How does your thinking here as well as in “If These were my only options” apply to the specific “discernment post” cited below, to CRN’s citation of it, as well as to the original article in A Little Leaven?

http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=3016 (Paula White’s Day of Atonement offering)

How does one show love in this situation? The Day of Atonement is a very important day in Israel – even those who are not “religious” may give pause to think about what that day might mean. I see the celebration of this day as something that can be a bridge to a Jewish person’s understanding of the gospel. What do Jews think of people identifying themselves as Christians trying to make some bucks off of the significance of this day? Isn’t it important for some Christians to speak up against such abuse of a biblical event?

Do you consider CRN’s or A Little Leaven’s reporting of this incident:
1) an aggressive attack
2) Are they in anyway questioning Paula White’s salvation? If they did, how would you demonstrate that by doing so they were “questioning the salvation of a believer?”
3)Is bringing up this incident “mean and insensitive vitriol” or is it simply the exposure of that which must be an abomination in God’s sight?
4)Is posting this type of thing somehow ” riding the blog waves as the truth sheriff” or is it bringing darkness to light, showing the world that not all Christians support this kind of thing?

Rick: I believe it does matter what the body of Christ projects to the lost world, but not for the same reason(s) I understand you are making.

First of all, I doubt many non-Christians know that yours, mine, CRN.Info, Slice, Pyros, etc. blogs even exist. I doubt they even care.

Second, you are assuming our actions or words could thwart the plan of God. I personally don’t believe we weld that much power. If God can split a body of water in two, or speak and entire creation into being, He most certainly can guard the eyes and ears of someone He has chosen for salvation in such a way that they would not be driven away from His call. I do not believe there is ANYTHING we can do as human beings that can detour God’s divine plan(s) or appointment(s). If that were possible, God really isn’t God and He certainly isn’t sovereign as I understand sovereignty.

Now, I don’t believe that gives us license to treat each other any ol’ way we want. Your citation of John 13:34 is “proof” enough that we should be doing a better job in the way we treat each other, whether the world sees it or not. I admit I don’t do that as well as I should or could.

Ian: The answer to your question (Julie hates it when I don’t just answer the question right up front) is “No.” God’s sovereignty would not be diminished if He chose to let us choose. However, that option doesn’t add up for me.

God most certainly allows people to choose. You chose to write an email at 6:15 AM (according to the time stamp). You could have written it earlier or later.

When Calvinists talk about choice, it is more specifically related to choice in salvation. Saying: [what] if [God] says “I choose, in my sovereignty, to allow people to choose”? It’s a nice thought, but in my understanding, it runs 180 degrees to passages such as “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.” (Rom 9:15). That doesn’t sound like choice to me. Scripture also tells us we are spiritually dead, unable to discern spiritual things. (Cf 1 Cor 2:14)

Here’s a question for you: What if God had predestined/chosen you for salvation and YOU decided you didn’t want to be saved?

Rick: I do think God can and does use sinners in the process (i.e examples, witnesses), but the actual drawing is soley an act of the Holy Spirit. Salvation does not depend on our actions.

Here’s a question for you: What if God had predestined/chosen you for salvation and YOU decided you didn’t want to be saved?

That is precisely why sin can be punished: because you are morally responsible and free to choose.

To say God predestines some to salvation and, by default, others to hell makes God ultimately responsible for where you end up. So how could God punish someone for doing exactly what he created/predestined him to do?

I think the whole concept of predestination as it’s thought of now tends to tarnish God’s character and contradicts the parable of the wedding banquet.

Rick: You stated That is the Amrinian position exactly is it not? Actually, the Arminians I know would not agree without the following condition. They view predestination as God’s LOOKING into the future and SEEING who WILL believe. Therefore, if God sees salvation (by the individual’s choice), then it most surely will come to pass. Myself–the predestination is God’s specific CHOOSING, based on no merit of the individual. Again, salvation will come to pass. Arminians like the “God looks into the future” version because it relieves Him of responsibility, He looks like the “good guy” and puts it all (pretty much) on man.

