Yes, I think so. Although not all of them to man are, by in large hyper Calvinists are not Christians, and this should make everyone careful to watch their soul on this and not be flippant or foolish on the internet. With birth comes growth and with faith must come good character. Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
I'm confident that you, if you are brothers in Christ, will recieve this as brothers in Christ, for we know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning. And might I add a word of caution about the tongue. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water. Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
(1 John 2:9-11, 3:10-11, 23-24, 4:7-8, 11-12, 20-21, 5:18; James 3:9-18)
Monday, October 24, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Supralapsarianism
Supralapsarianism asserts that the logical order of all decrees have in mind the final end first, and since God is logical and orderly, He must have first conceived of His desired ends.
As an example, say I want to be warm tonight when the temperature drops. Reason dictates that I must build a shelter to sleep in, for shelters keep me warm. A shelter requires a roof and four walls; walls and a roof require building materials which I must procure, and so on. When I go to carry out this plan I do it in the reverse, first I acquire the materials, then I construct the walls and roof, then I go inside and sleep warmly.
So it is with God they say, God set about to maximally show His glory, to that end He decreed to have a hell, Then decreed it should be populated by creatures who were tempted and fell into it. To have a fall and temptation He would need sin, to have sin He would need angels and people. He then started the clock and it unfolded backwards as logic would dictate: men were created, were tempted and fell into sin, went to hell, and in this brought God greatest glory.
As an example, say I want to be warm tonight when the temperature drops. Reason dictates that I must build a shelter to sleep in, for shelters keep me warm. A shelter requires a roof and four walls; walls and a roof require building materials which I must procure, and so on. When I go to carry out this plan I do it in the reverse, first I acquire the materials, then I construct the walls and roof, then I go inside and sleep warmly.
So it is with God they say, God set about to maximally show His glory, to that end He decreed to have a hell, Then decreed it should be populated by creatures who were tempted and fell into it. To have a fall and temptation He would need sin, to have sin He would need angels and people. He then started the clock and it unfolded backwards as logic would dictate: men were created, were tempted and fell into sin, went to hell, and in this brought God greatest glory.
Objections:
- The assertion that God thinks and purposes just as we do is a dubious one. Ps 50:21. It first postulates a chrono-logical sequence of events before there is any notion of time or space, for time and space are both created things. The idea of an order at all is a chronological construct, only coming into existence when time can function as a reference. After all, how can the notion of first mean anything if there is no time to sequence events? In this I think Dabney has the right idea, the lapsarian debate is pretty shaky to begin with.
Illogical
- If the foundational notion is illogical then the list itself is even worse off, (and might I add this is where and how most people level their objection). The assertion that men were created only after a purpose was given for them, is a backwards one, since the object comes after the function. Men are designated, reckoned, tried, and condemned as sinners before there is any such thing as sin. This ignores the nature of sin as a thing added which ruins the original. Take a computer as an analogy: the stack pointer is imagined and created before the stack of memory it points to. The whole purpose of the pointer is lost and void if there is no memory stack. Books were created so there could be words in them, not words were created to express ideas, and then moved into books. Solomon would never have said "God made man upright, but he has gone astray in search of many schemes" if supralapsarianism was true, because the idea of sin came first into God's mind.
Based on Assumption
- In addition to being illogical, Supralapsarianism is built on an assumption, namely that God's purpose in creating man was only to bring Him glory. But does this starting point hold up under scrutiny? Are there any other possible reasons God could have created man? The Westminster Catechism states that the chief end of man “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” If we start with this premise we get very different results because given this intent, it will not do to have people suffering in hell who are incapable of enjoying Him forever. If the Westminster statement is true then Supralapsarianism cannot be, because it would not lead to God predestining men to hell without a chance to enjoy Him forever.
Against Reason
- There is yet another way that this idea don't work: it postulates God working at cross purposes with Himself. If His purpose is to condemn men into hell where they may be punished then it does not make sense that He would restrain them from sinning, like He does to Abimelech in Genesis 20:6. The Supra may answer here that God restrains sinful men for the sake of His elect, but this simply won't do, the text's explanation is the direct opposite. In Genesis God was going to kill Abimelech (v3) for the sake of the elect, but spares him because of the integrity of his heart, because he had been lied to and did not know better (v6). That God restrains sin does not speak well to an eternal purpose of condemnation as it would be more glorious to have more people in hell for even more horrid things they had done on earth, and having in the meantime the elect saved in an even more glorious way.
Against Scripture - But more than all this however is the evidence of Scripture to take into account. Romans 11:30-32. While reading the letter to the Romans the Gentile reader will be tempted to ask Paul at this juncture “I can see why God would shut us out from the law and promises, in order that He might teach us His love and character when He stooped to have mercy on us, but why let Israel fall?" Paul answers the question with verse 30 “Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy so they too have now been disobedient in order that … they also may now receive mercy."
Why then has God foreordained the fall for both the Jews and Gentiles? Was it in fact to show the glory of His justice when He condemned them to punishment? No, says the text, it was so that they may receive mercy. The reader may be inclined to say at this point “Paul this makes no logical sense,” but Paul has anticipated this, and in answer breaks out into unmitigated praise “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?" [Isaiah 40:13] "Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid?" [Job 41:11]” Who would have thought that God would hide the truth from the wise and reveal it to babies and fools? Who would have thought He bless weak and not the strong, or consign the world into disobedience and ruin so that He may save it?
We see a microcosm, or perhaps an analogy of this in the exodus itself. God ultimately led a people out of bondage and slavery and destroyed them in the wilderness. Was it His purpose to lead them out to destroy them? The Supralapsarian would give an unequivocal “Yes! For that’s what He did!” but the Scriptures say otherwise. It was His purpose to have mercy on them, but they purposed to have His justice instead. See here.
