Origin of GOOD and EVIL!

[Bruce Leiter]

I will interpret that to mean "yes", so I will begin by presenting part of Romans 1-3 and then you may want to share Psalms that are relevant.

A systematic study of election might begin well by examining what seems to be the fountainhead of the TULIP dogma, namely Romans 9:10-24, in the context of the rest of relevant Scripture in Romans regarding salvation/election (s/e), which is Romans 1-11:

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

2. Romans 1:17 describes s/e as “righteousness from God” that is by faith “from first to last” or from creation until the end.

3. Romans 2:4 teaches that God’s kindness or patience with sinners is meant to lead them toward repentance, which implies that sinners are able to repent because of God’s leading.

4. Romans 2:5 warns that those who do not repent but instead stubbornly resist God’s leading are storing up wrath against themselves for the day when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed, which implies that God enables sinners to repent–or not (cf. Deut. 30:19).

5. Romans 2:6 affirms what is called karma by saying that “God will give to each person according to what he has done”, which (in Gal. 6:7-9) is called reaping what a person sows.

6. Romans 2:7 speaks of the need for “persistence in doing good” and seeking glory, honor and immortality in order to receive s/e or eternal life, which echoes what Jesus commanded (in Matt. 7:7) and connects with the doctrine of perseverance (cf. Heb. 10:36 & Jam. 1:3-4).

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

8. Romans 2:15 teaches that sinful souls have a conscience or awareness of “the requirements of the law”, which may be combined with Romans 1:20 to teach that God’s power and moral nature or will may be perceived via creation and conscience (called natural revelation), thus those unfamiliar with God’s Word in Scripture have no good reason for resisting divine leading and choosing atheism/evil.

9. Romans 3:20-21 states the law makes souls conscious of sin and that “the Law and Prophets testify” or prepare the way for the new revelation of righteousness from God apart from the Law, which takes up where Romans 1:17 left off.

10. Romans 3:22a says that “righteousness from God” or s/e comes through faith “in Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. 2:8), a phrase Paul used eleven times in Ephesians 1:3-14 to indicate s/e.

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism (#7).

Over...

Groovy, I prefer a different approach to Romans: The passage 1:18--3:20 presents Paul's case that states all people (Gentiles and Jews) are guilty before their Judge, the Father. In 3:21--11:27, Paul shows that the only way for people to receive the Father's not-guilty verdict is our reception of Jesus' death as the source of that liberating pronouncement. Finally, Paul in 12:1--16:27 gives us commands to guide our lives as true believers. Another way to say it is that the three parts of Romans are GUILT, GRACE, and GRATITUDE or SIN, SALVATION, and SERVICE.

 

[GodsGrace]

"mfw" is from a human perspective. "tulip dogma" is from a spiritual perspective. It's not one or the other, but both/and. The foreknowledge of God does not merely mean foresight, but includes all the intricate detail of how God designed everything. It includes God foreloving the ones He chose "before the foundation of the world." So then, the scripture does not contradict itself, and neither does Paul contradict himself.

So when God passes by most people (the non-elect), it doesn't make Him the author of sin. He is choosing to exercise His justice on people who deserve it. But for His elect, He chooses to exercise mercy instead. So then, unconditional election glorifies God's choice, whereas "mfw" glorifies man's choice.

I've asked this many times tdidymas - I'll try again.

If God chooses some for salvation
and some to be passed over and thus for damnation.....

HOW is God a JUST God?

Please give the definition of justice...
and then reconcile with God CHOOSING WHO will be saved.

Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Groovy, I prefer a different approach to Romans: The passage 1:18--3:20 presents Paul's case that states all people (Gentiles and Jews) are guilty before their Judge, the Father. In 3:21--11:27, Paul shows that the only way for people to receive the Father's not-guilty verdict is our reception of Jesus' death as the source of that liberating pronouncement. Finally, Paul in 12:1--16:27 gives us commands to guide our lives as true believers. Another way to say it is that the three parts of Romans are GUILT, GRACE, and GRATITUDE or SIN, SALVATION, and SERVICE.

Bruce, you're beginning to sound like a non-Reformed/Calvinist !

 

[Groovy]

Groovy, I prefer a different approach to Romans: The passage 1:18--3:20 presents Paul's case that states all people (Gentiles and Jews) are guilty before their Judge, the Father. In 3:21--11:27, Paul shows that the only way for people to receive the Father's not-guilty verdict is our reception of Jesus' death as the source of that liberating pronouncement. Finally, Paul in 12:1--16:27 gives us commands to guide our lives as true believers. Another way to say it is that the three parts of Romans are GUILT, GRACE, and GRATITUDE or SIN, SALVATION, and SERVICE.

