I don’t know if we can rightly say things about “who God loves more”? Considering that Love is what God is…not merely a verb merely revealing what God does or how God does it.

I don’t know if we can apply categories of evaluation to God that apply to humans…i.e. “idolatry of worthless humans”. God is constrained by God’s being. So I don’t think we can rightly compare God’s mysterious loving of God’s self in the Trinity to God’s loving of humans and place a value on one over the other.

Just my opinion…that’s correct, of course….(just kidding)

In the Trinity we see a God who is a self-donating, mutually addressing relationship. The outward impulse toward self-donation could be the filter through which we understand God’s loving of humans and God’s pursuit of God’s interests.

Considering the essence of God as Trinity, we could just as easily say it is in God’s highest interest to love all God encounters. Why? To fail in love is to fail at the level of divine being…an impossibility. God can’t be anything other than what God is-love. The Trinity helps us see the love that God is always gives, reaches for the other, mutually indwells, etc. etc. etc.

24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

Was it because they did not go through the narrow door? Nope they tried but were rejected because whether they can go through a narrow door does not depend on their choice, hence the qualifier ‘ will not be able to’.

Nope, it was because they “tried” to enter the narrow gate by works and not faith… that is what Paul states in Romans 9.

This is the issue with both views both seem to negate that the Holy Spirit is now poured out on all flesh according to Acts chapter 2…

Again, man has a free will and since God has poured out the Holy Spirit on all flesh, man can now respond to the calling of the Father and draw near to Jesus… the issue now is whether it is by works or faith…

It is only because the Holy Spirit is now poured out on all men that man can freely choose. Works or faith… Our own righteousness which we have none or Jesus’ righteousness… our own holiness or Jesus’… Grace by the Holy Spirit or Works by flesh. CHoosing the covenant of death and condemnation or the covenant of Life through Jesus.

Jesus is the door in which men enter by faith… and many will try to enter by works and not faith.

Be blessed,
iggy

Personally, I guess I would probably be called an Open Theist, but I think I was one even before I ever heard of the term. I think there are things that God absolutely predestines, but I think there are things in the future that are open as possibilities still. Basically, I don’t believe God operates from a script. He is living and active, and for those two things to be true implies a level of interaction that I believe is hard to imagine under a view of divine foreknowledge that says everything is planned.

allow me to refute some of your proof texts.

Lk.13:24-27 – Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
25When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

- -Refer to verse 24 and 25 again. It says

24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

Was it because they did not go through the narrow door? Nope they tried but were rejected because whether they can go through a narrow door does not depend on their choice, hence the qualifier ‘ will not be able to’.

[Lk.17:32-34 - 33Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.]

If read in the context, it says beforehand (luke17)

[ 28"It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. ]

Did they reach God? No. God selected Lot alone. The sodomites were blind to the end. None of them seeked God.

One more thing. Your verses should be 32-33. 34 reads this (NIV) 34I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

It tells us that while both women will be grinding grain, only one will be chosen to be left alive upon coming of the kingdom of God. This shows us that salvation is not dependent on how man tries (as if he can even try), but on God’s sovereign choice, which i know many do choke on this point.

[Jn.6:25-27 - 25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.]

Refer to your verse 27. “which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed” i.e. (NIV) 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

The key assumption i believe you seem to be making is that we somehow work for our places in heaven. i.e. the ‘bread’ that the Son of Man gives (v27) is somehow a wage for work?

But if you look closely, what is this work that earns this bread?

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

hence this does not back up the (rick’s) claim that believers were made and not chosen. It simply tells us what happens AFTER a person believes.

k. 2cents done and back to work.

I agree that we should focus on reality. However, because understanding of this theology profoundly affects how we approach key aspects of reality, its best to get it clear, whether you believe in TULIP or not. While i believe in what i believe, you must be convinced in your own mind. Choose the best course.

When stephen hawkings crosses the road, if he beleives in a predestined future and assumes he will live tmr, then i suppose he won’t look at the roads both ways. (i.e. in this section stephen has the wrong concept)

When stephen instead has the concept that his future is predestined but he will never know, he will look both left and right. But even if he gets hit by a car, he thanks god knowing that it was a good plan.

Thanks for clarifying.

[I’m arguing that the weight of Scripture, the texts and the narrative arc, combined with Christian explication of doctrine reveals a God whose ultimate essence is love.]

Amen. However, does God love himself more or humans more than God? God cannot love humans more than Himself because doing so will be idolatry of worthless man. God loves himself utmost, but he can also love humans beings at the same time provided they do not clash.

When the humans beings here in question prostituite God’s love for idolatry, then God would guard his interests first and execute his righteous punishment.

Yeah my mass-murderer analogy is little bit wrong.

The mass murderer did NOT appeal for pardon. The pardon was given freely without asking. Sorry about that. I think i better use a scriptural example.

[matthew 27] 15Now it was thegovernor’s custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.

19While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”

20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

21″Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.

22″What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”

23″Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

in the same way, the festival would release a person already condemned to death/etc but the person had no right to ask for it and the release of e.g. Barabbas did not require Barabbas to ask for anything.

Notice that it was the governor’s custom. Although the citizens were the ones who asked, the governer could release or refuse as he sees fit. The ’sovereignty’ of release lies solely at the hands of the governor, who acts accordng to his own benefit.

The way many Calvinists describe the debate makes it sound as if Calvinism is historic Christianity. Also, it’s interesting that Calvinism as we know it today is probably taken to much more of an extreme than Calvin would have envisioned.

No. I didn’t say Love and sovereignty are opposed, etc.
I’m saying that sovereignty is about the economy of God’s action, it describes the absolute efficacy of God’s action…but it is not the defining characteristic of God’s being as elucidated through the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m arguing that the weight of Scripture, the texts and the narrative arc, combined with Christian explication of doctrine reveals a God whose ultimate essence is love.

Even Augustine–whom Calvin is completely dependent on–understood this.

To be clear…this is not some smarmy, cloying, sentimentalized notion of love…

My point is this:

If “sovereignty” (i.e. control) is the defining characteristic of God then the absolute value of the created order is found in “power” and not “charity” which is the being of God.

That is my claim.
I stand by it.

In love…of course.

hope that helps you understand what I’m saying.