The offended Supralapsarian reading this may argue at this point “Totally irrelevant! The Romans verse is talking about the elect! God has consigned the elect to ruin that He may save them.” Oh? And so logically the contra-positve is true: He has not consigned the reprobate that He may have justice upon them? It doesn't say He has consigned them to destruction that He may destroy them, the text merely asserts a universal statement that both Jew and Gentile were shut up under sin.
Yes, the elect are the special target of this notion, Psalm 130:4, Galatians 3:22, and Luke 7:47 help us to understand this verse a little better, but there is simply no getting around that it’s also talking about God’s purposes with respect to the fall and creation Humanity at large. “God’s plan was to bring Himself maximum glory!” This is true, but by showing fallen people His mercy.
In sum I find the notion wanting and am rather inclined to ponder Scripture when it says "Go then and learn what this means says the Lord, “I desire mercy not sacrifices” and "Mercy triumphs over judgement."
Monday, October 17, 2011
On common grace and the restraint of sin
Does God prevent the world from becoming more evil? Yes. If not then that would mean the world is as bad as it can be, which is clearly wrong in light of 2 Tim 3:13.
Therefore by His goodness God restrains the reprobate from further and greater wickedness then they would be prone to commit. See Abimelech in Genesis 20:5.
This means they get a lighter sentence in hell, (every sin has a just retribution against it Heb 2:2, they commit fewer sins, which means a lighter sentence Matt 10:15) which flies in the face of "common grace just serves to increase the reprobates condemnation in hell."
Or, as Jonathan Williams puts it, when God is restraining wickedness is He doing
Therefore by His goodness God restrains the reprobate from further and greater wickedness then they would be prone to commit. See Abimelech in Genesis 20:5.
This means they get a lighter sentence in hell, (every sin has a just retribution against it Heb 2:2, they commit fewer sins, which means a lighter sentence Matt 10:15) which flies in the face of "common grace just serves to increase the reprobates condemnation in hell."
Or, as Jonathan Williams puts it, when God is restraining wickedness is He doing
- An unmerited favor that decreases their condemnation, or
- A vehicle that brings greater condemnation.
Mental failsafes
The mind is a pretty amazing thing, in the way it learns by comparison and analogy. It see things and develops categories, and then when grasps new information by finding the appropriate category to pair the new data with. This seems to me the reason the Bible presents everything as as analogy- Christ as the new and better Adam, Christ as the superior prophet to Moses, Christ as the priest like Melchizedek, Christ as the King superior to the great David. And why He spoke in parables, because the physical could be grasped but the spiritual is much harder to understand.
In fact go into territory where there is no comparable analogy and the built in failsafes simply shut the mind off.
Consider the trinity too hard, or try to ponder infinity too long and you will see what I mean. The consequence of this is that knowing comes through living, and understanding through experience. To have a child is to really understand Him as a Father, to plan for your unborn child is to experience predestination. To live then, is a gracious gift given that we may understand God.
In fact go into territory where there is no comparable analogy and the built in failsafes simply shut the mind off.
Consider the trinity too hard, or try to ponder infinity too long and you will see what I mean. The consequence of this is that knowing comes through living, and understanding through experience. To have a child is to really understand Him as a Father, to plan for your unborn child is to experience predestination. To live then, is a gracious gift given that we may understand God.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Dear people who wander in from triablogue
I'm Phil. I'm an engineer, a father, and a husband. In my down time I think about theology, such as when I take my dog for a run, or during my long commute to work.
I like to think I have a good mind, but I tend to think in digital terms (yes/no, true/false, right/wrong). This blog is really the dumping grounds for my thoughts that I want to remember for later (writing them down helps imprint them firmly in my brain).
I'm always learning, and always willing to listen to a well placed argument from the scriptures. It's a big world out there and there are plenty of people who are smarter than I and have a lot more time to dedicate to theology. If that's you and you want to come help me by pointing me to your blog, by all means! If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.
However if I see hyper-Calvinism then I'm going to erase the comments with prejudice. The mark of Christ is patience and grace, so if you cannot take what I say and point out the problem without using a strawman or ad hominem then I'm going to eliminate it.
Update 21-Mar-2019: A lot has changed in eight years. I'm not sure what exactly brought on this post anymore, but I vividly remember how the hyper-Calvinists treated me when I came asking for knowledge. As I look back I see that eight years ago I was very immature and still trying to figure out how things worked, but I also see that I had a good mind and a hunger to know more. I hope that in the future I'll treat the young searchers who come from horrible backgrounds with patience and respect.
I like to think I have a good mind, but I tend to think in digital terms (yes/no, true/false, right/wrong). This blog is really the dumping grounds for my thoughts that I want to remember for later (writing them down helps imprint them firmly in my brain).
I'm always learning, and always willing to listen to a well placed argument from the scriptures. It's a big world out there and there are plenty of people who are smarter than I and have a lot more time to dedicate to theology. If that's you and you want to come help me by pointing me to your blog, by all means! If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.
However if I see hyper-Calvinism then I'm going to erase the comments with prejudice. The mark of Christ is patience and grace, so if you cannot take what I say and point out the problem without using a strawman or ad hominem then I'm going to eliminate it.
Update 21-Mar-2019: A lot has changed in eight years. I'm not sure what exactly brought on this post anymore, but I vividly remember how the hyper-Calvinists treated me when I came asking for knowledge. As I look back I see that eight years ago I was very immature and still trying to figure out how things worked, but I also see that I had a good mind and a hunger to know more. I hope that in the future I'll treat the young searchers who come from horrible backgrounds with patience and respect.
Monday, October 3, 2011
One more for the Arminians and Hypers alike
Introduction
I'd like to respond to something Mr. Manata brought up, not because it serves to advance a discussion with him, but because it may help the some of the Arminian friends I have think more clearly about the notion of determinism.