Different approaches can either agree or disagree. If there are any numbered items you disagree with,
please explain why, because I don't disagree with what you said. The three G's and S's sound good to me.
(I like alliteration.) Thanks.

 

[Elijah7777]

1. Romans 1:16 says the Gospel reveals that (s/e) is for “everyone who believes”, both Jew and Gentile.

Male and Female, Black and White, Hebrew and Gentile. God does not want division; He wants to unite us. The Grace of God works in us to restore us to God's justice.

The two statements above seem to contradict.

I think he is saying we are saved by Grace and not works.

 

[Groovy]

I agree with what you said and have considered this question for some fifty years, so please allow me to share my insight before reading the rest of this thread:

A person—even a theist—might think that God would not permit evil, suffering and hell to exist. People who are mystified by evil and repulsed by its punishment do not realize that the essential aspect of being a human rather than a robot or subhuman creature is moral free will (MFW), which is what enables a person to experience love and meaning. This is what makes humans different from animals, whose behavior is governed mainly by instinct. This is what it means to be created in God’s image (GN 1:26-27; robot or responsible)?

God could not force people to return His love without abrogating their humanity. If God were to zap ungodly souls, it would be tantamount to forcing conversions at gunpoint, which would not be free and genuine. If God were to prevent people from behaving hatefully, then He would need to prevent them from thinking evilly, which would make human souls programmed automatons.

MFW only exists when there is the possibility of choosing between two qualitatively opposite moral options that we call good and evil. These options are opposites because of essentially different consequences for choosing them. Choosing good results in blessing, life and heaven; and choosing evil results in cursing, death and hell (DT 30:19). This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God. The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word.

God loves a cheerful giver (2CR 9:7), which means He desires people to cooperate with Him happily because of love and gratitude for His grace rather than to cower before Him because of fear of hell. Love must be evoked; it cannot be coerced. And again, when souls sin or do NOT choose to love God freely, it is perfectly just (loving and logical) for them to reap the appropriate consequence (GL 6:7-9) or hell.

Getting back to the topic of the OP, we can see that God is good, and He created the option for human souls to oppose His good will via enabling them to resist it. His good will is expressed in 1 Timothy 2:3-4: "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." The truth that Paul had in mind is found in the next verses: "There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men."

In OT terms, the option or choice per Deuteronomy 30:19 was between life/blessings and death/curses, and God urged souls to listen to the Lord's urging and choose life. In NT terms, the binary choice per John 8:42-44 is between accepting Jesus as Lord/God's Messiah or choosing Satan/atheism. Souls who choose curses/atheism thereby make evil actual rather than merely theoretical and reap the logical consequence. This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God.

Again, the Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)

God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word. And it is right for the ungodly to go to hell.

 

[live2blieve]

Everyone seems to agree. God is good and to turn away from God is evil. So evil is anything God is not a part of. We ask why does God allow evil and the answer is always the same because you can not have love without the freedom to choose.

Where did evil come from?

 

[Groovy]

Where did evil come from?

Hello live2blieve, as I just posted, my answer to your question is that God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes MFW/free human personality, beginning with Adam and Eve. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31).

Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word. And it is right for the ungodly to go to hell.

 

[tdidymas]

Glad to meet you, td. Your concern to affirm the sovereignty of God is valid, but your solution is problematic, because you deny or ignore Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners (because of MFW) for rejecting the love of God, thereby effectively perverting the Gospel (Gal. 5:6) and impugning God’s justness/righteousness (Psa. 33:5, Isa. 9:7).

Your argument is a straw man, because the gospel is in no way perverted by God electing some for salvation. The fact that Paul says it clearly puts you in conflict with what the apostle Paul wrote, since you reject Paul's clear teaching.

May I suggest that the apparent reasons for these errors are threefold:

1. Ignorance of Scripture that contradicts their dogma, such as those teaching the possibility of apostasy,

Warnings of apostasy is for those in the church not born again, but are believers of convenience. Peter, Jude, James and John all concur in talking about such people.

2. Viewing faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace, and

Quite the opposite, actually, since God elects those who have zero merit. There is no such thing as "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace" if you are talking about salvation coming to someone as a result of that person's "cooperation." Such cooperation is meritorious by nature.

3. Unconcern about portraying God as unjust by showing favoritism toward the elect. Once these errors are cured by including Scripture supporting MFW, doctrinal harmony is enhanced.

If the apostle Paul is correct in saying that God elected people for salvation (his words, "to adoption as sons"), then you are judging Paul's teaching as unjust. Your opinion falls flat when compared with scripture.

