Actually that is what the book of Romans is mostly about. I see it that God’s mercy and grace has been on man from the fall as Adam fell and God could have wiped out all and started again and been fully just in His actions.

The real question to me is this, why is it that this Just God shows so much mercy and grace… and loves us so much… or as the scirpture asks, “What is man that you make so much of him, that you give him so much attention, that you examine him every morning and test him every moment?”

It is as Romans 9 teaches that some are vessels of wrath and some vessels of mercy, yet it seems that in God’s great mercy that the vessels of mercy may be vessels of wrath and the vessels or wrath be vessels of mercy so that God’s grace can be made known. (the Calvinist miss this as the point of that chapter and get hung up in their own interpretation of proving the elect they miss the point is not God’s wrath but God’s mercy is the topic)

Be Blessed,
iggy

If not, how does this square with the assertion nin Scripture that God is a God of justice?

You have examined more than one aspect of the elephant, brother, you have examined five aspects. (Just a little joke among friends). I appreciate your tone, if you spend anytime on the ‘net you’ll see that there are other Calvinists/reformed that have a different tone toward others. I have a real attraction toward humble Calvinists such as Mike Ratliff. I consider him a good brother and friend. God Bless You, keep adding to the discussion!

This is what I love about these types of conversations. You are assuming that I have “examin[ed] only one aspect of the elephant” because I’m not agreeing with you?! Isn’t it entirely possible that I HAVE examined multiple aspects…and I still don’t come up with the same conclusion as you? I came out of a “non-Calvinist” church. I have looked at more than one “aspect.” I didn’t arrive at the same conclusions as you. That doesn’t mean I think your Pelagian or semi-Pelagian or not a Christian. I don’t hink you have only examined “one aspect” just because you don’t agree with me.

Honestly, I was just trying to get a SIMPLE answer to what I thought was a simple question. You guys make it too hard. I spend half my time trying to understand WHAT you said! Just a dumb ol’ Calvinist, I guess.

I have never heard on any “emergents” state “that you cannot know all truth just from reading the bible and the holy spirit.”

I have heard them state that the Holy Spirit can use anything to reveal God’s true. No one emphatically states the bible is not God’s word… nor that it be trusted… even the “big dogs” state that the Bible is what guides their thoughts and heart…..

It is that the fundamentalist cannot bear to hear a certain word… “just” meaning “only”. They view (mostly dispensationalists) that the Bible is the only thing that guides us, often at the expense of the Holy Spirit.

Just wanted to clarify that a bit.

blessings,
iggy

Like Keith 2.0, I, in my limited mind, don’t see any other way it could ever be. Why did God create humans, when he had the angels? Because he wanted created beings that would WANT to be with him, that would love him and choose him. But we cant choose him if he chooses who will choose Him. (HUH?) Which makes you happier: 1. your child cleans his room (with you standing over him, instructing him and forcing him to do exactly as you say), or 2. your child cleans his room, without you telling him to, because he knew it was what you wanted and it would please you? How does God determine what free will he gives us and where he intervenes? I believe that, quite possibly, God purposely keeps his hands out of certain situations – one of which is often procreation. The Bible doesn’t really say much about that, does it? Then how can know one way or another. So we try and formulate a “God view” according to what we “see”. As Chris wrote in his post, if all views of the elephant are true but incomplete, then we must live by what we can best judge, but leaving room for the probability that we don’t have the whole view (read: truth). It is in relation to all these questions and views that the “emergents” (dare I say more than just them) believe that you cannot know all truth just from reading the bible and the holy spirit. Some in the ODM camp reject that notion, I know, but any other way, and we are saying that our finite minds can understand and see ALL views of the elephant.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. Just my thoughts…

Zan

Once again, though, you are picking and choosing scriptures, all the while placing God inside the realm of time, which he sits apart from, since He existed before (apart from?) the beginning. There are also a number of scriptures that indicate that men choose (or not) to follow Him.

We only assume that time going forward (and back) is set in stone, and we’ve adapted our language to it. The same way that those you criticize have extrapolated ‘free will’, you are extrapolating ‘pre-destined’. It is quite possible that Eph 1:3-5 is referring to a people and not to individuals, since Judaism and early Christianity was first focused on the kingdom (the people of God) and then on the individual.

Using your same extrapolation which traps God inside the bounds of time for ‘predestining’, it then also would indicate that Jesus was just faking it in the desert being ‘tempted’ and that his prayer in Gathsemene was just for show – along with a myriad of other inconsistencies. You are illustrating, rather succinctly, the pitfalls of systematic theology and the use of eisegesis in interpretation.

Have you considered that you may be a blind man examining only one aspect of the elephant?

When people discuss the topic of Pelagianism vs Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Whateverism, at some point, the topic of God’s choosing and what that means in light of Scriptures like Eph 1:3-5 comes up. Invariably a comment will be made: “I don’t believe God chooses because that wouldn’t be fair/equal/just, etc. If a person isn’t saved, it’s because they chose not to believe.”

Somehow in their mind, that relieves God of some terrible label or something or makes their view of grace better (”greater?”).

It’s very simple, regardless of how great you think your view of grace is, whether you believe God made salvation possible for ALL men, women, boys, and girls that ever lived and ever would live. People go to hell every day. God sees it before it happens, has full knowledge of it, and He lets is happen. All the posturing, double-talk, etc. in the world doesn’t change that…and it doesn’t make God BAD or evil.

Ian said “If someone was created who could never accept Grace then the Bible is untrue…” I don’t get that. I don’t think Pharoah was EVER going to be anything different that what he was. That doesn’t make the Bible untrue for me.

I think some are trying to apply too much human logic and the concept of fairness to the situation.

Oh well, another fun day at CRN & Analysis.

That said, I’d just like to put my oar in.

As far as the end result–why is it perceived to be more gracious of God to allow an individual to be born, live their life, NEVER believe, die and spend eternity in hell because THEY didn’t choose God. They still died and went to hell and GOD KNEW ALL ALONG THAT’S EXACATLY HOW IT WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT. How is that gracious? How is that showing God in a “good light”

Suppose God didn’t do that? Suppose he only allowed people to be born who would believe. What sort of a world is that? If everyone makes the same choice, are they really making a choice? God knows how everyone is going to act, but if he suddenly removes all the non-believers from the world, what happens to the believers who were suppopsed to be the children of people who were non-believers? He knows how it’s going to pan out, and lets it pan out that way. It doesn’t show God in a “good light”, it’s just the only way it ever could be.

I hope that makes sense.

Keith 2.0