There are two sink holes to fall into regarding the idea of a God who is so sovereign that He determines all things ahead of time:
1. Denying His sovereignty like the Arminian,
2. Denying His goodness, like the Hyper Calvinist.
Let's start with Mr. Manata and the Hypers position, in my very-silly-mostly-fuff-post I took a lot of time to basically say that the elect and reprobate have their fates "determined" or "decreed" differently. Manata raises the serious (and justifiable) objection with some humor:
God is incapable of creating evil
When God uses His power for (what I'm calling) a 'positive' decree, (ex: Lazaraus come forth" creation ex nihilo) it's always very good (Gen 1:31, James 1:17, Ecc 7:29, 1 Tim 4:4, 3 John 1:11), because God Himself is good (Ps 143:10). Jesus uses His power to heal the sick, misery, sin, and this is all good. The character, ability, and nature of God, is such that He can only be Himself, and that is only pure.
Now consider that if God really is completely Good, Pure, and Holy then He cannot at the same time be impure, unholy, or evil, nor can He do certain things inconsistent with His character. For example, He is unable to tempt (James 1:13), or lie (Heb 6:18). We agree then with our Arimian brothers who point out that if God has the ability to create evil, and make it, and send it out like He made man and commissioned him then He is a wicked terror, not a savior.
How does evil exist, if God is both Good and sovereign (Is 45:7) and unable to create evil? Because He causes evil to exist by the absence of His presence. In Edwards analogy God is like the sun- when the sun shines it heats the world up, when it goes away the world cools. The sun is not actively sending out bitter ice showers to make things colder, it's simply not shining its golden rays.
As seen in scriptures
Job 1:10-12 testifies to this as well. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD." When God blesses Job He is acting from His own positive decrees, when He moves to strike Job He takes away the hedge, which allows Satan to run roughshod over Job.
So also Isaiah 5:5 "And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down." The removal of God's protection results in a ruin, not the presence of God ruining people.
Acts 7:42 "But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices, during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?" When Israel was punished and began to sin how did it happen? God gave them up. A negative act as it were, an absence of His power and might and goodness. This is what Paul states in Romans 1:24,26 "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves...For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature."
There are of course more verses, but that's enough to prove the case that by definition God cannot be actively creating evil, instead to cause evil or sin He simply stops sending out His goodness.
Proven by Reason as Well
A moments thought will show that this must be the case when we consider evil itself. Evil is a ruination, a sickness that can only exist on top of the good. Cancer, for example, can only exist if there is a preexisting healthy body with cells, and the normal ability of the cells to replicate.
Sin is an absence of Gods goodness, not some positive added quality of badness.
The thinkers we admire reached the same conclusion, that God can do good by nature, but cannot do bad, therefore to cause ruin, or disaster, or evil He must withdraw His presence not send it out. C.S. Lewis grasped this when he wrote in Mere Christianity "In other words badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness." Everyone's hero, Augustine argues the same, that evil has no existence except as a privation of good.
Point of Application
And with that we're ready to address Mr. Manata's question: if God has foreordained that Mr. Bob would spend eternity in Hell, then how can He make a genuine offer of salvation to Bob? The answer is easily found: God happens to know that man left alone will choose hell, but even so He is not condemning man to hell with His positive decrees, he can't because He's all good. Man is given the empty space to make His own decision, and chooses himself.
An analogy might help. Both my neighbor and I have this species of terrible weed in our front lawns. When I go out to fight it I don't weed my neighbors lawn, just my own (my positive action), but neither am I the one causing weeds to spring up in his lawn- the ground does that. Do I want my neighbors lawn to be overcome with weeds? No. Am I willing to pull them myself? No. Is that contradictory? Not in the least.
It may be argued that since I'm God here, I must want weeds in my neighbors lawn, but this is not necessarily the case. It may be that I do want the weeds to appear in my own lawn, and I want everyone of my neighbors to see it. I further want the process of life to happen, from seed to plant, and I want that to apply to all things that grow universally. I am then going to pull all my weeds to show everyone that I am a tender and compassionate homeowner, and I give my neighbor the option of letting him demonstrate the same. He doesn't. But that's not because I'm forcing him to be lazy and watch TV. His weeds are a by product of my decrees, they are not because of my decrees.
The Arminian wonders the same thing the hyper does, if God has predetermined everything ahead of time then how can man have free will? But clearly there is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty, God doesn't force men to do anything, they are free to choose their own fate. It's not like He has a divine gun to their head demanding they sin, He's just allowing them to make their own decision of their own will. The elect have their wills renewed by a positive action of God (I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy) and freely desire God, but the non-elect are simply that: non-elect. Not damned before the foundation of the world, just non-elect. And it's worth remembering that non-elect may always lead to damnation, but non-elect is not equal to damnation. They can always turn and repent, they have the abilities, they have no coercive force applied against them, they have the, for lack of a better word, empty-space the Lord has allowed for them to do the right thing in. The fault is theirs alone, just as if they are saved it will be by God's grace alone.
It may be argued here that unless man has not only a free natural will (as I have been asserting) but a free moral will (what I deny) then he is not in any sense free. Aside from the fact that man's moral ruin is his own fault (like a servant who gets drunk and then is unable to do his job) this is to argue for total madness. Unless I can desire or love whatever I want, whenever I want there is no such thing as desire or love. There is no anchor point to anything. Unless I desire to be a woman I cannot desire to be a man. I cannot love ice cream unless I can immediately switch to loving dog poop soup just as much.
Point of Clarity
Mr. Tennant points out that I have broken away from the Westminster Confession of Faith in asserting things this way. That tells me I have not done a good job explaining it. Am I stating God does not determine the fate of the reprobate? No. Do I believe the following: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ... By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." Yes, this is all true, that's what sovereignty means, after all.
But let me assert again that the foreordaination to death is not the same as the foreordaination to life. Ordaining to life is a positive action of His nature, ordaining to death is an absence of it. Perhaps an analogy may help. The architect of a skyscraper building foreordains the superstructure, the pillars, the piping, the floor materials, the electrical wires. Then he puts them in by his positive actions. Yet he also plans the space between the floors ahead of time as an "absence" of his work. He has decreed the whole building from top to bottom, but he has not equally in all ways decreed it. Or as I have said elsewhere, a composer foreordains the silence in his piece as well as the musical notes, yet the music notes are not written in in the same way. The whole thing is his music, and the silence exists to further it's glory, but it and the notes may not be equated. Sovereign? Yes. Good yes. This seems to me to be the only way to hold to both together.