Also, there are a couple of verses in Romans cited in post 19 that you need to address:

7. Romans 2:11 teaches that “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, 1Pet. 1:17), which is how God judges people justly, so the fact that some sinners ignore God’s Gospel indicates that His will or leading is resistible because of MFW.

In every case where it says God does not show favoritism (or "not a respector of persons"), it is talking about race, nationality, or other physical features in which men are typically bigots. So if God does not show favoritism based on race or nationality, then He elects people "from every tribe, tongue, and nation" on the earth. If a person must "cooperate" with God, then would that not be favoritism based on some meritorious action and attitude?

11. Romans 3:22b says that God’s righteousness is given “to all who believe—there is no difference”” signifying that all sinners may believe or be s/e (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16, Tit. 2:11), because there is no favoritism.

And you say...

"all who believe" is the key to understanding this. Why no go deeper than this shallow idea, by asking where does a person's belief (faith) come from? It most certainly does not come from a choice by the person to believe, because one will never choose to believe something they don't believe. If a person hears the gospel and does not believe the message, then they will never choose to believe that message they don't believe. Something has to happen in a person's heart and mind to make them believe the truth of the gospel. That something comes from God, as Paul clearly teaches in 1 Cor. ch. 1 & 2 and elsewhere. The apostle John in 1 Jn. 5:1 states clearly that anyone who believes in Jesus has already been born of God. So then, Eph. 2:5 happens before 2:8.

The point in all this is that you are using the term "favoritism" wrongly, in an unbiblical way. Most certainly God has favorites, as ultimately shown in the final judgment, where some are received into eternal life and others (the many) are thrown into the lake of fire. The real question is, what is the basis of God favoring some over others? It certainly isn't any merit on the part of the favorites.

 

[tdidymas]

I've asked this many times tdidymas - I'll try again.

If God chooses some for salvation
and some to be passed over and thus for damnation.....

HOW is God a JUST God?

Please give the definition of justice...
and then reconcile with God CHOOSING WHO will be saved.

Thanks.

According to Rom. 9, it is obvious that God chooses who will be saved. So the question is, how is that just? Very simply, justice is people getting what they deserve. Sinners deserve lake of fire judgment, according to many statements in scripture, both old and new testaments. If God chose not to save any man, He would still be just, because everyone deserves lake of fire judgment, regardless of how religious they try to make themselves. Self-righteousness does not merit salvation.

But Rom. 9 clearly says that God has mercy on whom He desires, and by the very nature of the statement means that He has mercy on some, not all. And mercy is not part of justice, nor does it have anything to do with justice, except to circumvent it. Mercy is an exception to justice. So God is not obligated in any way to have mercy on everyone, just because He decided to have mercy on some.

Therefore, your question that if God choses some for salvation and some to be passed over, how is that just - is a question that lacks understanding. Now you're the one who must define justice according to how you are using the word. Justice does not require mercy on anyone, much less on everyone, just because mercy is given to another. But God has the right to do whatever He wants with His own creation.

Rom. 3:10-18 clearly states why God is not obligated to save anyone. But in fact He does save some, as Paul argues in the rest of Romans (and 1 Cor. 1&2 and Eph. 2). First accept what God says about Himself and His choices (even if you don't understand it), then you will be in a better attitude to later understand what it means.

 

[Elijah7777]

Where did evil come from?

Like a violin perfectly tuned in the master's hands. When the strings are too long or two short than the instrament just makes noise. So Jesus retunes the violin. I like to use Hooke's law for this.

1. The Law of the String (Hooke’s Law)

F = -kx

• Every string resists being stretched.
• Too much force? It snaps.
• Too little? It sags.
• The right tension? It sings.

2. The Violin Was Good

“God made the violin. He tuned it with justice, mercy, and rest. Every string had a purpose.”

3. The Strings Were Twisted

“We stretched the strings too far—trying to play louder, faster, alone. Or we let them go slack—refusing to be part of the song.”

4. The Master Retunes

“Jesus doesn’t throw away the violin. He retunes it. He knows the original tension. He restores the harmony.”

 

[Groovy]

Your argument is a straw man, because the gospel is in no way perverted by God electing some for salvation. The fact that Paul says it clearly puts you in conflict with what the apostle Paul wrote, since you reject Paul's clear teaching.

Warnings of apostasy is for those in the church not born again, but are believers of convenience. Peter, Jude, James and John all concur in talking about such people.

Quite the opposite, actually, since God elects those who have zero merit. There is no such thing as "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace" if you are talking about salvation coming to someone as a result of that person's "cooperation." Such cooperation is meritorious by nature.