Sandman: You stated To say God predestines some to salvation and, by default, others to hell makes God ultimately responsible for where you end up. I have no problem with that. My understanding of Romans 9:19ff is Paul’s anticipation of your argument. We are the “pot.” Here’s another question for you. In light of your comment: So how could God punish someone for doing exactly what he created/predestined him to do? Take it one step further–How do you reconcile God allowing someone to be born, with His absolute, full knowledge that they WILL NOT chose Jesus? Why is that more kind or compassionate? Wouldn’t it be better to not allow that person to be born?

Ian: You stated The Bible clearly teaches that God is both Just and Equitable Please provide Scriptures where God is bound to treat everyone equally.

—-

I don’t understand why people have a hard time with God dealing with people in an extreme manner or “unequally.” It was God himself who commanded the Israelites to wipe out the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Although they didn’t do a very good job in some instances, there are still plenty of peoples that were inhilated–not only under God’s command, but also with His help! When’s the last time you encountered an Edomite or a Hittite?

Rick: I respectfully disagree that the “entire context is about Israel not personal salvation.” Why would Paul anticipate a “personal ” argument re: God’s fairness in choosing? Romans 9 certainly speaks of God’s choosing of Israel as a nation, but in my understanding of the context, not ALL of Israel would be save personally–only those who have been chosen for salvation. It appears in that same chapter that God had no intention of saving Pharoah.

Sandman: Thanks for answering my questions. I anticipated your responses, but that’s OK. I came out of an Arminian congregation several years ago, so I’m fairly familiar with most of the arguments, including the Jeremiah 18 passage. I believe God’s “relenting” is simply a term we can understand, so to speak; I don’t believe God is swayed one way or the other, i.e. He sits in heaven, turns to Jesus and says: “Well, I’ll be…guess I never saw that one comin’.”

I don’t view God’s choosing as forcing me to love Him. I see His choosing as giving me the ability to do something I never would have or could have desired on my own. Once my eyes were opened, my desire was to love Him and obey Him–something I could not and would not have done had He not “turned my heart of stone into a heart of flesh.”

I am not trying to “win you to my side” (no more than I think you have a chance in winning me to yours), but since we’re just talking here, I am much more comfortable with a God that has a precise, predetermined, predestined, etc plan than one that “hopes” people will make the right choice so He can follow through with His original scheme. If we don’t choose correctly, then He has to re-do the whole thing based on what He “hopes” we will choose next go ’round. (I’m speaking in human terms, but I think you understand what I’m saying.)

I have a very good friend that is an Elder in the Christian Church we left. He cannot understand why I would embrace the “Doctrines of Grace” and I don’t understand why HE doesn’t. We do share some common escatological beliefs. In the end–we’re both saved by the blood of Jesus, all a work of God and we will spend eternity together, praising God. At that point and time, the “how we got there” will be a moot point.

(Julie doesn’t hate, Keith. No hating. Really. Really.)

We introduce strange ideas or metphors (”Does God believe in me?” “You have to have your heart broken” “You have to crawl on your belly weeping to the cross”) not taught in scripture.

God made the whole message of salvation so simple a child could understand it and receive it. Why do we have to continually try to tack on all kinds of embroidery and qualifiers?

Good stuff. I mean, really good.

Keith

“You stated The Bible clearly teaches that God is both Just and Equitable Please provide Scriptures where God is bound to treat everyone equally. ”

OK – how about:

‘Let them sing before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity.’ Psalm 98:8-9

‘Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.’ Acts 10:34 – 35.

Equity is a synonym for ‘fairness’, suggesting that when God judges, the equity of his judgement will be accepted by all. If, on judgement day, some people judged by one standard and others by a different one – how can that be called justice? The second scripture, although about the welcoming in of the Gentiles contains two key concepts. Firtsly, that God does not show favouritism (even to those who consider themselves ‘chosen’ whether Israel or the Christian ‘elect’), and that he welcomes anyone who fears him, not just the elect. For this statement of Peter’s to be true the ability to fear God must be available to all, and not justy to those to whom irresistible Grace has been given.

Chris. To be fair, that is exactly what this post is about. Rick’s question, to paraphrase, was “Do those who hold to Election believe that their actions can do nothing to prevent soeone coming to Christ?”.

