Christianity and the Meaning of Life

[GundamZero]

It seems that the heart of this arguement is whether or not the grace of God extends to the lost. The idea that those who aren't "predestined" to come to Christ will not be able to is simply false. It is written that it is God's will that no man should die. Furthermore, it is the purpose of the Church to reach the lost.

However, the idea of God's will over man's will does not fall out of the equation. Once a Man is God's, God will move to multiply that fruit with more good fruit. It is therefore God's will for us to freely choose to execute his will, so that in all things, God might be the first and the last authority.

 

[Guest]

Well RED BEETLE,

I bet we all agreed with one part of your first post.



I agree with that.

Anyways, I private messaged you a while ago, I don't think you've looked at my message to you yet.

I can't believe that this was the original idea of this thread. God's sovereignty can not be separated from His glory, but wow.

Red Beetle

 

[TanNinety]

I think that the donkey analogy is instructive. An intelligent reader will of course know that I am not suggesting that God is like a donkey.

1. An analogy can not be true unless there is a point of coincidence.
2. So, a donkey must have some point of coincidence with God before the analogy could be instructive.

I am not quite sure how you're statement 2 necessarily follows from statement 1. The point of coincidence in Drew's analogy is very well obvious that it was about "basis for election".

The donkey had to "elect" from a choice buckets of oats.
God had to "elect" from a choice group of humans.

The coincidence is election not the donkey and God.

This however goes back to the problem in the stance you take that you refuse to entertain an alternate interpretation of scripture which Drew has provided in his counter-argument.

 

[Vic C.]

It seems that the heart of this arguement is whether or not the grace of God extends to the lost. The idea that those who aren't "predestined" to come to Christ will not be able to is simply false. It is written that it is God's will that no man should die. Furthermore, it is the purpose of the Church to reach the lost.

However, the idea of God's will over man's will does not fall out of the equation. Once a Man is God's, God will move to multiply that fruit with more good fruit. It is therefore God's will for us to freely choose to execute his will, so that in all things, God might be the first and the last authority.

Thanks for ringing in. P. You're beginning to sound like your bro. That's a good thing... I think. ;-)

 

[christian_soldier]

Red Beetle

I really enjoy reading your stuff and its good to have another cHRISTIAN here on the board.

May the Lord of Host bless you.

Just so you know Drew is not saved and he is an open Thiest although I am sure you figured that out already.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, oscar.

7457 registered users at this forum (to date) and you have only found Beetle to be a fellow Christian? :o

Hey, Drew, is it so? Are you not saved?

If not, please see http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26872 and http://christiansoldiers.rei-resource.c ... -saved.php

Then join us in spreading the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which will avail more than time spent arguing with a follower of men.

Praise God.

 

[Guest]

Drew wrote:

If no created being can move God to do anything, how you explain 2 Kings 20 where it seems that prayers moves God to change his plan in respect to Hezekiah.

This is a common misunderstanding.
It is due to an enthymeme.

Sometimes a premise is implicit, that is, it is not stated outright. If you are not familiar with what is going on, then you can quickly make a mistake.

Stephen Charnock was a puritan born in London, England in 1628. He ministered in Ireland as a Chaplain to Henry Cromwell. He may be best known for his book titled, "The Existence and Attributes of God."
You can get this book for about $10.00 from Christian Book Distributor.
This is a great deal, for the book has over 1,000 pages!
Here is a link:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/ ... em_code=WW

Anyway,
Charnock explains away this apparent contradiction by stating it is an interlocutory sentence. He states:
"The answer to these cases is this, that where we find predictions in Scripture declared, and yet not executed, we must consider them, not as absolute but conditional, or as the civil law calls it, an interlocutory sentence. God declared what would follow by natural causes, or by the demerit of man, not what He would absolutely Himself do: and in many of those predictions, though the condition be not expressed [this is the enthymeme--Red Beetle], yet it is to be understood; so the promises of God are to be understood, with the condition of perseverance in well doing; and threatenings, with a clause of revocation annexed to them, provided that man repent" (The Existence and Attributes of God, part I, page 343)

Sola Scriptura
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

It seems that the heart of this arguement is whether or not the grace of God extends to the lost. The idea that those who aren't "predestined" to come to Christ will not be able to is simply false. It is written that it is God's will that no man should die. Furthermore, it is the purpose of the Church to reach the lost.

However, the idea of God's will over man's will does not fall out of the equation. Once a Man is God's, God will move to multiply that fruit with more good fruit. It is therefore God's will for us to freely choose to execute his will, so that in all things, God might be the first and the last authority.

Thank you Gundam Zero for your comment.
Please consider:
1) If God is omnipotent and always accomplishes His will, then whatever He desires will come to pass (Job 23:13)
2) God is a being who desires for every single person who has and ever will live to be saved
3) Therefore, God is a being who accomplishes the salvation of every single person who has or ever will live
(This is universalism-Christ for all-no one goest to hell)

If you believe in hell, and that people are going there, then you have a bit of a problem.