If the apostle Paul is correct in saying that God elected people for salvation (his words, "to adoption as sons"), then you are judging Paul's teaching as unjust. Your opinion falls flat when compared with scripture.

In every case where it says God does not show favoritism (or "not a respector of persons"), it is talking about race, nationality, or other physical features in which men are typically bigots. So if God does not show favoritism based on race or nationality, then He elects people "from every tribe, tongue, and nation" on the earth. If a person must "cooperate" with God, then would that not be favoritism based on some meritorious action and attitude?

"all who believe" is the key to understanding this. Why no go deeper than this shallow idea, by asking where does a person's belief (faith) come from? It most certainly does not come from a choice by the person to believe, because one will never choose to believe something they don't believe. If a person hears the gospel and does not believe the message, then they will never choose to believe that message they don't believe. Something has to happen in a person's heart and mind to make them believe the truth of the gospel. That something comes from God, as Paul clearly teaches in 1 Cor. ch. 1 & 2 and elsewhere. The apostle John in 1 Jn. 5:1 states clearly that anyone who believes in Jesus has already been born of God. So then, Eph. 2:5 happens before 2:8.

The point in all this is that you are using the term "favoritism" wrongly, in an unbiblical way. Most certainly God has favorites, as ultimately shown in the final judgment, where some are received into eternal life and others (the many) are thrown into the lake of fire. The real question is, what is the basis of God favoring some over others? It certainly isn't any merit on the part of the favorites.

td, please note that I did not say the Gospel was perverted by God electing some for salvation, but rather by tulipists ignoring Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners (because of MFW) for rejecting the love of God.
Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: 1JN 4:7-12, RM 5:8, MT 5:44&48, GL 5:6&14, EPH 3:17b-19, EPH 5:2 and 1TM 2:3-4, which might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). This is Scripture, not "straw", man!
Sixteen Scriptures teach the need for believers to persevere and not commit apostasy, which you regard as "sour" and ignore the obvious meaning. I can cut and paste them, but they are listed in Lesson 2 on our website for anyone to view at their convenience. Every IF clause in those and other Scriptures indicates the "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace"
You similarly twist the obvious meaning of Scripture teaching that God does not show favoritism by viewing that as based on physical features without realizing that you beg the question " So if God does not show favoritism based on race or nationality, then on what basis does He show favoritism by electing people unconditionally?", or in your terms, "by programming only some to believe". The obvious answer is the basis that He loves only some and hates the rest of humanity, which perverts the 7 pearls and the Gospel as well as the obvious meaning of 1 John 4:7-5:1.
IOW, it is you who uses "favoritism" in an unbiblical way, and your last sentence confirms my opinion about the reason why, which is that you view faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace. This false understanding leads you to ignore or twist Scripture that contradicts TULIP and to lack concern about portraying God as unjust and unloving.
Thus, the real question is why do you believe in TULIP? Because I was raised as a Baptist I believed the "P" until I read the Bible and discovered the "Sour 16", but my desire to believe the Bible and study the issue systematically with an open or truthseeking mind was stronger than that OSAS dogma I had been taught.
How does your bio regarding what caused you to believe the "TUL & I" compare with mine?

 

[tdidymas]

td, please note that I did not say the Gospel was perverted by God electing some for salvation, but rather by tulipists ignoring Scripture teaching the love of God for all sinners and the moral accountability of sinners (because of MFW) for rejecting the love of God.

I don't know what other people post, nor any false ideas they may propagate. I'm here to say what the Bible says.

Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: 1JN 4:7-12, RM 5:8, MT 5:44&48, GL 5:6&14, EPH 3:17b-19, EPH 5:2 and 1TM 2:3-4, which might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). This is Scripture, not "straw", man!

What I responded to was indeed a straw man, because you presented two sides of a proposition as being the only options, and both were wrong and unbiblical. That's what made it a straw man.

1 Jn. 4:7-12 is written to Christians, not unbelievers. It does not say that God's love is universal. It says God loved "us," not "the whole world." If God loved Hitler the same as He loves you, then Hitler is now smoking a cigar in paradise. Obviously there are degrees of love just as there are degrees of justice, reward, and punishment. The fact that God chooses to love some more than others is His prerogative, and in no way does anyone's "cooperation" obligate Him to love them.

Rom. 5:8 - again, Christ died for "US" - that is, those who believe, that is, the elect. It doesn't say that Christ died for everyone in the world. 1 Pet. 2:24 says, "He bore our sins..." - "our," meaning God's elect, who at some time in their lifetime will hear the gospel, understand, and believe. If someone doesn't believe in Christ, then "he bore our sins" will have no interest to them (except to demean the statement somehow).

