Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

no,Calvinists dont teach God made Adam to sin ,but that he allowed Adam to sin .God foreknew Adam would fail and allowed it .

I'm not a Calvinist and man such anger over a limited mind trying to grasp how God works .not worth the hill to die on


Calvin taught God did not merely allow it ---> “At the same time, I do acknowledge this as my doctrine, that not merely by the permission of God, but by his secret counsel also, Adam fell, and in his fall, dragged down all his descendants into everlasting perdition. Both assertions, as I perceive, are offensive to you, as repugnant at once to nature and Scripture.” - John Calvin, On the Secret Providence of God, Reply to the First Article and the Criticism of the Calumniator


Calvin's dreadful admission ---> “I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.” - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Ch. 23, Sect. 7


Calvin continues ---> “God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” - John Calvin, Ibid



Calvin's God is the God of Voluntas. By contrast, the God of Christianity is the God of Logos.
 
Calvin taught God did not merely allow it ---> “At the same time, I do acknowledge this as my doctrine, that not merely by the permission of God, but by his secret counsel also, Adam fell, and in his fall, dragged down all his descendants into everlasting perdition. Both assertions, as I perceive, are offensive to you, as repugnant at once to nature and Scripture.” - John Calvin, On the Secret Providence of God, Reply to the First Article and the Criticism of the Calumniator


Calvin's dreadful admission ---> “I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.” - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Ch. 23, Sect. 7


Calvin continues ---> “God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.” - John Calvin, Ibid



Calvin's God is the God of Voluntas. By contrast, the God of Christianity is the God of Logos.
he allowed it ,arranged it?who knows that's Jewish thought on,satan ,we'll he could have stopped satan.

he didn't ,therefore God wants men to love him and choose to do so .

if God stopped our choice to sin we have no,freewill to love.
 
Last edited:
he allowed it ,arranged it?who knows that's Jewish thought on,satan ,we'll he could have stopped satan.

he didn't ,therefore God wants men to love him and choose to do so .

if God stopped our choice to sin we have no,freewill to love.

Calvin taught God did not merely allow Adam to fall, but rather he decreed, arranged and secretly counseled it. (See my quotations of Calvin in my previous post.)
 
Calvin taught God did not merely allow Adam to fall, but rather he decreed, arranged and secretly counseled it. (See my quotations of Calvin in my previous post.)
my church uses the Westminster confession not so much Calvin .

in seminary he is taught .

I,will,await on romans 9,when pastor hits that on,Sundays when he ddoes.

just because a church is reformed ,not all are 5 pointers .my pastor has said he is bit not all of his elders are .

that said futurism.modern eschatology is based on the teachings of men who taught that the full mosaic law returns .

does that make that church a legalist ?

many teach that .my church itself has elders that do .
 
Calvin taught God did not merely allow Adam to fall, but rather he decreed, arranged and secretly counseled it. (See my quotations of Calvin in my previous post.)


Westminster Confession

Chapter 3: Of God's Eternal Decree​

1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c

a. Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. • b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. • c. Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,a yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.b

a. 1 Sam 23:11-12; Mat 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16, 18.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angelsa are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.b

a. Mat 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21. • b. Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:5-6.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.a

a. John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory,a out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto;b and all to the praise of his glorious grace.c

a. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:4, 9, 11; 1 Thes 5:9; 2 Tim 1:9. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9. • c. Eph 1:6, 12.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto.a Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,b are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,c and kept by his power through faith unto salvation.d Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.e

a. Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:10; 2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2. • b. 1 Thes 5:9-10; Titus 2:14. • c. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13. • d. 1 Pet 1:5. • e. John 6:64-65; 8:47; 10:26; 17:9; Rom 8:28-39; 1 John 2:19.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.a

a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,a that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.b So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;c and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.d

a. Deut 29:29; Rom 9:20. • b. 2 Pet 1:10. • c. Rom 11:33; Eph 1:6. • d. Luke 10:20; Rom 8:33; 11:5-6, 20; 2 Pet 1:10.