I agree with your statement, but as someone who has travelled the spectrum of doctrine over the years on this one, I am still working through it and like the opportunity to try and work out if what I think really stands up to scripture.

Besides, these issues have a profound effect on how we see the world.

I don’t understand why people have a hard time with God dealing with people in an extreme manner or “unequally.” It was God himself who commanded the Israelites to wipe out the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Although they didn’t do a very good job in some instances, there are still plenty of peoples that were inhilated–not only under God’s command, but also with His help! When’s the last time you encountered an Edomite or a Hittite?

Check out Genesis 15:12-19 to start.
Then know that land has been the most coveted land throughout history.
In the ancient world it was the aorta of trade. Unfortunately, the previous occupiers were the absolute worse people you’d want there, and they were pumping out all these vile practices (child sacrifice and such) to anyone who came near them.

When the time was right, God performed a cultural heart transplant. The Hebrews, insulated and isolated in Egypt for the past four hundred years, would be the new heart.

God said to kill every last one. No problem there. God is sovereign. He’s the Giver of live, and can withdraw it any way he sees fit. Not that God operates like this all the time, but the Amorites had 400 years.

I don’t have a problem with this at all.

Zan, Ian and Sandman: Man, you guys stay up too late for me. I’ll get back with you later today (Tues) when I have time to put some thoughts on paper.

Julie: Sorry about the “hate” line. How about dislikes? Things appear to be on a pretty civil level here the past couple of days and I don’t want to be the guy standing up in the boat!

If I may interject for just a moment. While I agree with Rick and find the philosophical points he brings up to be persuasive, I wonder how much of this has to do with a response to the pain one has in life. Arminius had a lot of it from early on and felt like he had to choose between God the giver of free will, and God the tyrant and executioner.

And that’s ultimately where I see the crux of the matter. If God is sovereign that he creates each of us, and chooses who’s in and who’s out, then why does he cause all the pain we have to confront. Now, admittedly I’ve had a really good life for the most part. Unlike Arminius I wasn’t orphaned as a child, or any other scenario like that, but I still have to wonder, if God is sovereign why does he deliberately inflict all this pain on people?

However, if God is the giver of freewill and the giving of that freewill is a part of his sovereignty then I don’t need to wonder why God caused sin to enter the world. Or why when Peter writes that He wants all to be saved that all aren’t saved.

When I look at the life of Calvin and Arminius (BTW, contrary to the vibe I probably put out I do admire Calvin quite a bit. I just happen to disagree with him) I see two radically different guys. Calvin was principally an academic and ruler (not quite the right word, but governor wasn’t either.) Even his decision to marry was mostly a theological decision meant to convey his beliefs about marriage. Arminius on the other hand was much more pastoral in his ministry (as was Wesley who was a major proponent of Arminianism). And that’s what it comes down to. Ultimately, while I think Arminianism has a proper grasp of scripture, I also see it lining up with my own experiences. Meanwhile Calvinism demands that I deny my own experience. That I actually didn’t make either any decision or at the very least the decision to become a Christ-follower.

I just wrote a comment and it didn’t appear. Am I in the spam filter?

Echoing some of Zan’s questions about a ‘firm’ view of predestination/free will, I go back to both the first and the second Adam:

1) Was Adam just a chump set up by God, who knew he would fail, but set up the test with the tree just for show?

2) Was Jesus’ temptation in the desert just an act, or did Jesus acually have the option to choose to turn stones to bread, jump off the temple or worship satan in return for world power?

3) When Jesus was praying in the garden the night before he was crucified, was the whole ‘blood, sweat and tears’ thing just play-acting, since Jesus = God, and everything is predestined, so Jesus would know that his prayers (just for show) wouldn’t convince himself of any other way? Was this just a Gollum/Smeagol conversation at which we’re given a peek? OR, was Jesus emotion and action genuine in nature, his prayer an actual request, still resulting in his free choice to accept death on the cross because there was no other way?

