"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

They don't believe the threats are REAL, just a ploy to trick the elect to stay on course. The problem then is what happens when some of the elect find out the threats are not real and write books telling others so that the Arminian point of view is rejected? I speak as a man, as if God would ever use deception to keep us on the right road! And as if God would use something so easily detected by Calvinists who then take away His intended effect because Arminians were making points against OSAS with those warnings.

[Guest]

David,

I think you are a bit confused about the account of Job and his trials. Job thought he was afflicted by God when in fact God had allowed Satan to afflict Job; God's part was in "removing the hedge" of protection from Job.

Job 1:10-12:

10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."
Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

It is my understanding that God was in complete control of the situation. He removed "the hedge". He put a limit on what Satan could do to Job. Then He allowed Satan to act, but God did not actually bring the disaster on Job.

Job 2:3-10:

3 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

4 "Skin for skin!" Satan replied. "A man will give all he has for his own life. 5 But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face."

6 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life."

7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. 8 Then Job took a piece of broken pottery and scraped himself with it as he sat among the ashes.

9 His wife said to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!"

10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.

Again, we see that God allowed Satan to afflict Job, yet in a sense it was God's doing because in His sovereignty He always has a veto.

You had said:

I mentioned Job not because there is a verse that says that God micromanaged His heart, but because Job's outlook was that God's form of control was meticulous to the point that this man living in ancient times without printed Scripture understood that it was God who controls and governs this world, even to the point of saying that it was God who took away His health, His money, and His children. You had challenged my notion earlier that God controls events to that degree, and you had mentioned that we need not think God caused, say, a cancer in a loved one, but rather knew that it would develop and allowed it. I do not look down on that view as if it is somehow selfish or man-elevating, I just do not think that it is the view Scripture gives. Job gave God the credit: The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, but He is still blessed. And in saying this, Job did not charge God with sin. Job saw God as more "active" than just knowing and allowing it to happen.

But Job was wrong. We have the whole story, he did not. God did not meticulously control the events. He did not need to.

In my non-Calvinist view, I see God as always aware of everything. He can accomplish His will by turning people loose, letting them do what they want on their free will while all the time maintaining and exercising, as He sees fit, His veto power, as in the case of Job. And He also intervenes directly when He needs to.

I believe God can carry out His will without micromanaging everything. God is more ingenious than that.

[Guest]

David, et al

In reference to your comments on Ephesians 1:11-14:

11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Consider Titus 3:5:

5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

This is the only place the term regeneration is used in the the NT in reference to persons and appears to be a parallel to John 3:5, "water and Spirit". Almost all scholarship regards the term "washing" as a reference to baptism. The word in the LXX was used for a bath. The Church held from earliest times, through most of Church history, that this regeneration occured simultaneously with baptism. Ephesians 1:11 clearly links the reception of the Spirit, the true mark of a Christian, with the occasion of our salvation. The passage in Titus links the reception of the spirit with regeneration.

Unless I am missing something, the Calvinist system has a least three classes of people:

1. Unregenerate unbelievers
2. Regenerated unbelievers who do not have the Holy Spirit
3. Regenerated believers who have the Holy Spirit

Or does Calvinism hold that regeneration only occurs at a "split second" before faith?

[Guest]

Homer,

It is late where I live and I have a busy couple of days ahead. I will try to come back and write a more thorough answer.

I am not confused at all about Job. Yes, Job was unaware of Satan's conversation with God, but his outlook on God's sovereignty, which is sorely lacking into today's Christianity, was that God had brought these things upon him. And the author agrees! The author did not say "Poor Job, he thought God did this but in reality, it was the devil".

What you and I are not agreeing on is whether God caused these things to happen to Job, right?. Job said they did, and the author said that Job did not charge God with any sin or wrongdoing, which in essence is what you think I am doing in attributing to God what Job attributed to God.