I'd like to respond to something Mr. Manata brought up, not because it serves to advance a discussion with him, but because it may help the some of the Arminian friends I have think more clearly about the notion of determinism.
There are two sink holes to fall into regarding the idea of a God who is so sovereign that He determines all things ahead of time:
1. Denying His sovereignty like the Arminian,
2. Denying His goodness, like the Hyper Calvinist.
Let's start with Mr. Manata and the Hypers position, in my very-silly-mostly-fuff-post I took a lot of time to basically say that the elect and reprobate have their fates "determined" or "decreed" differently. Manata raises the serious (and justifiable) objection with some humor:
"God doesn’t “determine” the fate of the reprobate “as he” determines the fate of the elect. Okay, so does he determine it in another way?...If God decreed from the foundation of the world that Bob will never come to God, can Bob still come to God given identical decrees? Or, is Phil saying tha[t] God never decreed that Bob would not seek him?"If we say He doesn't determine the fate of the reprobate then He's not sovereign. If He has plotted from all eternity past to use them merely for hell's fuel then he's not all good. So let's answer this by going back to square one.
God is incapable of creating evil
When God uses His power for (what I'm calling) a 'positive' decree, (ex: Lazaraus come forth" creation ex nihilo) it's always very good (Gen 1:31, James 1:17, Ecc 7:29, 1 Tim 4:4, 3 John 1:11), because God Himself is good (Ps 143:10). Jesus uses His power to heal the sick, misery, sin, and this is all good. The character, ability, and nature of God, is such that He can only be Himself, and that is only pure.
Now consider that if God really is completely Good, Pure, and Holy then He cannot at the same time be impure, unholy, or evil, nor can He do certain things inconsistent with His character. For example, He is unable to tempt (James 1:13), or lie (Heb 6:18). We agree then with our Arimian brothers who point out that if God has the ability to create evil, and make it, and send it out like He made man and commissioned him then He is a wicked terror, not a savior.
How does evil exist, if God is both Good and sovereign (Is 45:7) and unable to create evil? Because He causes evil to exist by the absence of His presence. In Edwards analogy God is like the sun- when the sun shines it heats the world up, when it goes away the world cools. The sun is not actively sending out bitter ice showers to make things colder, it's simply not shining its golden rays.
As seen in scriptures
Job 1:10-12 testifies to this as well. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD." When God blesses Job He is acting from His own positive decrees, when He moves to strike Job He takes away the hedge, which allows Satan to run roughshod over Job.
So also Isaiah 5:5 "And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down." The removal of God's protection results in a ruin, not the presence of God ruining people.
Acts 7:42 "But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices, during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?" When Israel was punished and began to sin how did it happen? God gave them up. A negative act as it were, an absence of His power and might and goodness. This is what Paul states in Romans 1:24,26 "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves...For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature."
There are of course more verses, but that's enough to prove the case that by definition God cannot be actively creating evil, instead to cause evil or sin He simply stops sending out His goodness.
Proven by Reason as Well
A moments thought will show that this must be the case when we consider evil itself. Evil is a ruination, a sickness that can only exist on top of the good. Cancer, for example, can only exist if there is a preexisting healthy body with cells, and the normal ability of the cells to replicate.
Sin is an absence of Gods goodness, not some positive added quality of badness.
The thinkers we admire reached the same conclusion, that God can do good by nature, but cannot do bad, therefore to cause ruin, or disaster, or evil He must withdraw His presence not send it out. C.S. Lewis grasped this when he wrote in Mere Christianity "In other words badness cannot succeed even in being bad in the same way in which goodness is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness." Everyone's hero, Augustine argues the same, that evil has no existence except as a privation of good.
Point of Application
And with that we're ready to address Mr. Manata's question: if God has foreordained that Mr. Bob would spend eternity in Hell, then how can He make a genuine offer of salvation to Bob? The answer is easily found: God happens to know that man left alone will choose hell, but even so He is not condemning man to hell with His positive decrees, he can't because He's all good. Man is given the empty space to make His own decision, and chooses himself.
An analogy might help. Both my neighbor and I have this species of terrible weed in our front lawns. When I go out to fight it I don't weed my neighbors lawn, just my own (my positive action), but neither am I the one causing weeds to spring up in his lawn- the ground does that. Do I want my neighbors lawn to be overcome with weeds? No. Am I willing to pull them myself? No. Is that contradictory? Not in the least.
It may be argued that since I'm God here, I must want weeds in my neighbors lawn, but this is not necessarily the case. It may be that I do want the weeds to appear in my own lawn, and I want everyone of my neighbors to see it. I further want the process of life to happen, from seed to plant, and I want that to apply to all things that grow universally. I am then going to pull all my weeds to show everyone that I am a tender and compassionate homeowner, and I give my neighbor the option of letting him demonstrate the same. He doesn't. But that's not because I'm forcing him to be lazy and watch TV. His weeds are a by product of my decrees, they are not because of my decrees.
The Arminian wonders the same thing the hyper does, if God has predetermined everything ahead of time then how can man have free will? But clearly there is a misunderstanding of God's sovereignty, God doesn't force men to do anything, they are free to choose their own fate. It's not like He has a divine gun to their head demanding they sin, He's just allowing them to make their own decision of their own will. The elect have their wills renewed by a positive action of God (I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy) and freely desire God, but the non-elect are simply that: non-elect. Not damned before the foundation of the world, just non-elect. And it's worth remembering that non-elect may always lead to damnation, but non-elect is not equal to damnation. They can always turn and repent, they have the abilities, they have no coercive force applied against them, they have the, for lack of a better word, empty-space the Lord has allowed for them to do the right thing in. The fault is theirs alone, just as if they are saved it will be by God's grace alone.