Mat. 5:44,48 - You can't see that this is speaking to people who are born of God, seeing that He says, "your Father in heaven"? How can anyone whose mind is set on the flesh (Rom. 8:5, talking about unbelievers) please God with faith and obedience? Paul says clearly it is not possible.

Gal. 5:6,14 - Again, it is speaking to true believers, and in no way says that God's love is universal. Certainly God loves everyone in some way, and grants a common grace to everyone, wherein everyone benefits from God in some way. But God's elect are those who receive His special love (the gift of salvation and eternal life), so that they may experience the glory of His grace, according to Eph. 1:6. We Christians are commanded to love others without regard to their response; yet there is no spiritual fellowship with the unsaved. But Jesus commanded us (Christians) to "love one another" (other Christians), which in context means to love Christians with special love over and above the unsaved "neighbor." Jesus said "by this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." This means that when we love other Christians the way Jesus commanded, that unbelievers will know that we are followers of Christ. Therefore, to claim that this verse teaches that God loves everyone the same is nonsense. It begs the question, what exactly do you mean by "omnilove"? It sounds like nonsense to me, from a Biblical standpoint.

Eph. 3:17-19 - You need to define "omnilove" clearly, because it looks to me like you're way off here. Eph. 3:17-19 is talking about knowing God's love for you personally, having a personal relationship with Him. Are you actually trying to claim that this verse teaches that God loves everyone the same? (nonsense!)

Eph. 5:2 is a command to Christians to "walk in love." Again, define what you mean by "omnilove," because I don't see how you are getting that out of this. Is this your own personal interpretation, or are you parroting what someone else said?

1 Tim. 2:3-4 - Finally, you came across a verse that seems to contradict the TULIP idea. I'll repeat v. 4 here: "who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But does it actually contradict it? I say it depends on how you define "wants" or "desires", and how you define "all men" or "all people." Rev. 5:9 says, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Notice it says that Jesus redeemed people "out of every kindred..." This means that redemption did not happen for everyone, and therefore God didn't love everyone the same. It means that in context of the whole NT, that only the elect of God were redeemed. So then, if God "desires" that "all men" be saved, then "all men" has to mean "men out of every nation," or "all sorts of men." It cannot mean every person who ever lived. Anyone who takes it to mean every person who ever lived is adding something to the text that just isn't there. If you want to properly interpret the scripture, you must take into account the wider context of what all scripture says in the matter. If you want to judge the scripture according to your opinion, then you'll do the easy and lazy thing, which is to read into the scripture how you want it to read.

But even if Paul meant to say that God wants everyone to be saved (the way it is commonly read), then God's desire that everyone be saved is in some way a contradiction to His actions that only some are saved. "Salvation is of the Lord," as Jonah put it, which means that God is sovereign in the salvation of men. Man's "free will" in choosing to believe and be saved is the result of God making a person spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14), raising him from spiritual death (Eph. 2:5), causing spiritual rebirth (John 1:13), granting repentance (2 Tim. 2:25), giving them wisdom from above (Ja. 3:17, 1 Cor. 1:30), and all else having to do with faith in Jesus. But if you claim that an individual "cooperates" with God's grace by "choosing to believe" and that this results in a person being saved, then you are teaching that in some way a person must merit God's grace to be saved.

My conclusion is that your "7 pearls" lack luster.

Sixteen Scriptures teach the need for believers to persevere and not commit apostasy, which you regard as "sour" and ignore the obvious meaning. I can cut and paste them, but they are listed in Lesson 2 on our website for anyone to view at their convenience. Every IF clause in those and other Scriptures indicates the "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace"

Like I said before, there is no such thing as a "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace." Such an expression begs the question, how can someone "cooperate" with God looking for spiritual blessing (i.e. salvation) without it being meritorious? It seems to me you're jacking with words but have no idea what you're really talking about. If you want to convince me or anyone that the statement makes sense, you have the burden of proof to do so. But if you can't do so here, but want to rely on me reading your website, then I think this discussion is likely over, because I am not interested in spending time reading your website, only to find and expose all the error there.

But concerning the warnings in scripture, it does not in any way teach that a true believer being born of God and having eternal life can lose eternal life. No such statement exists in all of scripture. The warnings actually make those who fear God fear Him all the more, because they are His children. What the warnings do to the non-elect who don't believe in the only true God or Jesus, is to drive them away. Anyone who "falls away," as in Heb. 6:4-6 is not born of God, since John also says, "they went out from us to show that they did not belong to us."