The fact that Satan was involved in this exchange does not change this a whit. Satan ended up being little more than the delivery boy. God, after all, pointed Job out to Satan (did God just not realize that Satan would "take the bait" as God pointed out a faithful servant who was above reproach to the accuser of the saints!). Satan asked God for permission. God said "Do it but do not go beyond this and that boundary". Job, not knowing that the devil spoke with God, just naturally assumed that the Lord took these things (family, health, wealth) away from him, just as naturally as he assumed that he came into possession of those things by God. There really is no confusion on my part here nor Job's. His thinking is consistent and without vacillation depending on how pleasant the occurence, unlike modern Christianity which compartmentalizes the pleasant as "good" and "of God' and the unpleasant as somehow necessarily "evil" and of the devil. We for some reason cannot remember that God uses what is unpleasant and intended for evil for good.

The confusion, if any exists in this discussion, comes when Christians do what Job said we should not do, which is to "accept good from God and not bad". Job's wife said to him "Curse God and die" and he gave this reply to her, understanding that it was completely fair for God to take away whatever He had previously given, since Job was the creature and God was the Creator. Job understood that we thank God for our food, our jobs, our relationships, and then we turn around and act as if the unpleasantries are somehow "out of bounds", or in our modern day caused by Satan, who we view as somehow acting in a detached manner from God so that God is not "blamed". The problem, you see, is that this line of thinking is really quite self-centered, as if God has any explaining to do to us for His giving or His taking.

If Job's story teaches us anything, it is that the author, who comments that Job did not misspeak when He attributed his lot to God, sees allowing the devil to sift us as ethically equivalent with God sifting us! For you see, he, unlike Job, was fully aware of the devils involvement. Otherwise, how would he justify Job's statement as true? You are trying to avoid blaming God for something He is more than willing and more than justified to take credit for.

None of this story or discussion in and of itself completely proves Calvinism. But I must say that it is surprising to me how often I have to debate God's freedom with Arminians. It would seem that if "free will" is such a wonderful thing, shouldn't we share some of it with the Lord?

[Guest]

But I must say that it is surprising to me how often I have to debate God's freedom with Arminians. It would seem that if "free will" is such a wonderful thing, shouldn't we share some of it with the Lord?



We believe God to be completely sovereign but like the Father in the parable of "The Prodigal Son." The Father was OVERJOYED when his son repented and returned because the Father knew their relationship would be restored.
The Prodigal son ended up loving his Father because his Father loved him first. If the Father DRAGGED the son home would He be overjoyed and would the son love him?
So again i ask you, in your system where is the love?

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I have a request for you. I have enjoyed talking about this subject with you, but in reviewing our posts back and forth, I see that we have written quite a lot and interacted on any of the texts very little. The posts, as I see it, have this format:

1) I write a post (unfortunately, it is usually long) and I mention a couple of Scriptures and attempt to give at least some explanation of what I think they mean.
2) You post a rather short response restating your premise, and then you bring up new verses.
3) I attempt to discuss these new verses.
4) Go back to #2.

I realized in reviewing our posts to one another that we have literally walked through the Bible (from Joseph's story in Gen. 50 to Rev 3:5), and yet we have had no real discussion of any text from your point of view. For example, when you assert that the parable of the prodigal son is somehow an Arminian proof text, you need to demonstrate that by going through the passage, talking about the key verses, and providing some cross references if available.

I am sure you have well thought out reasons for your beliefs. I would like you to provide them. Let's start over at Gen 50, where we began this walk through Scripture and let us discuss one passage rather than meandering here and there. I would like to read your treatment of the story of Joseph and in particular how you interpret his statement to his brothers that "what you meant for evil, God meant for good."

I am not trying to domineer this discussion, but at the same time, I feel like we end up just talking at each other if the posts continue in this manner.

[Guest]

This is what I am finding to be the case also.
One side is quoting scripture, laying out the argument, using cross references etc, and the other side comes back asserting the same premises, introduces new scriptures, we try and answer the new and on and on it goes.

The "analogy of faith" means we compare scripture with scripture, exegeting the text, deriving what we believe from the text, NOT playing ping pong with the Bible, or stacking up a pile of verses against each other or whoever has the most wins!

Count up all the scriptures we have given and then match them to an exegesis from the "FREE WILL" side.
Then do the same with us.

I've done it. And it is incredibly one sided at this point in time.

And there is this rather obvious bias from the Arminian side, that seems to by default take the attitude, "it can't mean that" because "free will" is held as tight as a Scotsman's wallet! (I can say that because I am Scottish!!)