Here is the correct syllogism:
1) If God is omnipotent and always accomplishes His will, then whatever He desires will come to pass (Job 23:13)
2) God is a being who desires for only His predestined elect to receive grace and be saved (Mark 13:20)
3) Therefore, God is a being who is gracious to His elect and accomplishes their salvation (Calvinism)

Another possibility is to posit a theory of free will. To do this, simply cite some verses which teach free will, then go to making your own argument.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

I am not quite sure how you're statement 2 necessarily follows from statement 1. The point of coincidence in Drew's analogy is very well obvious that it was about "basis for election".

The donkey had to "elect" from a choice buckets of oats.
God had to "elect" from a choice group of humans.

The coincidence is election not the donkey and God.

This however goes back to the problem in the stance you take that you refuse to entertain an alternate interpretation of scripture which Drew has provided in his counter-argument.

According to you, the donkey and God both have the quality of being able to elect.
Therefore, God and the donkey are alike in that both can elect.
The point of coincidence is their ability to elect.
The ability to elect is within both, but there are some important differences.
The obvious is that one was created from nothing by the other, while the Creator is eternal, unchangeable, omnipotent...
From the above another difference is that the donkey elects because its will is moved to.
God elects because He freely chooses to, nothing can move God's will, for He is the perfect highest good.

You could use a man for the analogy, rather than a donkey.
After all, man is even made in God's image (Genesis 1:27).

Thanks
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

Hey, Drew, is it so? Are you not saved?

I have exercised my right to put Oscar on "ignore" and will not entertain any interaction with him or occasioned by him. Unfortunately, when you put someone on "ignore", you still see what they write when others quote them.

I happily and unashamedly claim Jesus as my Saviour. Fortunately, oscar does not get to vote on the matter.

 

[TanNinety]

You could use a man for the analogy, rather than a donkey.
After all, man is even made in God's image

Point taken. Thank you.

 

[Oscar3]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, oscar.

7457 registered users at this forum (to date) and you have only found Beetle to be a fellow Christian? :o

Hey, Drew, is it so? Are you not saved?

If not, please see http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=26872 and http://christiansoldiers.rei-resource.c ... -saved.php

Then join us in spreading the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which will avail more than time spent arguing with a follower of men.

Praise God.

Christian Soldier
I oppologize to you and the other ''Christians'' MY words offended.
I was refering to the influx of false teachers who have recently come aboard.

 

[Drew]

The Bondage of the Will" goes over this as Luther deals with Erasmus' secular notion of the Incomprehensibility of God. If you have not read this book, then you should stop posting and go read it.

I politely affirm my right to continue posting even if I have not read your recommended book. I could equally well ask that you stop posting until you have actually engaged my initial, and thus far unchallenged, refutation of your argument based on Eph 1:11.

 

[Drew]

"The answer to these cases is this, that where we find predictions in Scripture declared, and yet not executed, we must consider them, not as absolute but conditional, or as the civil law calls it, an interlocutory sentence. God declared what would follow by natural causes, or by the demerit of man, not what He would absolutely Himself do: and in many of those predictions, though the condition be not expressed [this is the enthymeme--Red Beetle], yet it is to be understood; so the promises of God are to be understood, with the condition of perseverance in well doing; and threatenings, with a clause of revocation annexed to them, provided that man repent" (The Existence and Attributes of God, part I, page 343)

I submit that it is clear that the "plain reading" of 2 King 20 is at odds with your stance on whether God can be moved. You, of course, have a right to argue that the "plain reading" is incorrect. But you must provide an actual argument. And I have seen nothing thus far except texts that are consistent with your take and yet are also consistent with other positions. What is your specific justification for deciding to read 2 Kings 20 against its "plain reading"? And I would humbly suggest that any texts you provide not have the ambiguity that inheres in Eph 1:11, which is clearly consistent with a reading where God does not fully control the will of man.

 

[Jay T]

Welcome to the lecture series on the Westminster Shorter Catechism. My name is Monty Collier, and I am the teaching elder of Geneva Dutch Calvinist Church, Kingsport, Tennessee.

This will be a brief exposition of the catechism, and a good introduction to Calvinism.
Let’s get started.

Question One, What is the chief end of Man?
Answer, Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

This first question of the catechism confronts us with one of the most important tasks of philosophy and religion.

Have you ever wondered what your purpose is in the universe?
Where do you fit in, and why is it that you are alive in the first place?

The Bible teaches us that man’s purpose for existing is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

Where does this Bible verse fit into that idea......
Eccl. 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.
12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Just curious as to how what God says, fits in.