Aside: I would be delighted to see a similar document put out by semi-pelagianisms.
 
my church uses the Westminster confession not so much Calvin .

in seminary he is taught .

I,will,await on romans 9,when pastor hits that on,Sundays when he ddoes.

just because a church is reformed ,not all are 5 pointers .my pastor has said he is bit not all of his elders are .

that said futurism.modern eschatology is based on the teachings of men who taught that the full mosaic law returns .

does that make that church a legalist ?

many teach that .my church itself has elders that do .

The Westminster Confession was not written by Calvin. It was penned nearly 100 years after his death.
 
Westminster Confession

Chapter 3: Of God's Eternal Decree​

1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c

a. Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. • b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. • c. Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,a yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.b

a. 1 Sam 23:11-12; Mat 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16, 18.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angelsa are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.b

a. Mat 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21. • b. Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:5-6.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.a

a. John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory,a out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto;b and all to the praise of his glorious grace.c

a. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:4, 9, 11; 1 Thes 5:9; 2 Tim 1:9. • b. Rom 9:11, 13, 16; Eph 1:4, 9. • c. Eph 1:6, 12.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto.a Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,b are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,c and kept by his power through faith unto salvation.d Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.e

a. Eph 1:4-5; Eph 2:10; 2 Thes 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2. • b. 1 Thes 5:9-10; Titus 2:14. • c. Rom 8:30; Eph 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13. • d. 1 Pet 1:5. • e. John 6:64-65; 8:47; 10:26; 17:9; Rom 8:28-39; 1 John 2:19.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.a

a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,a that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.b So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;c and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.d

a. Deut 29:29; Rom 9:20. • b. 2 Pet 1:10. • c. Rom 11:33; Eph 1:6. • d. Luke 10:20; Rom 8:33; 11:5-6, 20; 2 Pet 1:10.


Aside: I would be delighted to see a similar document put out by semi-pelagianisms.


I'm not sure what point you are trying making with these random quotations. Are you trying to pit Calvin against his progeny?

Calvin was explicit: God decreed, arranged and secretly counseled Adam's fall. In other words, God was not passive.

(See my earlier post with Calvin's actual quotations on the subject.)
 
The Westminster Confession was not written by Calvin. It was penned nearly 100 years after his death.
yes and most reformed churches refer to it .depending on which one ,the arp used the most recent edition of the mid 1700s
 
he quoted the confession ,nothing more .like I said ,I read up on that and its often referred to ,honestly most Arminist churches have no creeds not even much of statement of faith!.

its why I like the confession its not a bible but a statement of what we believe backed up by scripture .
 
he quoted the confession ,nothing more .like I said ,I read up on that and its often referred to ,honestly most Arminist churches have no creeds not even much of statement of faith!.

its why I like the confession its not a bible but a statement of what we believe backed up by scripture .
p
 
I must apologize, for there are times that my expressions tend get a little too hyperbolic for my own good. I don't think you think me an idiot, despite my obvious and outspoken disagreement with your views.

I would also say that I think you premature in your assessment of my being "capable of returning the favor". Quite the contrary! I may disagree with the conclusions and interpretations of Reformed thought, but I have great respect for the logic of the TULIP soteriology. I likewise understand your view of Jn 3:16, "given your exegesis of other scriptures." But that's the point, is it not? Our exegetical interpretations and hermeneutical processes are the real issue in my humble opinion, and that is not a scriptural question properly speaking.




1) We are discussing the nature of the love of God toward those not regenerated.

I am not sure exactly what your saying here, but I think I would agree. "This is the way God loved the world" is the foundation of the question, and that is in the context of an unregenerate world.

2) God is love, but love is not God.

We are delving into philosophy at this point, and I can see both sides of the question. God certainly is Love, but given this, it is impossible to separate the concept of God and that of love. John demonstrates this in 1 Jn 4:

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

John so closely relates the relationship between God and love, that to have one is to necessarily have the other and visa-versa! I think that this is why John records Jesus's emphasis on love being the ultimate law, the singular command that defines the Christian experience. You cannot have one without the other!