It may be argued here that unless man has not only a free natural will (as I have been asserting) but a free moral will (what I deny) then he is not in any sense free. Aside from the fact that man's moral ruin is his own fault (like a servant who gets drunk and then is unable to do his job) this is to argue for total madness. Unless I can desire or love whatever I want, whenever I want there is no such thing as desire or love. There is no anchor point to anything. Unless I desire to be a woman I cannot desire to be a man. I cannot love ice cream unless I can immediately switch to loving dog poop soup just as much.
Point of Clarity
Mr. Tennant points out that I have broken away from the Westminster Confession of Faith in asserting things this way. That tells me I have not done a good job explaining it. Am I stating God does not determine the fate of the reprobate? No. Do I believe the following: "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ... By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." Yes, this is all true, that's what sovereignty means, after all.
But let me assert again that the foreordaination to death is not the same as the foreordaination to life. Ordaining to life is a positive action of His nature, ordaining to death is an absence of it. Perhaps an analogy may help. The architect of a skyscraper building foreordains the superstructure, the pillars, the piping, the floor materials, the electrical wires. Then he puts them in by his positive actions. Yet he also plans the space between the floors ahead of time as an "absence" of his work. He has decreed the whole building from top to bottom, but he has not equally in all ways decreed it. Or as I have said elsewhere, a composer foreordains the silence in his piece as well as the musical notes, yet the music notes are not written in in the same way. The whole thing is his music, and the silence exists to further it's glory, but it and the notes may not be equated. Sovereign? Yes. Good yes. This seems to me to be the only way to hold to both together.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Suggestions for debating like a true Hyper Calvinist
1. Insist that anything less than your theology makes God out to be a [Insert societal perversion unacceptable to your tribe].
Nothing is more devastating than a well placed analogy when refuting someone's conception of the Scriptures. Nothing. Example: God doesn't really love the non-elect in any meaningful way, because if that were true then He would be a homosexual transgendered monkey hooker. And since He's not that, He must not love the non-elect. Alternate Example: God is not some hot high school senior who is wooing the ugly girl to a dance even though He knows He's not going to ask her out, therefore moderate Calvinism is wrong. Using a well placed analogy allows you to undercut your opponent without the use of Scripture.
2. Attack the person, not the argument. An insult only counts as ad hominem fallacy if someone doesn't deserve it--which, given your position as being right, is never the case. People trying to say that Christ's sacrifice made everyone saveable are working from a faulty presupposition and deserve to be personally ridiculed rather than have their argument interacted with. Example: the Scriptures say 'world', which means 'elect' you ignorant drooling refugee, and you would know that if your IQ was above 10.
3. Point out you have already and defeated the argument.
Whether you have addressed it or not, just speak the words that bring truth into existence like a word of faith Charismatic hungry for money. Just say their position is defeated and it's as good as done. Example: you assert Christ is weeping over reprobate Jerusalem proves He has a heart for saving all men, but as I have shown on a number of occasions, this is clearly not the case. Alternate Example: God saying in Ezekiel "why should you be destroyed?!" indicates He wants them destroyed, as I have said.
4. Multiply fallacies.
Overwhelming your opponent with accusations of fallacy is a great way to feel smart while belittling your opponent. Simply go to Wikipedia, pick 5 fallacies at random, and drop them into a reply. Example: Asserting God loves the non-elect in anyway is really only affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Alternate Example: your argument is nothing but a red herring. Non clausa pro clausa. That's just a straw man.
It helps to have an example that puts it all together, so I'm supplying a fine example here for your learning. Good hunting out there!
Nothing is more devastating than a well placed analogy when refuting someone's conception of the Scriptures. Nothing. Example: God doesn't really love the non-elect in any meaningful way, because if that were true then He would be a homosexual transgendered monkey hooker. And since He's not that, He must not love the non-elect. Alternate Example: God is not some hot high school senior who is wooing the ugly girl to a dance even though He knows He's not going to ask her out, therefore moderate Calvinism is wrong. Using a well placed analogy allows you to undercut your opponent without the use of Scripture.
2. Attack the person, not the argument. An insult only counts as ad hominem fallacy if someone doesn't deserve it--which, given your position as being right, is never the case. People trying to say that Christ's sacrifice made everyone saveable are working from a faulty presupposition and deserve to be personally ridiculed rather than have their argument interacted with. Example: the Scriptures say 'world', which means 'elect' you ignorant drooling refugee, and you would know that if your IQ was above 10.
3. Point out you have already and defeated the argument.
Whether you have addressed it or not, just speak the words that bring truth into existence like a word of faith Charismatic hungry for money. Just say their position is defeated and it's as good as done. Example: you assert Christ is weeping over reprobate Jerusalem proves He has a heart for saving all men, but as I have shown on a number of occasions, this is clearly not the case. Alternate Example: God saying in Ezekiel "why should you be destroyed?!" indicates He wants them destroyed, as I have said.
4. Multiply fallacies.
Overwhelming your opponent with accusations of fallacy is a great way to feel smart while belittling your opponent. Simply go to Wikipedia, pick 5 fallacies at random, and drop them into a reply. Example: Asserting God loves the non-elect in anyway is really only affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Alternate Example: your argument is nothing but a red herring. Non clausa pro clausa. That's just a straw man.
It helps to have an example that puts it all together, so I'm supplying a fine example here for your learning. Good hunting out there!
On Sarcastically Busting Pirate Balls for their Godless Gambling and Heresy!
Captains journal.
Me crew and I were having a jolly laugh at the Triablogue being afire when I heard from the water "You know, we're not done in yet."
I looked and beheld there Captain Manata, clinging to a flimsy bit o driftwood. Soggy, but not surrendered.
"I say again, you thought you had a good turn sir, but she'll hold fast yet. You have no leg to stand on in this discussion. Ye've lost! Surrender now and I may show ye mercy."
