"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[_tartanarmy]

However, I think this reveals a lack of imagination, and of the ability to engage in nuanced thinking. Such thinking, I believe, is called for in the study of the scriptures.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to Open theism Steve.
I have heard them say pretty much exactly the same thing when attempting to disagree with God's decree.

Are you becoming an Open Theist Steve, or at the very least are you leaning towards their hermeneutics? You seem to like quoting Clark Pinnock fairly often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Pinnock

You did not reply to any of the scriptures I quoted in my last replies.

Personally, I am of the opinion, that if "nuanced thinking" requires one to misinterpret scripture, then it is really another term for philosophical speculation, the thing you charge Calvinists of indulging in at some base level of their presuppositions.

What do you understand about the philosophical theory about libertarian free will?

Are you aware that it is a theory debated by the philosophers?

Why would you "assume" this philosophy as a base theory from which to interpret scripture?

11 Reasons to reject libertarian free will.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... arian.html

The denial of libertarian freedom has always had many supporters. The idea of making causal determinism the focal point of discussions of free will is modern in origin, and some philosophers think that the modern framing of the issue is confused. Philosophers who deny libertarian freedom may affirm a type of free will compatible with determinism, or they may instead simply accept the consequence that human beings lack free will.

The other incompatibilist position is to affirm libertarian free will along with the principle of alternate possibilities (premise 9), and to deny the possibility of infallible foreknowledge. This position has recently become well-known in the so-called "open God" theory (1994). These theorists reject divine timelessness and immutability, along with infallible foreknowledge, arguing that not only should foreknowledge be rejected because of its fatalist consequences, the view of a God who takes risks is more faithful to Scripture than the classical notion of an essentially omniscient and foreknowing deity.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free- ... owledge/#3

Mark

NOTE- I AM RESPONDING HERE TO STEVE GREGG'S POST NO 1200 FROM THIS THREAD! SO I AM NOT SURE WHAT DEREK SAYS BELOW!

[Guest]

Mark,

I think you're responding to a different thread. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you want to post it there.

[Guest]

David, it seems you give yourself liberties you wish to deny me. After all, you can say all kinds of things about me and my posts, which I find to be totally off base, and you do not like it when your doctrine and these kinds of comments from you are confronted. How convenient for you.

As far as Job, Elihu WAS NOT rebuked by God. As a matter of fact, when the Lord spoke to Job, he said some of the very same things Elihu did. You need to think about that. Ther is far more to the book of job than you seem to understand, but I am not going to go into all of that here. The simple fact is you seem to milk your understanding of the book of Job for all its worth. You forget that Christ is the healer, and the Gospels clearly reveal the devil is the afflicter. Period.

I will not argue with you. Your doctrine is fatalism. It produces no great faith-healers. All the men of God down through the years that I have studied, who had great healing ministries were Arminian and did not believe ANYTHING remotely like what you do. They had many miracles and healings. Name the Calvinist who has a healing ministry, living or dead? Our God is a healer, and in my 24 yearsas a believer, i have seen with my own eyes and ears the great things God does through those who UNDERSTAND the truth, and seek Him until the answer comes. And I know some precious brrethren who have great faith and deliver souls from their affliction. They could NEVER have the results they do if they believed your doctrines, it would cripple faith.

We do not blame anyone for their sickness, as you falsely surmise. We blame the real culprit, and it isn't God, like you teach, but the Devil. And we encourage FAITH IN GOD as their healer and the One to turn to. We make it clear Christ came to set the captive free.

Your counsel is completely unBiblical, and to say God has some mysterious reason for their sickness is a Calvinistic fable. The Bible teaches to LAY HANDS on the sick IN FAITH, expecting them to be raised up. Do you do this? Do you cast demons out of people when the Lord reveals to you that it is a demon behind the infirmity? You don't even think like that, do you? How could you? Look at what you believe!

My suggestion to you is to lay aside Calvinism, and study the Gospels and the book of Acts for an entire year, just you and the great teacher, the Holy Spirit. Have a concordance handy, and see what happens. People who do this come out of that time fired up with faith in God and ready to destroy the workks of the enemy. Try it. Couple it with some periods of extended fasting, and I assure you, your preaching and teaching will not be in word only but in POWER.

[Guest]

David, My posts may be short but i can only answer as time permits. Re Gen 50.20 "But as for you , you meant evil against me , but God meant it for good , in order to bring it about as it is this day to save many people alive."