So I can understand your assertion, and can, to one degree sympathize with it, but I think just as strong if not stronger arguments can be made to say that, pragmatically speaking, the two concepts are interchangeable.

3) But He is also the wellspring of justice, mercy, peace, etc.

But can you truly have justice, mercy and peace without love? I would say not! Justice is doing what is right in any given situation, and that is the seeking of proper benefit being enacted toward a disenfranchised party. Someone is robbed, the thief is caught and made to recompense to loss and be penalized accordingly. You are seeking the benefit of another, which is love in action. It is equally true for mercy and peace. Love is the foundation stone of both these concepts.

4) I see no way of wrapping my head around God in His justice sending John Doe to hell for eternity and maintaining that God's act is done in love toward John Doe. Looks like divine righteous wrath to me.

I am not sure how to explain it any better than what I just said above. Love gives freedom to choose to obey! Justice is to give them what they choose, and also to recompence the loss of the victim of those ill choices. Both directions of action are loving because it honors the needs of both parties. It honors the need of the individual to be able to choose his own direction, and it honors the need of the victims of those choices. I think the account in Rev 6 shows this correlation:

9When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, e were killed just as they had been.

They were crying out for judgement on those who had taken their lives. It is avengement and wrath on the perpetrators, but and act of comfort and appeasement, aka love, toward the victims. Their sacrifice, the losing of their lives, needed to be acknowledged and validated as wrong and the integrity of their faithfulness vindicated as authentic.

More later...

Doug
First, thank you for a gracious and reasonable reply.

Most of what you are writing here has to do with the nature of love and how it is a defining characteristic of God. It is a topic that could easily consume another thread. For now, let's just leave it that I do not see love as any more or less an encompassing characteristic of God than the other aspects of His character. Just to state this runs against our popular - last couple of centuries or so - evangelical orthodoxy. My guess is that in our evangelical zeal we have chosen God's love as the one most attractive to the world, so we have emphasized it to the point we have idolized it.

Just to possibly give fodder for your thinking, take a look at John 3:19 in which Jesus uses the word agape to describe evil-acting peoples' attraction to the darkness. If we accept the pop definition for agape as God-type love - as typically applied to John 3:16 - the definition does not seem to not "fit" at all.

Again, I do not want to pursue this very far in this thread; it deserves a separate one.
 
The desire to obey my Lord's commands in presenting the Gospel.
1. WHY would you present the gospel to anyone if it is not THEIR CHOICE to either believe its message or not believe it?
If it is God's CHOICE as to who will be saved, I'm sure He is perfectly capable of saving them whether or not they ever hear the gospel message.

Why do you believe Jesus would give such a command knowing full well it is up to God to decide who will be saved???
In Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus gives the instruction to go out and teach all persons with whom the Apostles come into contact...
He does NOT tell them to not worry about saving anyone since God Father will handle it.
I'm a bit confused. You seem to think that if I am to be motivated to present the Gospel, it must require I believe people have the autonomous ability to accept/reject the Gospel. Yet my whole post was on my motivations, just not the one you seem to think is indispensible. If my motivations are inadequate in your opinion, then say so. Makes no differnce to me; I remain quite motivated for the reasons I listed.

When it comes to God's ability to save people apart from the Gospel, I have no idea how that is the question at hand. God chose to save us by means of Christ's work. Who am I to question what He does or why He does it? I am not His counselor. Same with you asking why Christ commanded us to spread the Gospel; I guess He could have chosen other ways, but He didn't. As I wrote, I am baffled as to what this has to do with me submitting to my Lord's commands. Am I to only obey Him if He explains Himself to my satisfaction?
The joy of having my Lord use me as His means to accomplish His will in the world.
2. You mean God needs YOU to accomplish His means? This sounds very anti-calvinistic.
And what IS the will of God in the world?
I try to write clearly. I cannot see anywhere in what I wrote even the implication that God needs me. I assure you, He does not. God chooses to use us. He also chooses to not use us. He is God, we are His servants. We are to be at His disposal. Because I love God, I find joy when He chooses to use me to accomplish His purposes. Surely, you find this in yourself?
My love for those that are without Christ.
3. Seems like YOU love those that are without Christ more than God does.
He doesn't seem to have a problem leaving most of the world unsaved.
I really try to write only what I think. Did I write that my love for others is greater than Jesus' love for others?