"Ye be swallowing too much saltwater Captain." Says I. "She's afire now, and this here peg leg of mine works just fine to prop up such theology as I be havin'. Seems that ye've naught but driftwood left. Nonetheless I cordially invite you aboard to discuss the matter further."
Now tis a strange thing to be noticed in such a manner--I could hardly refuse the offer, so I had me first mate extend hand of fellowship (or the hook).
Captain Manata begrudgingly accepted expecting to make short work of us, only thing is he hasn't seen the likes of me before. "Red beard" Ponter is strong and clever, wild as a shark, but this here sea lover is decidedly more deadly.
"Aye, but that is naught but gibberish." Says I.
"Raa! Chum!" barked Sammy, the sea dog, bird on my shoulder.
Seeing he was beat he jumped overboard.
And we sailed away. As far as I know their ship finished burning, and there they be at the bottom of the sea, green zombies insisting that God causes fresh evil in men, having predetermined by His own councils before the foundation of the world to damn them without regard to their deeds or character. Some of the crew may have been picked up by the Supralapsarian, but Captain Manata wasn't among them.
Beware then sailors, that you don't let your anchor too far down in highCalvinist bay, or they are liable to climb up the chain and board you.
Me crew and I were having a jolly laugh at the Triablogue being afire when I heard from the water "You know, we're not done in yet."
I looked and beheld there Captain Manata, clinging to a flimsy bit o driftwood. Soggy, but not surrendered.
"I say again, you thought you had a good turn sir, but she'll hold fast yet. You have no leg to stand on in this discussion. Ye've lost! Surrender now and I may show ye mercy."
"Ye be swallowing too much saltwater Captain." Says I. "She's afire now, and this here peg leg of mine works just fine to prop up such theology as I be havin'. Seems that ye've naught but driftwood left. Nonetheless I cordially invite you aboard to discuss the matter further."
Now tis a strange thing to be noticed in such a manner--I could hardly refuse the offer, so I had me first mate extend hand of fellowship (or the hook).
Captain Manata begrudgingly accepted expecting to make short work of us, only thing is he hasn't seen the likes of me before. "Red beard" Ponter is strong and clever, wild as a shark, but this here sea lover is decidedly more deadly.
"Sit down please, I'd like a word with you sir. I’ve refuted your “can” argument a dozen times. Suppose you “offers”your neighbor a piece of pizza for dinner. Your neighbor accepts. You say you’ll bring a piece over later. When the pizza comes, it turns out God has decreed that you will eat the entire thing. You weren’t planning on this when you offered it. However, since God decreed that you would eat the entire pizza, then you couldn’t provide a piece given identical decrees of God. So, as the claim stands, it’s been refuted, since I think all would say that you made a sincere offer of pizza yet couldn’t deliver."Says he.
"Aye, but that is naught but gibberish." Says I.
"Very well. I suppose I could make another go at it... it’s not just that the person, considered as a libertarian free autonomous agent, doesn’t “want” God’s offer, it’s that God determined that he would not want it, and so the person is not able, given that decree, to want otherwise. God made sure that the reprobate would not accept. If I could make sure, make certain, make unavoidable, your denial of an offer to come to a party at my house before I asked, and then I went ahead and “offered” you a seat at the party, would I be sincere?"Not knowing me, Manata didn't realize that I parrrley with a loaded pistol. Once he finished talking I pointed it straightaway and fired: "Yer presupposition be askew. God doesn't determine the fate of the reprobate as He does the elect. There be no wall separatin' the wide oceans of mercies of God from the non-elect save their own obstinate hearts. They, and they alone are responsible for their fall and sorry condition, tis not God who cast them inexorably into the miseries. God is like the sun, His positive decrees are always warm, always good, always pure. To the non-elect He simply does not manifest His goodness, whereas you assert He manifests badness. Prepare to be used for chum."
"Raa! Chum!" barked Sammy, the sea dog, bird on my shoulder.
Seeing he was beat he jumped overboard.
And we sailed away. As far as I know their ship finished burning, and there they be at the bottom of the sea, green zombies insisting that God causes fresh evil in men, having predetermined by His own councils before the foundation of the world to damn them without regard to their deeds or character. Some of the crew may have been picked up by the Supralapsarian, but Captain Manata wasn't among them.
Beware then sailors, that you don't let your anchor too far down in highCalvinist bay, or they are liable to climb up the chain and board you.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Why the RSV sucks
Grandma likes to turn on a TV station that plays kids songs when we go over there. There was a song that came on tonight which was a Swahili (or something African sounding) version of Waltzing Matilda- Nyangl Matilda.
Now I don't speak whatever language that song was in, in fact I don't even know what it was, but I do know that they got it wildly wrong.
In that old time Aussy gibberish matilda is not a proper noun, it's a bed roll, or a bag. Nyangl Matilda is therefore obviously incorrect, there should be two words I've never heard of, not just the one.
But that's not all, for I would be willing to bet that they translated waltzing as dancing, when the word in context really means to stroll or walkabout.
Now what does this have to do with the title of the post? Simply that unless you have some basic understanding of the material you cannot get the translation right.
Anyone who asserts that Jesus is not God cannot hope to make a meaningful translation of the scriptures, since they are all concerning His Son. If you do not understand His Son, then you don't understand the book. You can translate the words but you have translated wrongly. Only in knowing the meaning behind the words can you properly pick the right words.
Now I don't speak whatever language that song was in, in fact I don't even know what it was, but I do know that they got it wildly wrong.
In that old time Aussy gibberish matilda is not a proper noun, it's a bed roll, or a bag. Nyangl Matilda is therefore obviously incorrect, there should be two words I've never heard of, not just the one.
But that's not all, for I would be willing to bet that they translated waltzing as dancing, when the word in context really means to stroll or walkabout.
Now what does this have to do with the title of the post? Simply that unless you have some basic understanding of the material you cannot get the translation right.