Mark

[Guest]

I realized in reviewing our posts to one another that we have literally walked through the Bible (from Joseph's story in Gen. 50 to Rev 3:5), and yet we have had no real discussion of any text from your point of view. For example, when you assert that the parable of the prodigal son is somehow an Arminian proof text, you need to demonstrate that by going through the passage, talking about the key verses, and providing some cross references if available

David, I will try but i have mentioned more then once that finding some instances of God's intervention does not justify the assumption that He micromanages every detail of our lives.
I brought up the prodigal son because it ties into our discussion of what Jesus meant when he told us to refer to God as our Father. Here Jesus gives us more information about what our Father in Heaven is like.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

While one instance does not make a norm, there is more than one instance, and Paul talks about this form of governance from God as always having been the norm in Romans 9.

I am asking you to comment on a specific verse only to keep us from being all over the map.

One problem I keep running up against is your presupposition that a good father is one who is Arminian-like. That is why you refer to passages that I do not think are all that decisive in either direction and see them as convincing. I think for you, good natured equals Arminian. I would have to ask you if this is justified.

Would love be measurable by how much freedom we are given? Is the offer of freedom qualified in any way, such as whether it takes into account the dangers around us? Do I love my children more as I let them make more choices, only good choices, bad choices? I need you to further define this for me.

Further, as I have stated before, I am not arguing for a lack of any ability to choose on our part, as if God smothers us with love and makes decisions for us because He is clingy. Some decisions we should make, I argue, we cannot because sin has so wrecked us. God's intervention in that case is love.

[Guest]

SSS,

I did not see your hit piece last night. God was merciful.

Job repented because he mouthed off to God and questioned His sovereignty by claiming that it was unjust for God to take away what He had previously granted. In Job 1, God calls Job blameless and says he is above reproach. Job's sin came later, and was not the cause of his trials. In fact, when God finally came down and gave Job his "interview", it was really more of a dressing down for questioning God's wisdom. And God never did tell Job why all of this happened, and he certainly didn't say "it's because you are sinning" or "it's that devil again, if it were up to me you'd be back to the way things were".

You have a lot in common with Job's friends - you simplistically and superstitiously assume that our physical condition is a reflection of our spiritual condition. Elihu was dead wrong - unless you think Jesus was afflicted because He sinned? Unpleasant things are not necessarily evil, as you assume. And blaming sin is not really a theodicy, unless sin is greater than God in your theology. Telling someone "You are dying because of sin in the world; now God wants you healthy, He would never will this" - then why did He let it happen? Did the devil sneak through? Did he overpower God and put this on me? Didn't God see the cancer developing? Why didn't He stop it?

In your last post, you assumed I do not pray for people who are sick. Why would you level this charge against me. In fact, you are wrong; I do it all the time. And I pray to a God who, if He wants to heal them, can. Not a God who supposedly wants everyone (or every Christian) healthy and for some reason can't deliver the healing. Should the sick feel better knowing that the Almighty really wants them well, just like their doctor, but like their doctor, isn't bringing it about?

Since you know so much about me and how I deal with patients - tell me, where do I practice? Which hospital? Have you spoken to some of my patients? In fact, do you even know my last name? Anyone who can piece together such a strong dislike for someone they know so little is someone who knws even less of the love of God that they claim to defend with words of the flesh.

Your view of sickness actually accuses the sick brethren and holds them in suspicion by assuming that they are somehow outside of God's will by being ill. What is wrong with them? Why aren't they walking in God's fullness?

I listed several Scriptures in my last post - you did not interact with any of them, except to quote Job's lousy friend Elihu. You quoted one of Job's poor counselors. That is almost prophetic.

A teacher of God's word is to be meek and humble, not quarrelsome. Nothing about your posts to me points to Christ in terms of your tone. My discussions on this forum have been nothing but genteel except for your interjections. No one seems to have these problems controlling themselves except for you. Take Steve's advice and take a break - you are literally sinning every time you type, not because you disagree with me, but because you are a rancorous, spiteful, divisive man who assumes the worst about those who aren't convinced by ad hominems, non-sequitirs, and proof texting.

Please do not use this approach on non-Christians. Arminian or otherwise, you will do more harm than good.