 

[Guest]

I submit that it is clear that the "plain reading" of 2 King 20 is at odds with your stance on whether God can be moved. You, of course, have a right to argue that the "plain reading" is incorrect. But you must provide an actual argument. And I have seen nothing thus far except texts that are consistent with your take and yet are also consistent with other positions. What is your specific justification for deciding to read 2 Kings 20 against its "plain reading"? And I would humbly suggest that any texts you provide not have the ambiguity that inheres in Eph 1:11, which is clearly consistent with a reading where God does not fully control the will of man.

Drew,
You call your view the "plain reading". I call my view the "correct reading".
Don't you know that the correct reading is always to be held to, rather than the plain reading?

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Drew]

Drew,
You call your view the "plain reading". I call my view the "correct reading".
Don't you know that the correct reading is always to be held to, rather than the plain reading?

If you had only told me that yours was the correct reading, then that would have ended the discussion. Silly old me - expecting that you should be actually expected to defend your take on this text.

Now, please tell us exactly why your reading (which is at variance with the "plain reading", which shows God as being moved) is the "correct" one.

 

[Guest]

If you had only told me that yours was the correct reading, then that would have ended the discussion. Silly old me - expecting that you should be actually expected to defend your take on this text.

Now, please tell us exactly why your reading (which is at variance with the "plain reading", which shows God as being moved) is the "correct" one.

Drew,
I already did above. Did you not read my post on the previous page where I cited Puritan / Calvinist writer Stephen Charnock? Here is the quote again:

Charnock explains away this apparent contradiction by stating it is an interlocutory sentence. He states:
"The answer to these cases is this, that where we find predictions in Scripture declared, and yet not executed, we must consider them, not as absolute but conditional, or as the civil law calls it, an interlocutory sentence. God declared what would follow by natural causes, or by the demerit of man, not what He would absolutely Himself do: and in many of those predictions, though the condition be not expressed [this is the enthymeme--Red Beetle], yet it is to be understood; so the promises of God are to be understood, with the condition of perseverance in well doing; and threatenings, with a clause of revocation annexed to them, provided that man repent" (The Existence and Attributes of God, part I, page 343)

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[Guest]

Hey Drew,
You stated:

You, of course, have a right to argue that the "plain reading" is incorrect. But you must provide an actual argument.

Now, when I claimed that my view on Ephesians 1:11 was the correct reading, you told me that you did not have to give a counter argument, but you could simply disagree.

Now, when you bring up 1 Kings and make a claim, which I reject, then you claim I must give an argument, which I did by the way. But, don't I have a right to simply disagree, or is that reserved for skeptics only? Ha!

Since we are playing by my rules now, for you must think it convenient to yourself, why don't you be consistent and give us all that wonderful argument for "free" will based on the many wonderful verses which must teach it. We have never gotten that argument from you, though we have continuously asked for it.

Sola Fide
Red Beetle

 

[TanNinety]

Now, when I claimed that my view on Ephesians 1:11 was the correct reading, you told me that you did not have to give a counter argument, but you could simply disagree.

Simply not true. Drew said he did not have to provide positive argument for free will. He simply did not disagree with you. He actually provided a counter argument based on an alternate interpretation of Eph 1:11

Now, when you bring up 1 Kings and make a claim, which I reject, then you claim I must give an argument, which I did by the way. But, don't I have a right to simply disagree, or is that reserved for skeptics only? Ha!

The argument that you have provided for 2 kings 20 is that you provided an alternate interpretation of scripture where you need to consider “implied conditions†in prophecy for which you have not provided why we need to consider these implied conditions. You want Drew to consider this alternate reading when it is convenient for you but refuse to consider it when Drew provides the same for Eph 1:11. You are guilty of special pleading your case.

Since we are playing by my rules now, for you must think it convenient to yourself, why don't you be consistent and give us all that wonderful argument for "free" will

I do not see Drew being inconsistent here but you. Drew is not presenting his case for free-will but is only challenging the case you have presented. If you say “earth is flatâ€Â, then your opponent does not have to prove that “earth is a sphere†but can prove the inconsistency in your argument which concludes that “earth is not flat†..which isn’t the same asking to prove that earth is a sphere.

 

[Drew]

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
Is this text evidence that God's controls all the events and actions in our universe? Methinks not. It is entirely consistent with such a view but it is also entirely consistent with another view of the sovereignty of God- which I happen to think is the correct view.

This view of the sovereignty of God entails that central idea that God weaves the events of our world to achieve His purposes, while leaving some variables "free", such as the will of man (at least to some degree).
Although God does not control everything, His goals are still achieved.

A sparrow cannot fall to the ground in such a way as to thwart the will (or purposes) of God. But, and this is the key point, this does not logically require that God determines all "sparrow fallings". Some sparrow fallings might be inconsequential to the will of God and these fallings can be "free" events that He does not control.