I realize you think that my beliefs somehow indicate that God does not love people. Yet, how can you be so oblivious that both our theologies posit God has the ability to save everyone, but He chooses not to use His ability to save everyone. Your theology says it's for one reson while mine says it's for another. You can build all the cases you want about why man's salvific free-will is necessary, but in the end you believe God chooses to give salvific free-will; He is not forced by necessity. (Please correct me if any of my statements are contrary to what you beleive.) Do you not see that due to that choice on His part, most will be eternally lost because most will not use the free-will He placed at their disposal to choose His salvation? Seems in your belief system, God's will to give salvific free-will is greater than His will for the salvation of mankind.
To have the pleasure of seeing God's glorious grace on display in the salvation of another person.
5. I don't believe God needs to have His glorious grace be recognized by saving one more soul.
God is glorious if He did nothing at all.
And to think that He needs to show us his glory by allowing most to go to hell and some few to go to heaven
is blasphemous....in my humble opinion.
You are right in that God does not need "to have His glorious grace be recognized by saving one more soul." He disires it though, for our benefit and His pleasure.

Do you not know the difference between God being glorious and Him being glorified? God is glorified when His glory is seen and acknowledged. Seeing God's glorious grace in salvation is not increasing His glory, it's being joyously swept up in His glory.

Does not your theology have God "allowing most to go to hell and some few to go to heaven?" Again, please tell me if my understnding of your theolgy is mistaken.
Now please explain to me the basis for explaining the gospel to a person that has NO FREE WILL to either accept it or not.
If my list was not adequate for you, then I am at a loss. I find it quite adequate for motivation. Since I am the person being motivated, I'm contnet, especailly since I am the subject matter expert on my own motivation. :)
 
Ok your premises mean nothing if your God is evil. If he is evil then his scriptures would most likely be lies. And I also said that it is an even more evil God who chooses to use evil when he could just as easily use good. So according to your doctrine God is either weak or evil or both because evil is his choice and not ours.
Just an observation, and my observation comes from hanging around this site the past 16 years. and no, I’m not a Calvinist lol.

First, it shows great humility to push against being one of Gods elect. I believe that you yourself are one of Gods elect.

Now then, we know that God is not evil. That’s a given. But the fact remains that there is evil in this world. Often, we think that evil is this big sin, but in doing so, we overlook the tiny sins that are committed that are just as evil.

God does indeed use evil and transforms it into something beautiful, and good. As Fast Freddie mentioned Joseph earlier, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and ended up in an Egyptian prison from no sin on his part. Yet God used this evil against Joseph to put Joseph in front of Pharoah which later reunites him with his family and saves them.

But not only does Joseph save his family (about 70), but he is able to give them the best land in Egypt where they would flourish for 400 years and grow into a nation. For 400 years, life was good for Israel.

That is, until a new Pharoah came into power and killed their children and oppressed them until they cried out to God, and we’re introduced to the greatest prophet in the Bible, Moses.

Its important to note that the Israelites didn’t want to leave Egypt, they simply wanted the evil Pharoah gone. God uses 10 plagues to show Egypt that He is above all Gods and in return, the Egyptians drive out the Israelites from Egypt which sets them on a path to the promised land. You see, they wanted to go back to Egypt to their cozy, comfortable homes and lush grazing land for their flocks. But God had bigger plans for them. God knew they didn’t have faith like Abraham, so God used the Egyptians to drive them out and headed to a land where God wanted them.

