the finest post that I have ever seen from you on FR. May I congratulate you? It is extensive, well reasoned, and logical in itself.

Your entire point, though, rests on John 6:44 as a stand-alone proposition. It is not. The Catholic viewpoint, from the time of Jesus, has accepted the notion of 'and'. Remember that the message, initially for the Jews, then started to go out to the Gentiles as well. One argument is that the whole notion of 'adopting in' was to provide a logical pathway for Gentiles to be saved by the God of the Jews, without becoming Jewish themselves.

However, we have John 6:44: no man is saved without being drawn by God. Fact and clear. We also have John 12:32: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

We have the mathematical operator 'and'. John 6:44 is true. John 12:32 is true. All means all. All men means all men. But drawn is obviously not predestined, since men have the ability to deny God. Peter denied Jesus in the flesh; Adam denied God in the Garden. Shameful as it may be, that is the lot of men in life - to accept or to deny God. It is God that is faithful to man, sadly, the reverse is often untrue.

[WhatsItAllAbout]

So if God's answer to man in Romans 9:19 is that man has no choice but is accepted or rejected as God desires without any recourse, then God is morally responsible for his sin?

I agree the potter can fashion a vessel for his desired purposes so how can he then judge the vessel for fulfilling his purposes?

Should the interpretation of Romans 9:19 be that God made some men for sin, so he could show the men made for his pleasure what a great God he is for saving them from the fate given to the sinners.

If Christ didn't die on the Cross for all mankind's sins, but only for the elected few then God's grace doesn't abound, and his love is limited to the few who had no choice in the matter.

But on the other hand Romans 10:9-13 seems to say man has freewill and Christ's salvation is available for All so it would seem the individual man is morally responsible for his own sins and God's grace has no limits.

So which is it? One or the other, or is it some combination of the two?

[Dutchboy88]

"This is perhaps the finest post that I have ever seen from you on FR. May I congratulate you? It is extensive, well reasoned, and logical in itself."

Death by a thousand compliments. Too kind...literally.

First, the post does not turn on John 6:44. The post turns on several passages that speak to predestination, and the companion foreknowledge. But, let us focus on this claim that John 12:32 addresses the same thing that Jesus was speaking of in John 6.

Notice, in John 6:44 Jesus specifically promises that the "drawn" (whoever that may be) will be raised up on the last day. Now, unless you are a universalist (some Catholics I have met are), Jesus was discriminating between those he would absolutely rescue, if they were drawn, and everyone else. If you are correct that all individuals are drawn, then all individuals will be resurrected. Talk about a "hard" predestination...this is hard universalism, a bigger heresy than indulgences.

But, the argument Jesus is making continues in John 6:65 as He was describing some individuals who believed and some that didn't believe and would betray Him. And, He knew who was who. How could he know ahead of the choice? Because, as He said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father." There is no question He is specifically calling attention to THE reason the betrayer did not believe: It had not been given to him, "For this reason..."

Identifying Judas as not being given something others were given was not a "guess" or "probability". Notice, it was not ultimately because Judas didn't believe that he came to betray Jesus. It was because he was not "given" faith to apprehend, "This is the Messiah." He betrayed because he didn't believe and didn't believe because it was not given him. Judas did exactly what Jesus said He would do and could not have done otherwise. This is abundantly clear from the text.

Your entire point rests on the word "all" in John 12, meaning "every individual". However, the word in John 6:44 is "oudeis", "no one" or "not one" individually while the word in John 12:32 is "pantas", or simply "all" (accusative, plural, masculine) without reference to whether it means all individuals, all men, all mankind, all nations or whatever. Please don't call in your buddy with a fourth grade Greek education, I won't address his gross mistatements and inaccuracies.

We argue that since we now know from John 6:65 that Jesus could not be speaking of "every individual" (unless you believe Judas was the only guy in history to be left out), then He must be addressing "all nationalities" whether Dutch or Yurok Indian or Jewish. And that has, without question, occurred. He has drawn the world to Himself...just NOT every individual man in the world.

Beware of demanding words mean the same thing everywhere, without context. This comes from a deficient hermenuetic. "I woke up this morning, got up and dressed up. I ran up to the store and picked up some groceriecs. The clerk added the cost up and when I got home, I cooked up some breakfast. I ate it all up." Define "up". Words are controlled by the context and the arguments occurring in proximity.