Keith,

You are a “convert’ from Arminism to Calvinism and obviously well versed in Scripture and anticipate everyone’s response (gee this has only been debated for 500 years how could you possibly do that? ) so let’s cut to the chase:

LIMITED ATONEMENT – Calvinist’s maintain that the general call to the un-elect is a sincere call. But if limited atonement is true then PROVISION for the un-elect has not been made so how can the “offer” of salvation possibly be sincere when no provision for their salvation was ever made?

Keith,
I would guess even if they used their real names it wouldn’t mean much to you. I know that Sandman, at least, doesn’t have an online presence. Ironically enough “Houston John” has probably told you more about himself than if he had used “John Reallastname”.

To more directly answer your question, I quit reading people such as Jack Cottrell and began reading the Bible. It made sense to me.

Guess I’ll have to go find where “semi-pelegianism” is in the scriptures then.

In all seriousness the only people I’ve known that have moved towards Calvinism have done so only after reading something other than scripture (although, oddly enough rarely is that something other than scripture actually Calvin’s own writings).

Keith said,

because I believe God puts limits on Himself

Except in the area of choosing who gets saved and who doesn’t? Right? Not that I disagree with you necessarily, just looking for clarification.

Keith quoted me

…because I believe God puts limits on himself…

and then follows up with

That’s like saying God can create a rock so big, even He can’t lift it.

That doesn’t follow logically. The one has to do with how God exercises his sovereignty, and we’ve been over this a lot. The other has to do with God violating his own nature, which is not possible.

There are many things in the Bible that don’t appear to “add up,” but they do in the mind of God. He’s not obligated to explain them (cf Jeremiah 18:6) I’m sorry I really don’t have time to give more detailed answers. I assume you’ve heard them all anyway. Thanks for listening.

Whoops! I moused over the submit button and was thinking “What does this button do?”

You just used Jer. 18:6 as a proof text. The surrounding verses give the correct context and usage.

Keith I welcome the conversation. As you can guess, I’m not a Calvinist. But I do believe any position worth holding is worth defending, until such time that position can no longer be defended.

I can agree there are many things about God we’ll never understand on this side of the veil. But one day we’ll know perfectly. Until then, I try to be willing and ready to adjust my thinking to accommodate the Word, not adjust the Word to to accommodate my thinking.

Keith,

I wasn’t aware you can add a bio on this site. Where do you go to do that? Be glad to. And I don’t have a blog.

Tim: There are four families in our church (Reformed Baptist) that left the Christian Church after “reading the Bible.” Heb 4:12

Joe: Go back and read the thread. I didn’t say that. I was quoting someone that did.

Sandman: You said I do believe any position worth holding is worth defending, until such time that position can no longer be defended. That’s a nice thought, but I have a day job right now.

Sandman: I don’t mean to sound rude–Just knowing, as I’ve previously stated, that I’m in the minority here, I fail to see the point in continuing the “defense.” Are you honestly seeking an answer because you have doubts about your own beliefs?…I didn’t think so, and neither do I. You believe what you believe and the same goes for me. We will not convince each other to “switch teams.”

The people God is speaking to in Jeremiah aren’t dealing in “hypotheticals” either. Again, take note of their response in verse 12. And again, God already knew their response.

You asked: Now, regarding your take on Jerimiah, are you sure you’re not reading into the text something that is congruent with your theology? No more than those who see the passage differently. Do you really want me to believe that you don’t EVER bring ANY assumptions to the table when reading Scripture?

===

Houston John: The point is, WHY would you make provision for 100 if you already KNOW FOR A FACT that only 90 will attend. The provision for the 10 is ineffective, i.e. Jesus’ death on the cross was not effective–was an absolute waste for those 10.

Tim: My point was that everyone around here seems to make a big deal about Slice writers posting “anonymously.” I just figured the same applied here.

You also state: In all seriousness the only people I’ve known that have moved towards Calvinism have done so only after reading something other than scripture (although, oddly enough rarely is that something other than scripture actually Calvin’s own writings). I don’t intend to sound mean here, but your comments sounds like you believe no one could come to a “reformed” (”Calvinist” is such a tough term; I have no allegiences to the man and I know that he did not frame the “five points.”) mindset simply by reading the Bible….but EVERYONE should see things your way if they read their Bible. I wish you could have been around to help Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon see the error of their thinking.