None of the above is a pretty story when you get into the detail of it. There is death and tragedy surrounding each and every event. Evil deeds were committed, yet God takes what was meant for evil, and uses it for good. You see, Pharoah murdered the Israelite children, and that caused Israel to cry out to God. This is a good thing because God always hears the cries of his children and often, it’s the times we cry out that we draw closer to God. There is much more evil that God uses for good.
 
Do you not know the difference between God being glorious and Him being glorified? God is glorified when His glory is seen and acknowledged. Seeing God's glorious grace in salvation is not increasing His glory, it's being joyously swept up in His glory.
Agreed
Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]AMP
Acts 17:25 Neither is He served by human hands, as though He lacked anything
Isaiah 48:9, Isaiah 48:11

Can God be pleased/glorified with anything which does not have its origin in Himself? If “free will” be an actuality, then God is not glorified by the salvation of individuals that He foreknew for He had no purpose for that individual’s decision.
Ephesians 1:11
 
Just an observation, and my observation comes from hanging around this site the past 16 years. and no, I’m not a Calvinist lol.

First, it shows great humility to push against being one of Gods elect. I believe that you yourself are one of Gods elect.

Now then, we know that God is not evil. That’s a given. But the fact remains that there is evil in this world. Often, we think that evil is this big sin, but in doing so, we overlook the tiny sins that are committed that are just as evil.

God does indeed use evil and transforms it into something beautiful, and good. As Fast Freddie mentioned Joseph earlier, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and ended up in an Egyptian prison from no sin on his part. Yet God used this evil against Joseph to put Joseph in front of Pharoah which later reunites him with his family and saves them.

But not only does Joseph save his family (about 70), but he is able to give them the best land in Egypt where they would flourish for 400 years and grow into a nation. For 400 years, life was good for Israel.

That is, until a new Pharoah came into power and killed their children and oppressed them until they cried out to God, and we’re introduced to the greatest prophet in the Bible, Moses.

Its important to note that the Israelites didn’t want to leave Egypt, they simply wanted the evil Pharoah gone. God uses 10 plagues to show Egypt that He is above all Gods and in return, the Egyptians drive out the Israelites from Egypt which sets them on a path to the promised land. You see, they wanted to go back to Egypt to their cozy, comfortable homes and lush grazing land for their flocks. But God had bigger plans for them. God knew they didn’t have faith like Abraham, so God used the Egyptians to drive them out and headed to a land where God wanted them.

None of the above is a pretty story when you get into the detail of it. There is death and tragedy surrounding each and every event. Evil deeds were committed, yet God takes what was meant for evil, and uses it for good. You see, Pharoah murdered the Israelite children, and that caused Israel to cry out to God. This is a good thing because God always hears the cries of his children and often, it’s the times we cry out that we draw closer to God. There is much more evil that God uses for good.
I agree God does use evil and turn it into good. The difference between what you were saying and what the Calvinists are saying is that in Calvinism God is the one choosing the evil because he is the only one with a choice. What really happens is we choose evil and God then turns our choices into good. And even though God can use our evil, his will is for us to do good. As Paul said if the falling of Israel be the riches of the world how much more their fullness?
 
I'm a bit confused. You seem to think that if I am to be motivated to present the Gospel, it must require I believe people have the autonomous ability to accept/reject the Gospel. Yet my whole post was on my motivations, just not the one you seem to think is indispensible. If my motivations are inadequate in your opinion, then say so. Makes no differnce to me; I remain quite motivated for the reasons I listed.


You're chomping on the same ground Hospes...this won't go anywhere.
You stated why you witness and I'm replying to you that it makes no sense to preach the gospel to anyone since you believe it is GOD that will decide that person's fate.

Your motivation may be very nice...but it's totally useless.
Your motivation has nothing to do with preaching the gospel to persons that CANNOT CHOOSE to become saved.
Your motivation might be great....
but it will achieve nothing.



When it comes to God's ability to save people apart from the Gospel, I have no idea how that is the question at hand. God chose to save us by means of Christ's work. Who am I to question what He does or why He does it? I am not His counselor. Same with you asking why Christ commanded us to spread the Gospel; I guess He could have chosen other ways, but He didn't. As I wrote, I am baffled as to what this has to do with me submitting to my Lord's commands. Am I to only obey Him if He explains Himself to my satisfaction?