But, you have ignored the wider argument of my post. Does God know what will happen tomorrow or not? If He does, and that knowledge is inerrant, absolute and fixed, then what could happen other than what He already knows? Could another outcome occur? If not, then everything is simply tracking along a predetermined path, including men's destinies. Including the moment of Jesus death (Acts 2:23). In truth, God's foreknowledge is just a result of God's massive control over the universe. Are we to "choose" Him...certainly, but is that choice unaffected, unguided, unknown by God until we choose? If so, then Paul's letter to the Romans is wrong "For whom He foreknew, He predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son...And whom He predestined, these He also called, and whom He called He also justified, and whom He justified these He also glorified." The golden chain.

But, if God's foreknowledge is not perfect (at best a good guess) then the future is unfolding for God just as it is for you and I. He has no idea what the stock market will do today, since it is comprised of billions of individual "free will" choices. Since He doesn't affect (or rather "effect") them, then He sits and waits until the close. Is this really the God described in the Bible? I submit that if one holds to a God waiting for his creatures to act, that man worships a caraciture of a really smart human. Blasphemy.

Rather, the Scripture indicates His knowledge is perfect because He manages to accomplish all that occurs, Is. 45:6, 7, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no other besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity (literally "evil"); I am the Lord who does all these." I can find dozens of passages like this. Sorry Mark...He wins.

[Dutchboy88]

"So which is it? One or the other, or is it some combination of the two?"

I don't have time now to address all of the questions exhaustively, but let me touch on this one...it is that God is in utter control of all. No hybrid, no "little bit of both".

Is. 63:17, "Why, O Lord, dost Thou cause us Thou cause us to stray from Thy ways, and harden our heart from fearing Thee?"

While this is referring to the Jews, the control is not limited to those people.

I Thess. 2:11, "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false."

Notice, God is actually sealing off those whom He has rejected. It is we puny men demanding our view of justice prevail. The point of the Scriptures is that the universe does not work the way sinful, fallen, broken, self-oriented, proud men think it should. This should not surprise us.

And, I should have pinged you to #45 of this thread.

More to follow.

[Forest Keeper]

But, notice, if He decreed you to be adopted in ages past (in Ephesians Paul says it was before the foundation of the world 1:4), then He set in motion all that must have transpired to get you to turn to Him, this is such utter and unbounded love that He expressed toward you that you ought to have one and only one person to thank...God.

So, "mercy" is defined not as giving anyone and everyone who wants it salvation. Rather, "mercy" is God deciding to set some free from the punishment that the rest will not escape. And Paul knows when the Romans understand what he is arguing will say, "Then how can He still find fault, for who escapes His will?" But, the answer is...that is just the way it is.

AMEN! Outstanding post, Dutchboy. Mercy is a sovereign choice as opposed to an automatic reaction to the choice of another. That's what makes it special and of such higher value.

It's interesting that a common criticism we get is that our love for God is not "real love" unless it is of the kind favored by free will advocates (free from interference from God). YET, God's mercy towards us somehow still counts as "real mercy" even though their triggering mechanism is ultimately wholly of man! It appears that no matter whether we are talking about man to God or God to man the only thing that matters is the sovereignty of man.

[Dutchboy88]

"It's interesting that a common criticism we get is that our love for God is not "real love" unless it is of the kind favored by free will advocates (free from interference from God). YET, God's mercy towards us somehow still counts as "real mercy" even though their triggering mechanism is ultimately wholly of man! It appears that no matter whether we are talking about man to God or God to man the only thing that matters is the sovereignty of man."

Excellent point, Forest Keeper. It will always circles back around to the sovereignty of man when we do not allow God to be God. Amazing how insidious pride can be and how many forms it takes. Great observation.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Notice, in John 6:44 Jesus specifically promises that the "drawn" (whoever that may be) will be raised up on the last day. Now, unless you are a universalist (some Catholics I have met are), Jesus was discriminating between those he would absolutely rescue, if they were drawn, and everyone else. If you are correct that all individuals are drawn, then all individuals will be resurrected. Talk about a "hard" predestination...this is hard universalism, a bigger heresy than indulgences. But, the argument Jesus is making continues in John 6:65 as He was describing some individuals who believed and some that didn't believe and would betray Him. And, He knew who was who. How could he know ahead of the choice? Because, as He said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father." There is no question He is specifically calling attention to THE reason the betrayer did not believe: It had not been given to him, "For this reason..."

Identifying Judas as not being given something others were given was not a "guess" or "probability". Notice, it was not ultimately because Judas didn't believe that he came to betray Jesus. It was because he was not "given" faith to apprehend, "This is the Messiah." He betrayed because he didn't believe and didn't believe because it was not given him. Judas did exactly what Jesus said He would do and could not have done otherwise. This is abundantly clear from the text.

AMEN!

Your entire post is rock-solid. I'm putting your Scriptural logic on my homepage.