Here i see two separate intentions , the brothers intention and God's providence therefore should we think that God willed the brothers to commit evil. If God wanted Joseph to go to Egypt He could have simply told him to go , just like He would tell Jacob to go in the future. But God allowed the brothers intentions to play out and THEN used the circumstances for good. If God caused the brothers to harm Joseph how could you claim God is not the author of sin?
You can't have it both ways , that God manipulates every action but is not responsible for sin , it defies logic.
In many other situations where God does intervene it appears to me that the evildoers SEEMED to have crossed a line of some type and God may remove His hedge and allow Satan to entice the evildoer to do what he intends to do anyway.
In the Prodigal Son we find "But when HE came to HIMSELF he said, How many of my father's servants have bread enough and to spare , and i perish with hunger. I will arise and go to my father and will say to him , Father I HAVE SINNED against HEAVEN and before you. I am no longer WORTHY to be called your son , make me like one of your hired servents"
Luke 15.17-19
"For my son was dead and is alive again , he was lost and is found" and THEY began to be MERRY." Luke 15.24
If you read this parable at face value it's very clear and simple. The son repented and realized he sinned against God and returned and the Father was OVERJOYED.
This parable by Jesus describes the nature of salvation and how God views it and feels about it. The Father's has real emotions of joy because the son truly repented there is nothing in this to remotely suggest that God dragged his son back. Not only does this not imply,suggest or hint at that but the emotion of JOY is based partly on the fact that the Father is clearly TOUCHED DEEPLY.
When puppet master's manipulate their puppets they are not touched deeply.
I'll be back ASAP to discuss Romans 9 and respond to your question to me about love.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

Glad you brought this up:

"For my son was dead and is alive again , he was lost and is found" and THEY began to be MERRY." Luke 15.24

In the parable the Father represents God. He says twice that the son was dead, yet the son made a choice to return to his Father! But I do not find where the Father regenerated the son. Jesus must have omitted that for some reason.

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

The "analogy of faith" means we compare scripture with scripture, exegeting the text,

This is an error. "Analogy of faith" is comparing what the scripture says to what YOU believe. An analogy is a comparison and faith is what is believed.

Analogy of faith is what we each think the other side is doing.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

Glad you brought this up:

"For my son was dead and is alive again , he was lost and is found" and THEY began to be MERRY." Luke 15.24

In the parable the Father represents God. He says twice that the son was dead, yet the son made a choice to return to his Father! But I do not find where the Father regenerated the son. Jesus must have omitted that for some reason.

It's very easy for us to mishandle parables, analogies, and illustrations.

If I recall correctly, in the "Reasoning From Scripture" lecture from the Calvinism series, Steve mentioned something about this, saying something like "pressing an analogy too far" is one of the pitfalls of interpretation. I agree completely. When we read any kind of analogy, the question isn't "What kind of inferences can I draw from this analogy?" Any analogy will contain elements that illustrate the point being made--that parallel the situation in mind--and will also contain elements that don't parallel the situation in mind. Rather, the question is, "What point does the author make using this analogy?" (For example, one mistake some Calvinists make is to hang too much on the phrase "dead in sin". You can't get the Reformed understanding of "Total Depravity" simply from that phrase--you need more passages if you want to prove that we can't even repent or have faith.)

I see no reason to think that this parable is in any way intended to present a picture of the entire salvation process, with all its elements, with all the ways that God works in us. There are points about rejoicing over finding something lost, contrasting that with something that wasn't lost. Jesus started telling the "lost" parables after the Pharisees criticized him for eating with sinners.

Does the fact the the brother was never dead imply that there's anyone who doesn't need salvation? Does it mean the Pharisees aren't lost, too? There's nothing about sanctification in the parable, either. Should we say Jesus "omitted" sanctification?

The parable doesn't explain how God works in people's hearts to bring them to the point of repentance. It doesn't even picture an Arminian understanding of that subject. I could as easily say, "God must have omitted the discussion of prevenient grace." In fact, in this parable, the father didn't even go looking for the son until the son was already on his way back! Does that mean Jesus was teaching us that God doesn't do anything to draw us to him until after we realize our need to repent?

I don't see why we should think the parable tells us anything about how regeneration works.

[_tartanarmy]

Analogy of faith is what we each think the other side is doing. Wink

I see..So the concept that scripture interprets scripture is just some kind of high ideal, but certainly not attainable?

Mark

[_tartanarmy]

By the way. If I wanted to just find isolated passages in scripture, in order to throw out against Calvinism, I could find many!
But then again, I could find passages that disprove the existence of God, and many other teachings, if that is what I desired to do with scripture!

Mark

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

I see..So the concept that scripture interprets scripture is just some kind of high ideal, but certainly not attainable?

I never said or implied anything of the kind. "Analogy of faith" leads to eisegesis. The best commentary on a passage of scripture is other scripture.