"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

Post by **__id_1512** » Thu May 10, 2007 3:47 pm

Homer wrote: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.

First glance: Mark thinks that scripture should interpret scripture. Homer disagrees--he thinks that scripture should interpret scripture.

Second glance: When Mark is talking about "analogy of faith", he means "Scripture interprets Scripture". He's probably including the concept that we use clearer passages to interpret less clear passages. Homer is disagreeing because he thinks that in practice, "analogy of faith" means using already-present theological commitments to overthrow the meaning of passages that contradict those commitments.

If I got that right, then the two of you should either recognize your agreement on the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" and leave it at that, or focus your argument to what you're actually disagreeing about.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu May 10, 2007 9:39 pm

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.

This parable isn't meant to be a complete explanation about regeneration/salvation/sanctification but it is simply a picture of how a dead person comes alive because HE CAME TO HIMSELF.
This is what Jesus said and he described the Father as being overcome with joy, a reaction COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT with a Father manipulating his son's heart.
If one parable isn't enough , how about three, because in the lost coin and the lost sheep there is rejoicing in heaven over ONE sinner repenting.
It is a reaction in heaven similar to the Father's reaction in the prodigal son. How many parables do we need to repeat the same message before we acknowledge the obvious.

Post by **__id_1512** » Thu May 10, 2007 9:56 pm

As I said in my last post: 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 any conclusion you try to draw from any given parable, how do you know whether you're pressing the analogy too far? Take seriously the caution Steve Gregg gave you.

The question is, what point does the author make using the parable? What prompted the telling of the parable? Is there any explanation given?

I'm trying to approach God's Word in humility, and willingness to submit my beliefs to scriptural authority. And doing that seriously means I can't take a phrase or two out of a parable because they seem significant to the theology I'm trying to evaluate, even though the parable isn't aimed at that topic!

I'm sorry, STEVE7150, but without something in the passage to make me think Jesus was trying to say something about the relationship between man's will and God's will in coming to repentance, I can't extract a teaching on that subject from this parable. I just can't. I refuse to press analogies further than the text does when Calvinists try it, and I refuse when you try it.

Post by **_tartanarmy** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:10 am

Jugulum, thanks for being so very perceptive.
I have no idea what Homer was disagreeing with.

http://www.theopedia.com/Analogy_of_faith

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:13 am

I just can't. I refuse to press analogies further than the text does when Calvinists try it, and I refuse when you try it.

OK Jug, But don't forget to praise your Father in heaven for giving you the intellectual ability and discernment to refuse to believe.
You see when you refuse to believe you have just made a choice and that is known as free will.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:52 am

Calvinists, I have a question for you. Does God condemn sin yet also cause
humans to sin and then punish humans for sinning?
For example God strongly condemns the act of homosexuality but does He cause men to have sex with men?

Post by **__id_1512** » Fri May 11, 2007 7:13 am

STEVE7150 wrote:OK Jug, But don't forget to praise your Father in heaven for giving you the intellectual ability and discernment to refuse to believe.
You see when you refuse to believe you have just made a choice and that is known as free will.

OK, Steve. Just realize: Every time I encounter non-exegetical arguments like this, I will continue to exercise my will in this way.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri May 11, 2007 9:00 pm

Calvinists, I have a question for you. Does God condemn sin yet also cause
humans to sin and then punish humans for sinning?
For example God strongly condemns the act of homosexuality but does He cause men to have sex with men?

Jug, whats up with this, any answer or shall we declare it to be a mystery?

Post by **_roblaine** » Fri May 11, 2007 9:31 pm

Calvinists, I have a question for you. Does God condemn sin yet also cause
humans to sin and then punish humans for sinning?
For example God strongly condemns the act of homosexuality but does He cause men to have sex with men?

Jug, whats up with this, any answer or shall we declare it to be a mystery?

Steve7150,
The problem is, you asked a very logical question. Calvinists don't have a logical answer. Thats why Jugulum squirmed his way out of answering.

Robin

Post by **__id_1512** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:58 pm

I'm sorry... What conversation do you think we were having? Was I claiming anything about the decrees of God? Did I say I think God exhaustively decides everything that happens?

Why do you think I have some reason to answer this question?

Robin: Can you explain to me why you're being so uncharitable as to use that kind of charged rhetoric against me?