Rather, the Scripture indicates His knowledge is perfect because He manages to accomplish all that occurs, Is. 45:6, 7, "That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no other besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity (literally "evil"); I am the Lord who does all these." I can find dozens of passages like this. Sorry Mark...He wins.

AMEN! They have no argument to challenge your post. At heart, RCs are inconsistent universalists. Period.

[Alex Murphy]

At heart, RCs are inconsistent universalists.

Pour a tall glass of this:

Who, then, can be saved?

Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments.
Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.
Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.
Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.
Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.

God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
-- concluding paragraph [formatting mine] of Who Can Be Saved?,by Cardinal Avery Dulles, found at Catholic Education Resource Center.

Add two heaping tablespoons of this:

No Salvation Outside the Church
The “Necessity” of Being Catholic (Ecumenical Caucus)
Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?
The Great Heresies [Open]
Why Can't Protestants Take Communion in a Catholic Church

And serve shaken, not stirred:

THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM: The multiplicity of theological positions present within the Catholic Church. These positions vary according to which premises or postulates are used in reflecting on the sources of revelation, according to the methodology employed, and according to the cultural tradition within which theology does its speculation. On the first bases, the two principal philosophical premises are the Platonic, stressed in Augustinianaism; and the Aristotelian, emphasized in Thomism. On the second level, theologies differ in terms of their mainly biblical, or doctrinal, or historical, or pastoral methodology. And on the third basis, the culture of a people helps to shape the theology they develop, as between the more mystical East and the more practical West, or the more reflective Mediterranean and the more scientific Anglo-Saxon. The Church not only permits these diversities but encourages them, always assuming that theologians who are Catholic are also respectful of the rule of faith and obedient to the magisterium of the hierarchy under the Bishop of Rome.
-- from the thread Catholic Word of the Day: THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM, 11-10-09

[Dr. Eckleburg]

ping to 45.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

if your "hard deterministic" view is correct, what's the point?

Colossians 1: 16-17 and Romans 8:28 -- therein is the reason for life...

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:15-16

---

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Romans 8:28

[Dutchboy88]

"At heart, RCs are inconsistent universalists.

Pour a tall glass of this:

And serve shaken, not stirred:

THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM: The multiplicity of theological positions present within the Catholic Church. These positions vary according to which premises or postulates are used in reflecting on the sources of revelation, according to the methodology employed, and according to the cultural tradition within which theology does its speculation."

Bomb! James Bomb.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Absolutely astounding. The RCC not only believes these lies; it teaches these lies.

"...Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice" -- "Who Can Be Saved?" by Cardinal Avery Dulles

"Some other name???"

" Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be save" -- Acts 4:12

Jesus Christ is all "truth and justice," so what in the world is Rome talking about? Are they all liars or merely ignorant?

"The multiplicity of theological positions present within the Catholic Church. These positions vary according to which premises or postulates are used in reflecting on the sources of revelation"

LOL. The RCC works to be all things to all people; therefore it becomes nothing.

Christian particularism has always been the target. Too bad the church in Rome is playing for the other team.

And considering the cardinal's very peculiar pedigree, and the fact he turned his back on the truth when he converted, who knows what his agenda really was/is?

[HarleyD]

Theological Pluralism has been in the Church since 600AD when the Pope abandoned Augustine and allowed Cassian view to coexist. There were other disagreements such as the meaning of the Eucharist. Where the Church has gotten itself into trouble is when they had to choose a path such as during the time of the Reformation. Trouble is, they always seem to choose the wrong path....

[Dr. Eckleburg]

He choose...poorly.

lol. One of our family's favorite borrowed tag lines.

That, and...

"Let it go, Indie."

[HarleyD]

Dutchboy is right. This is nothing more than sugarcoating the nature of man.

There isn't anything "written on your soul" unless God puts it there. We don't write anything. God writes it all. If one does not understand that, then they don't understand what God has given them.

[RnMomof7]

Mother Teresa used to tell the hindus to pray to their god because there is only one god..

The lost do not know where to find God Dr E ...they look and look but never find Him until He finds them !

[Dutchboy88]

"Where the Church has gotten itself into trouble is when they had to choose a path such as during the time of the Reformation. Trouble is, they always seem to choose the wrong path...."

If by that you mean, the Catholic Church rejected the call to abandon traditions and superstitions of men and turn (not re-turn) to the Gospel as presented in the Scriptures, I agree. But, who's the guy who needs a dermatologist?

[Dutchboy88]

"LOL. The RCC works to be all things to all people; therefore it becomes nothing.

Christian particularism has always been the target. Too bad the church in Rome is playing for the other team."

Absolutely dead on. You provide that armor-piercing clarity, Doc. I would pray some could have the scales removed as they read your continual evidence to flee Rome.