Anyone who asserts that Jesus is not God cannot hope to make a meaningful translation of the scriptures, since they are all concerning His Son. If you do not understand His Son, then you don't understand the book. You can translate the words but you have translated wrongly. Only in knowing the meaning behind the words can you properly pick the right words.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Free offer of slavation - guest blog
Today we are blessed to have a special guest interview, Philip the high Calvinist here to discuss the free offer of the gospel. The question before us today is, is the gospel indeed a free offer to the reprobate, or is faith a duty only?
[Begin Transcript]
Good to have you with us Phil.
Likewise.
So lets begin with the most famous verse, you know, the-go to verse for us "moderate Calvinists"
I think you mean you semi-pelagianists.
uh anyhow, it's Isaiah 7:11-13, I'll read it here: "Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?" It sure seems like God is making an offer here to the wicked King Ahab. What do you make of this?
First of all, there is no question that God never makes offers to the reprobate. The verse "seek ye first the kingdom of God" is addressed to believers only, the invitation in Revelation to drink, to take freely, to buy without price, is to believers in the church only. Seeking and taking come only after regeneration. Ahaz must therefore have been elect.
But Ahaz breaks into full blown idolatry in 1 Kings 16:3- almost the first time we meet him he's burning his son alive to an idol. 1 Kings 16 is a list of his idolatry and then it ends with him dying.
Well fine perhaps hes reprobate, but my point still stands. But look, I mean, just go back to the text here in Isaiah. What do we have here? The Lord spoke to Ahaz, does that mean it's an offer? Context context context. When we see the word 'all' does it mean 'all without exception'? Clearly not. When we see John 3:16 that God so loved the world does it, world I mean, does that word mean 'sinful mass of humanity' or does it really mean 'elect'? Elect, obviously. So put this in context. The Lord is ordering Ahaz to ask for the sign. It's not an offer, it's a command.
You are really going to assert that this is not the form of an offer? You really think that this is not an invitation to test and see the Lord is good?
Why would God make an offer to the reprobate in the first place? If He knows ahead of time Ahaz will say no and reject the offer then it's not really an offer is it? It's just a vessel to increase his condemnation.
The Lord expressing His goodness, kindness, and mercy causes the reprobate condemnation?
Yes.
Not the inward depravity of man? Not the rejection of the goodness. The goodness itself is what damns men?
Well yes. I mean God isn't some cosmic welfare program where everyone gets a free ride. He's a person, He created some vessels for wrath and some for mercy.
That's the worst argument I have heard yet, okay you know...
Of course I know, I know much more than you, you idiot. Read the Institutes. Read Owen. Read Gil. If you had half a brain you would know all this stuff. We don't even need to read or interact with the Bible because...
What!? no, that's just not acceptable, not in this forum do you get to...
Gonna cut me off because you can't take it eh? Don't like the truth when you hear it? You sound like a reprobate yourself here, rejecting the Bible...
Mute his mic, that's just, okay, let me take a moment to point out something, every time we get more than 1 minute into these interviews the high calvinist digresses into name calling. Now I'm going to unmute the mic, and let you have the floor if you refrain from ad-hominem attacks okay?
... in fact your whole stupid "4 points" of calvinism is a logical absurdity. If you weren't such a pompus imbecilic monkey, or some sort of theological drooling refugee you might know that...
Okay thank you, this interview is over. Well my apologies, that's just the way it goes sometimes. And that's all the time we have left so see you next time.
[End Transcript]
[Begin Transcript]
Good to have you with us Phil.
Likewise.
So lets begin with the most famous verse, you know, the-go to verse for us "moderate Calvinists"
I think you mean you semi-pelagianists.
uh anyhow, it's Isaiah 7:11-13, I'll read it here: "Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?" It sure seems like God is making an offer here to the wicked King Ahab. What do you make of this?
First of all, there is no question that God never makes offers to the reprobate. The verse "seek ye first the kingdom of God" is addressed to believers only, the invitation in Revelation to drink, to take freely, to buy without price, is to believers in the church only. Seeking and taking come only after regeneration. Ahaz must therefore have been elect.
But Ahaz breaks into full blown idolatry in 1 Kings 16:3- almost the first time we meet him he's burning his son alive to an idol. 1 Kings 16 is a list of his idolatry and then it ends with him dying.
Well fine perhaps hes reprobate, but my point still stands. But look, I mean, just go back to the text here in Isaiah. What do we have here? The Lord spoke to Ahaz, does that mean it's an offer? Context context context. When we see the word 'all' does it mean 'all without exception'? Clearly not. When we see John 3:16 that God so loved the world does it, world I mean, does that word mean 'sinful mass of humanity' or does it really mean 'elect'? Elect, obviously. So put this in context. The Lord is ordering Ahaz to ask for the sign. It's not an offer, it's a command.
You are really going to assert that this is not the form of an offer? You really think that this is not an invitation to test and see the Lord is good?
Why would God make an offer to the reprobate in the first place? If He knows ahead of time Ahaz will say no and reject the offer then it's not really an offer is it? It's just a vessel to increase his condemnation.
The Lord expressing His goodness, kindness, and mercy causes the reprobate condemnation?
Yes.
Not the inward depravity of man? Not the rejection of the goodness. The goodness itself is what damns men?
Well yes. I mean God isn't some cosmic welfare program where everyone gets a free ride. He's a person, He created some vessels for wrath and some for mercy.
That's the worst argument I have heard yet, okay you know...
Of course I know, I know much more than you, you idiot. Read the Institutes. Read Owen. Read Gil. If you had half a brain you would know all this stuff. We don't even need to read or interact with the Bible because...
What!? no, that's just not acceptable, not in this forum do you get to...
Gonna cut me off because you can't take it eh? Don't like the truth when you hear it? You sound like a reprobate yourself here, rejecting the Bible...
Mute his mic, that's just, okay, let me take a moment to point out something, every time we get more than 1 minute into these interviews the high calvinist digresses into name calling. Now I'm going to unmute the mic, and let you have the floor if you refrain from ad-hominem attacks okay?