You similarly twist the obvious meaning of Scripture teaching that God does not show favoritism by viewing that as based on physical features without realizing that you beg the question " So if God does not show favoritism based on race or nationality, then on what basis does He show favoritism by electing people unconditionally?", or in your terms, "by programming only some to believe". The obvious answer is the basis that He loves only some and hates the rest of humanity, which perverts the 7 pearls and the Gospel as well as the obvious meaning of 1 John 4:7-5:1.

Your interpretation of 1 Jn. 4:7-5:1 is obviously wrong, because this is written to believers, not non-believers. So it in no way teaches that God loves everyone the same. Your idea that God loves everyone the same, and has no predestined elect (as Paul clearly declares), requires that people merit salvation by doing something to obtain it (unless you are a universalist, which is also error). God shows favoritism, not on the basis of why men show favoritism, but rather on the basis of His own will, merit, and decrees. Further, your word "programming" is a false idea designed to discredit the clear teaching of scripture in Eph. 2:1-10. The Bible also clearly states in various places that God favors some over others. But based on your responses, you don't believe that, and are likely not interested IMO.

(end of pt. 1 of 2)

 

[tdidymas]

IOW, it is you who uses "favoritism" in an unbiblical way, and your last sentence confirms my opinion about the reason why, which is that you view faith as a meritorious work rather than as the non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God’s grace. This false understanding leads you to ignore or twist Scripture that contradicts TULIP and to lack concern about portraying God as unjust and unloving.

From my viewpoint, you have everything backward, because of some twisted idea that you read into the scripture. I've already said numerous times that salvation and eternal life is a free gift from God, and God gives it to those with zero merit. So then, not only do you misread scripture as you do my posts, but you also misrepresent what I said. You have yet to explain that nonsensical idea of "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace" that I clearly explained previously as nonsense words. The nature of cooperating with God's grace to obtain salvation (or keep it) is by nature meritorious. You have the burden of proof to somehow work around the clear logic of what I'm saying. But I doubt you will.

Thus, the real question is why do you believe in TULIP? Because I was raised as a Baptist I believed the "P" until I read the Bible and discovered the "Sour 16", but my desire to believe the Bible and study the issue systematically with an open or truthseeking mind was stronger than that OSAS dogma I had been taught.
How does your bio regarding what caused you to believe the "TUL & I" compare with mine?

"Sour 16"?? You have the burden to prove that any scripture is sour to a true believer. It seems to me that you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't understand TULIP, and you probably listen exclusively to those who slander the doctrines thereof - people who are blind guides.

It doesn't matter what my bio is, or yours. What matters is what the word of God teaches. This is what I am about. I can understand where you're coming from, because the OSAS idea has been much misunderstood, maligned, and misused. Even the terms in TULIP are not really contributive to the actual doctrines taught by Reformed Theology, and taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. If you are interested in what Reformed Theology actually teaches, I recommend reading The London Baptist Confession of 1689.

But in regard to the OP, in the practical sense, God is the origin of good, and Satan is the origin of evil, and this can be shown by scripture.

 

[Groovy]

I don't know what other people post, nor any false ideas they may propagate. I'm here to say what the Bible says.

[Deleted to accommodate the word limit.]

My conclusion is that your "7 pearls" lack luster.

(end of pt. 1 of 2)

I am glad we both are concerned to learn GW, so here are my replies regarding the Scripture you cited.

1. 1 Jn. 4:7-12 is written to Christians, not unbelievers. It does not say that God's love is universal. It says God loved "us," not "the whole world." [[You illustrate ignoring GW, in this case John 3:16, Matthew 5:44&48 & Romans 5:8&15 and Romans 3:21-26 for starters.]]

2. If God loved Hitler the same as He loves you, then Hitler is now smoking a cigar in paradise. Obviously there are degrees of love just as there are degrees of justice, reward, and punishment. [[No, obviously you ignored the fact that Hitler exercised his God-given MFW to chose not to satisfy GRFS, so he condemned himself to a just hell.]]

3. Rom. 5:8 - again, Christ died for "US" - that is, those who believe, that is, the elect. It doesn't say that Christ died for everyone in the world. [[Your gift seems to be kicking against the goad of GW, in this case RM 3:21-26 & 5:15 for starters.]]

4. 1 Pet. 2:24 says, "He bore our sins..." - "our," meaning God's elect, who at some time in their lifetime will hear the gospel, understand, and believe. If someone doesn't believe in Christ, then "he bore our sins" will have no interest to them (except to demean the statement somehow). [[Again, you contradict 1 Pet. 3:9 as well as RM 5:15-17 & 3:21-26]]

5. The fact that God chooses to love some more than others is His prerogative, and in no way does anyone's "cooperation" obligate Him to love them. [[You kick against Paul's goad that God does not choose to love some more than others, which is the very meaning of favoritism!]]