I don’t get the connection to your “semi-pelegianism” comment. I’ve never called you or anyone here by that term.

===

Rick: I don’t know a single “calvinist” that rejects limited atonement. Not one.

You stated: Why keep creating unelected, without hope, and hell bound sinners? Why keep creating people you know for a fact won’t “choose?” They end up just like the “non-elect”, don’t they?

Boys and girls, we’re running in circles here. Let’s pick another topic…like Dan Kimball’s hair (of course, we won’t agree on that, either. **sigh**)

The point is, WHY would you make provision for 100 if you already KNOW FOR A FACT that only 90 will attend. The provision for the 10 is ineffective, i.e. Jesus’ death on the cross was not effective–was an absolute waste for those 10.

I would first go to Jesus’ words:
When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ “
Many are invited who do not come. They were given a choice, but had other excuses.

The other answer I would give goes back to metaphysics, which is this: God gives each of us permission to choose, and in that permission itself is not foreknowledge as we experience it (i.e. past -> present -> future = a fixed course), but foreknowledge of how His permission to make that decision (to choose or not) will affect all possible futures while staying within the bounds of His will.

By forcing God into our definition of foreknowledge (at this point in time the future is fixed in place), we make Him less than sovereign, because we place Him within the bounds of time, rather than apart from it.

Keith, I didn’t think you were being rude.

Secondly, I don’t always need to argue with the intention of getting someone to “switch teams.” Sometimes I’ll debate a topic just to get the stongest arguments out in the marketplace of ideas. If it stretches us to think beyond the comfy paradigms we’ve been sitting (stagnating?) in for 20 or 30 years, great!

The people God is speaking to in Jeremiah aren’t dealing in “hypotheticals” either. Again, take note of their response in verse 12. And again, God already knew their response.

A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. And it’s usually an error. The point of this passage is not that God knew what their response would be. Even if that were the case, it does not make verses 7-10 any less true; certainly not less than any other place in the Bible where God makes a conditional threat or promise to a person, nation or kingdom. The OT is full of them, because the OT gives witness to how God had to interact with a fallen creation, that he ultimately plans to redeem, until he can show his true heart of hearts in the person of Jesus Chirst.

Do you really want me to believe that you don’t EVER bring ANY assumptions to the table when reading Scripture?

No. But I really do want you to believe what I wrote at 1:11 a.m. “…I try to be willing and ready to adjust my thinking to accommodate the Word, not adjust the Word to accommodate my thinking.”

I don’t intend to sound mean here, but your comments sounds like you believe no one could come to a “reformed” (”Calvinist” is such a tough term; I have no allegiences to the man and I know that he did not frame the “five points.”) mindset simply by reading the Bible….but EVERYONE should see things your way if they read their Bible. I wish you could have been around to help Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon see the error of their thinking.

Actually I was just relating my personal experience with people who become Calvinists after reaching adulthood. Take, for example, most of the sites often linked from CRN.info, they quote far more often Calvinist theologians than they do scripture.

I don’t get the connection to your “semi-pelegianism” comment. I’ve never called you or anyone here by that term.

My point is that it is quite telling that when Calvinists pour their derision out on heretics they mostly use labels found nowhere in scripture. Naturally, this doesn’t describe you, but then again you’re here engaging in a reasonable discussion, which makes you different from most of them as well.

Keith said: “Houston John: The point is, WHY would you make provision for 100 if you already KNOW FOR A FACT that only 90 will attend. The provision for the 10 is ineffective, i.e. Jesus’ death on the cross was not effective–was an absolute waste for those 10.”

Keith if I knew for certain 10 would not come why would I invite them at all and THEN turn around and hold them accountable for not coming? It is the Calvinist that says God’s general call to the Elect is sincere. The call goes out to all 100 in either the Calvinist or non-Calvinist world view. It is for LOVE of the invitees that both the “provision for” and the “call to all” are made. It is for ACCOUNTABILITY that the call to all is made even though it is known that all won’t come.