No. Maybe you could rethink your soteriological position instead?
Why would God desire for you to spread the gospel if HE is going to choose the saved?
Was the gospel around in the Old Testament?
HOW did persons get saved back then?
The same way they are now....by deciding to believe in God and to follow His commands.
The Holy Spirit is the difference --- nothing else.
Jesus left so the Holy Spirit could come to us.
John 16:7
. 7“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

Acts 1:8
; 8but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”



Why would we need the Holy Spirit if God will make us persevere to the end?

Another soteriological problem with reformed theology.



I try to write clearly. I cannot see anywhere in what I wrote even the implication that God needs me. I assure you, He does not. God chooses to use us. He also chooses to not use us. He is God, we are His servants. We are to be at His disposal. Because I love God, I find joy when He chooses to use me to accomplish His purposes. Surely, you find this in yourself?

I really try to write only what I think. Did I write that my love for others is greater than Jesus' love for others?


I'm responding to your comments.
You love others - you said.
Does God not love others?
IF HE does not give EVERYONE that opportunity to be saved...then surely YOU must love others more than God does.

It's an observation...I never said YOU said it...I DID.

I happen to believe that God works all His works (except miracles) through us.
I believe it does matter to preach the gospel to others and witness because I believe it is THEIR free will decision to ponder what I've
stated and maybe come to be a believer.

If I were reformed in theology---I would not understand WHY I'd have to share the gospel with anyone.
Maybe you could explain it a little better to me?
(instead of telling me my reply to you is not what you expected?)



I realize you think that my beliefs somehow indicate that God does not love people. Yet, how can you be so oblivious that both our theologies posit God has the ability to save everyone, but He chooses not to use His ability to save everyone. Your theology says it's for one reson while mine says it's for another. You can build all the cases you want about why man's salvific free-will is necessary, but in the end you believe God chooses to give salvific free-will; He is not forced by necessity. (Please correct me if any of my statements are contrary to what you beleive.) Do you not see that due to that choice on His part, most will be eternally lost because most will not use the free-will He placed at their disposal to choose His salvation? Seems in your belief system, God's will to give salvific free-will is greater than His will for the salvation of mankind.


Your belief DOES show that God does not love all of His creation.
It would seem He picks some here and there for some strange reason the rest of us that do not agree with your theology are just too simple or dumb to comprehend. As I hear, it's to show off His glory. To whom does GOD need to show off His glory? No one! God is what God is. He is the great I AM.

Let's compare our theologies for a moment.
Let's look at what you've stated above.

You believe we do not have free will and this is the crux of the matter.
God choose who will be saved and we do not know why He chooses some and not others.
This takes away the joy of preaching the gospel message and causes harm by believing that man can DO NOTHING to achieve his own salvation.
Jesus death makes no sense because God could save everyone anyway --- why would a redeemer even be necessary?
This does not demonstrate a God of love, and God is attested to being a God of love throughout the bible.

I believe we do have free will
God extends His saving grace to everyone who WILL ACCEPT IT.
We can know WHY He has done this: Because man fell and this is God's way of repairing the relationship between His creation (us) and Himself.
There are different atonement theories: Pick any one---they all make sense in one way or another. Do you need to study atonement theories?
I don't believe so since free will is not part of your theology.
And HOW does man accept God's invitation of salvation? Simply by believing God, and accepting HIS TERMS....belief in Jesus and following His commands.

And yes, God is not forced to give us salvific free will to choose His method of salvation... It's his LOVE for us that gives us this opportunity to be saved.
Eeenie, meenie, miney, moe is not a method God would use.

If most will not use His gift of free will, that is THEIR RESPONSIBLITY. YOUR method makes GOD the responsible party.

The bible speaks of God's wrath with the unrighteous, Romans 1:18 comes to mind.
Why would a JUST God feel wrath for a human that is not righteous when HE made that human to be that way??
Your belief removes all responsibility for my sinning being attributed to me...
so WHY would a loving and just God send me to hell for being what HE wants me to be?