6. Mat. 5:44-48 - You can't see that this is speaking to people who are born of God, seeing that He says, "your Father in heaven"? [[It is interesting to see the contortions you go through in order to warp the plain teaching, in this case by denying that the passage teaches God loves even His enemies, which would include unbelievers!]]

7. Gal. 5:6,14 - Again, it is speaking to true believers, and in no way says that God's love is universal. Certainly God loves everyone in some way [[You just contradicted even your self!]]

8. to claim that this verse teaches that God loves everyone the same is nonsense. It begs the question, what exactly do you mean by "omnilove"? It sounds like nonsense to me, from a Biblical standpoint. [[Amazing! Do you think it teaches God hates anyone? The question begged is what sort of parents did you have? Mine were very loving, so it is easy enough for me to believe that God loves omni.]]

9. Eph. 3:17-19 - You need to define "omnilove" clearly, because it looks to me like you're way off here. Eph. 3:17-19 is talking about knowing God's love for you personally, having a personal relationship with Him. Are you actually trying to claim that this verse teaches that God loves everyone the same? [[Omnilove is defined by 1Tim. 2:3-4 & John 3:16, for starters. It means God desires to have a loving personal relationship with everyone.]]

10. Eph. 5:2 is a command to Christians to "walk in love."... Is this your own personal interpretation, or are you parroting what someone else said? [[The command is for everyone to walk in love, like God, whom I parrot, so they won't experience the wrath that those who disobey will experience (v. 6)]]

11. 1 Tim. 2:3-4 - Finally, you came across a verse that seems to contradict the TULIP idea. I'll repeat v. 4 here: "who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But does it actually contradict it? I say it depends on how you define "wants" or "desires", and how you define "all men" or "all people." [[Finally? It depends on how you define "seems".]]

12. Jesus redeemed people "out of every kindred..." This means that redemption did not happen for everyone, and therefore God didn't love everyone the same. [[No, it means that although Jesus loved and wanted to redeem all in Jerusalem, many were not willing to accept Him as Messiah (Mat. 23:37).]]

13. It means that in context of the whole NT, that only the elect of God were redeemed. [[It means that elect (MT 24:22,24&31) = disciples (MT 28:7-8,13,16&19) = reborn (JN 3:3&7) = believers (JN 3:16, 5:24, 6:35-40 & 20:29) = saints (ACTS 9:32, RM 1:7, 8:27) = Christians (ACTS 11:26, 26:28) = saved (ACTS 16:30-31) = those in Christ (RM 8:1, EPH 1:1-13) = Spirit-led (RM 8:2-16) = children/sons/heirs of God (RM 8:14-21) = the grafted in (RM 11:17-24) = sanctified/church member (1CR 1:2) = God’s people (1CR 16:1) = church/saints (2CR 1:1 = the faithful/holy (EPH 1:1, PHP 1:2) = chosen in Christ (EPH 1:4-11) = members of God’s household (EPH 2:19) = soldier/worker (PHL v.2&24) ]]

14. So then, if God "desires" that "all men" be saved, then "all men" has to mean "men out of every nation," or "all sorts of men." It cannot mean every person who ever lived. [[Oh yes it can. How you belittle how wide and deep is the love of Christ (Eph. 3:18)! ]]

15. Anyone who takes it to mean every person who ever lived is adding something to the text. [[No, you subtract from GW.]]

16. But even if Paul meant to say that God wants everyone to be saved (the way it is commonly read), then God's desire that everyone be saved is in some way a contradiction to His actions that only some are saved. [[Yes, and that way is because MFW does not make grace irresistible.]]

17. God is sovereign in the salvation of men. Man's "free will" in choosing to believe and be saved is the result of God making a person spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14), [[No, what you describe is God programming a robot.]]

18. if you claim that an individual "cooperates" with God's grace by "choosing to believe" and that this results in a person being saved, then you are teaching that in some way a person must merit God's grace to be saved. [[No, GW teaches that faith is the non-meritorious condition of receiving God's gift, just as when you give someone a present they must choose to accept and open it for it to be received--but they can reject it.]]

19. My conclusion is that your "7 pearls" lack luster. [[Somehow I knew that was coming. Oh well, you can lead someone to water... Maybe GG can explain it better.]]