... in fact your whole stupid "4 points" of calvinism is a logical absurdity. If you weren't such a pompus imbecilic monkey, or some sort of theological drooling refugee you might know that...
Okay thank you, this interview is over. Well my apologies, that's just the way it goes sometimes. And that's all the time we have left so see you next time.
[End Transcript]
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
From a non pastor to a non believer
The end of the OT (Malachi) prophesied that Elijah would be sent to "restore all things" before the dreadful (yikes!) day of the Lord. (God himself coming down, Mt of Olives splitting, death and destruction, etc)
John clearly did not do that. John the Baptist did not even know he was Elijah (are you the prophet? Christ? Elijah? He answered "no" to all these questions) but Jesus said "...If you are willing to accept it, he (John) is Elijah WHO IS TO COME".
So my thinking is this: that when John comes back as Elijah (maybe under another name again, who knows?), only then would he restore all things and turn children's hearts to their fathers....etc. Then God would come and do all things that were prophsied.
So until then, we are still under the old law like the Jews and Muslims. That's my opinion based on this understanding of prophesy and events anyway. Of course I could be wrong. Wise men have argued about the bible for centuries. If we argue that Jesus would fulfill those things at his 2nd coming, then doesn't that prove all the more that we are still under the old covenant?
I think early Christianity followed the law until they were wiped out by the universal (roman catholic) church.
I have another observation: in the book of Revelation, the lamb is said to have been slain SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
Jesus (if I'm not mistaken) comes back as the Son of Man with clouds in heaven (also in the Rev), unless he is not the Son of Man. It is difficult when he refers to son of man as a 3rd person. Then later there is a rider on a white horse named Word of God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords which can only be God. So son of man (Jesus?) and word of God are 2 completely different entities.
So "I give my glory to no one" and "I am the only savior" makes more sense now. Or does it?
I've been reading and doing a lot of research, praying directly to God, praying for discernment and understanding but let me tell you, it is leading me out of Christianity. I believe in 1 God, no equals, pure, no associates. I have done my search on the origin of certain doctrines including the trinity (3 persons co-equal, co-existing). Jesus clearly states he is not equal to the Father so many times. I don't know if anyone has the answers to these but I just wanted to share these thoughts and observations with you.
My belief in God as the only savior has led me not to trust the teachings of Paul. Jesus never said to worship him but he did say "worship God alone and him ONLY shall you serve". Also, the "son of man came to serve, not to be served". So making him equal to or even a god would not give "there is no other god besides me" meaning. Perhaps "God in him" would make more sense? But the spirit left him before he died. God would not let "His Holy One" (the spirit?) see corruption.
There are many more things that have become questionable to me after reading much of the bible.
-M
Dear Sir,
By the providence of God I have read your letter to Pastor J and have been encouraged to respond. I am myself not a pastor so I ask your forgiveness in advance for the problems that that can create.
I see that you have several concerns here, among them that the Bible is unreliable, that Christ is not God, that the Christian covental framework of grace is groundless, etc., therefore I will forgo an in depth answer to each individually and attempt to treat the sickness rather than the symptoms.
You have a bad presupposition when you say that you have been praying and thinking about God--you are under the assumption that you have the functioning hardware and powers of reason to draw valid conclusions and carefully weigh evidences impartially. Unfortunately this is decidedly not the case. Your powers of reasoning are bent, fallen, lost. As all of ours are.
Prov 3:5, Jer 4:22, Luke 10:21, Rom 3:11 warn us that our minds are broken since birth, and before we can understand the God of the Bible we need them restored. Specifically we are commanded to be transformed by the renewing of our minds that we may then be able to discern the perfect will of God, and the corollary is true that without renewed minds we will know nothing of God outside of what lies we invent to ourselves.
Since minds are unreliable, the conclusions we reach are untrustworthy, ultimately because our wills and desires are fallen and tainted. We have no love for Christ, we have no love of doing the right thing; we do not really want to know the truth, (John 3:19) because at bottom we despise the idea that Jesus is God and in Him only is there life. Our misplaced love causes our other senses to go askew, which is why Jesus said we need new eyes John 3:3, why He only asked some to hear him Matt 11:15, 13:9, 13:43, and why He said we new abilities of understanding Matt 19:11. By default we have minds that are hostile to God, and cannot submit to Him Rom 8:7, we have wills that are deceived by choice into rejecting grace 2 Cor 4:3-4 and our wills not allow us to come to Him.
Therefore I tell you that you must come to Christ in humility, believing in Him that He is true, and that He is God or you will never have an end to your difficulties. But if you do trust Him, confessing Him with your mouth and believing Him with your heart then you will not only be saved but you will be given understanding and wisdom to untie any knot of scripture you encounter. You must stop doubting Christ and start doubting your doubts.You must come to see that the cross of Christ stands at the center of not only human existence and history, but the center of a man's life. In Him only do we live and move and have our being. The scriptures, all of them, are about Him Luke 24:27, and unless you rely on that premise you will not be able to make headway against the mysteries of the gospel.
Therefore to help you I pose to you Lewis' trilemma. There is no doubt that Jesus claimed to be God, asserting divine prerogatives (Mark 2:7-10), condoning worship of Himself as God (John 20:28-29), and it's beyond dispute that the people understood Him to be claiming to be God (John 10:33). Christ is either telling the truth, in which case He is God, or He is a liar, and the only one who would lie about such a thing would be Satan himself, or a lunatic on the level of a man who believes himself to be a poached egg. You must decide where you stand, if indeed you continue your course and say with the Pharisees of old He is Satan, or with the Christians of today that He is God.
Once that issue is settled I think you are wise enough to re-read the scriptures and come to the right conclusions about your current problems on your own. Specifically I would recommend John 1:17, Luke 22:20, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 9:15 with regards to the issue of new covenant, 2 Peter 3:15-16 with regards to the authority of Paul, and Matt 17:12 about Elijah already fulfilling his purpose of pointing to Christ.
If you have any difficulties after becoming a Christian please let me know and I would be glad to help.
In Christ,
P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)