You are right in that God does not need "to have His glorious grace be recognized by saving one more soul." He disires it though, for our benefit and His pleasure.

Do you not know the difference between God being glorious and Him being glorified? God is glorified when His glory is seen and acknowledged. Seeing God's glorious grace in salvation is not increasing His glory, it's being joyously swept up in His glory.


I agree.



Does not your theology have God "allowing most to go to hell and some few to go to heaven?" Again, please tell me if my understnding of your theolgy is mistaken.

If my list was not adequate for you, then I am at a loss. I find it quite adequate for motivation. Since I am the person being motivated, I'm contnet, especailly since I am the subject matter expert on my own motivation. :)
My theology agrees with what Jesus taught:
Matthew 7:13-14
13“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.


Jesus is instructing us to enter trough the Narrow Gate, few there be that find it.
Why even give this instruction if Jesus knew God would do the choosing as to who would go thru the narrow gate?

As I've explained above, it is not God allowing persons to go to hell...it is their own choice.
No one is in hell that does not want to be there.
God is happy to save all that come to him.
John 3:17-18
17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


We are born lost, but can be saved through belief in Jesus.
This makes it OUR responsibility.
 
Now you cannot take tiny bits of my posts and present them out of context. If you would present my entire post in its right context you would see where they differ. What you just did is extremely deceptive.

The evil part is where you believe that God chooses for evil to exist and then uses it. The good part is when even though we choose to bring evil into this world God transforms it into good.

A good God would turn the evil actions of Joseph into good. An evil God (the god that you are presenting) would make Joseph brothers do evil to Joseph. God could have brought Joseph before pharoh without his brothers evil actions, and he would have much rather they didnt do evil to Joseph. However, his brothers decided to do evil and God did not let his brothers evil ruin the good that he had in store.
 
First, thank you for a gracious and reasonable reply.

Most of what you are writing here has to do with the nature of love and how it is a defining characteristic of God. It is a topic that could easily consume another thread. For now, let's just leave it that I do not see love as any more or less an encompassing characteristic of God than the other aspects of His character. Just to state this runs against our popular - last couple of centuries or so - evangelical orthodoxy. My guess is that in our evangelical zeal we have chosen God's love as the one most attractive to the world, so we have emphasized it to the point we have idolized it.

Just to possibly give fodder for your thinking, take a look at John 3:19 in which Jesus uses the word agape to describe evil-acting peoples' attraction to the darkness. If we accept the pop definition for agape as God-type love - as typically applied to John 3:16 - the definition does not seem to not "fit" at all.

Again, I do not want to pursue this very far in this thread; it deserves a separate one.

Hospes,

You have again summarized my general understanding and perspective correctly. You are also correct that, as I said before, that this thread is not the place to venture into this topic. This said, I will respond briefly to Jn 3:19.

Agape does not necessarily mean the same thing in every context. The love of God is going to be very different than the love of any other being. But there are aspects of agape that correspond regardless of the people involved or the circumstances of the context.

I think that agape love is a love that one sacrifices his own well-being for the object of his love. The object can be anything, and it can be a proper or an improper thing. But the complete sacrificial commitment to something is agape love. The motivations behind it are what determines the godliness or positivity of the act. Men were sacrificially committed to darkness and themselves rather than light and God.


Doug
 
TibiasDad Hospes
If I may quickly add something. Hopes is correct in stating that love is no more encompassing characteristic of God then his other attributes, like justice, mercy, perfection, etc. However, these attributes do not define God. He is the one who gives the definition to these attributes as he is the standard by which we truly know these attributes. Another thing is that we like to separate these attributes and think of justice as a different thing than love. But in reality there is no separating God's love from his justice or mercy because they are the same thing, they are who God is. And we cannot talk about how God redeems humanity without also bringing up how he loves and how he judges. Because God's love is the same as his judgement.
 
Back
Top