I guess I will see what you say in part 2, though. No hard feelings; just consternation because my conclusion
is the opposite of yours, and one would think that Christian siblings would be able to achieve greater agreement regarding the meaning of Scripture, (so one wonders if/how Matthew 13:14-15 = Acts 28:26-27 applies).
TTYL

 

[Groovy]

From my viewpoint, you have everything backward, because of some twisted idea that you read into the scripture. I've already said numerous times that salvation and eternal life is a free gift from God, and God gives it to those with zero merit. So then, not only do you misread scripture as you do my posts, but you also misrepresent what I said. You have yet to explain that nonsensical idea of "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace" that I clearly explained previously as nonsense words. The nature of cooperating with God's grace to obtain salvation (or keep it) is by nature meritorious. You have the burden of proof to somehow work around the clear logic of what I'm saying. But I doubt you will.

"Sour 16"?? You have the burden to prove that any scripture is sour to a true believer. It seems to me that you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't understand TULIP, and you probably listen exclusively to those who slander the doctrines thereof - people who are blind guides.

It doesn't matter what my bio is, or yours. What matters is what the word of God teaches. This is what I am about. I can understand where you're coming from, because the OSAS idea has been much misunderstood, maligned, and misused. Even the terms in TULIP are not really contributive to the actual doctrines taught by Reformed Theology, and taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. If you are interested in what Reformed Theology actually teaches, I recommend reading The London Baptist Confession of 1689.

But in regard to the OP, in the practical sense, God is the origin of good, and Satan is the origin of evil, and this can be shown by scripture.

20. From my viewpoint, you have everything backward, because of some twisted idea that you read into the scripture. [[LOL! That's what I was talking about in my conclusion. You took the words right out of my mouth!]]

21. I've already said numerous times that salvation and eternal life is a free gift from God, and God gives it to those with zero merit. [[No, that is what I & GW say; what YOU say is that God elects [unconditionally = forces] only some to get saved. You misrepresent what you both say and imply.]]

22. You have yet to explain that nonsensical idea of "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace". [[This is why I said maybe GG can explain it better, because to me it makes perfect sense and I don't see how to say it any simpler. IOW, IMO YOU are illogical and have the burden of proof.]]

23. "Sour 16"?? You have the burden to prove that any scripture is sour to a true believer. It seems to me that you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't understand TULIP. [[You prove the 16 are sour IYO by kicking against their goad. Methinks YOU do not understand TULIP, but here is mine:
T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved.

Do YOU understand MFW?

24. It doesn't matter what my bio is, or yours. [[It does if yours includes being brain-washed to believe TULIP.]]

25. Even the terms in TULIP are not really contributive to the actual doctrines taught by Reformed Theology, and taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. [[You may have just indicated the main disconnect in our entire discussion, because I am not talking about Reformed Theology, but only about TULIP.]]

With that revelation, are we suddenly simpatico?

 

[DavidLamb]

20. From my viewpoint, you have everything backward, because of some twisted idea that you read into the scripture. [[LOL! That's what I was talking about in my conclusion. You took the words right out of my mouth!]]

21. I've already said numerous times that salvation and eternal life is a free gift from God, and God gives it to those with zero merit. [[No, that is what I & GW say; what YOU say is that God elects [unconditionally = forces] only some to get saved. You misrepresent what you both say and imply.]]

22. You have yet to explain that nonsensical idea of "non-meritorious condition of cooperating with God's grace". [[This is why I said maybe GG can explain it better, because to me it makes perfect sense and I don't see how to say it any simpler. IOW, IMO YOU are illogical and have the burden of proof.]]

23. "Sour 16"?? You have the burden to prove that any scripture is sour to a true believer. It seems to me that you don't understand what you're talking about. You don't understand TULIP. [[You prove the 16 are sour IYO by kicking against their goad. Methinks YOU do not understand TULIP, but here is mine:
T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation.

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell.

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls.

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved.

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved.

Do YOU understand MFW?

24. It doesn't matter what my bio is, or yours. [[It does if yours includes being brain-washed to believe TULIP.]]

25. Even the terms in TULIP are not really contributive to the actual doctrines taught by Reformed Theology, and taken out of context can be easily misconstrued. [[You may have just indicated the main disconnect in our entire discussion, because I am not talking about Reformed Theology, but only about TULIP.]]

With that revelation, are we suddenly simpatico?

I take issue with what you say about the 5 points of Calvinism, sometimes represented by the acronym "TULIP":

T - I don't know what MFW stands for so I don't understand what you mean. I would say that the bible refers to unsaved sinners as being "dead in trespasses and sins," and dead soul cannot believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

U - Those of us who believe Calvinistic doctrines certainly do not believer that there is not need for faith and repentance.

L - I agree with what you put. That is what we find in the bible. For example:

“3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,” (Eph 1:3-4 NKJV)

I- Yes, agreed. Why should those who have received it even wish to resist God's grace?

P - Again, this is biblical. For example:

“being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” (Php 1:6 NKJV)