Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Monergist, Feb 8, 2004.
From Jonathan Edwards sermon Men Naturally are God's Enemies
Jonathan Edwards apparently did not know that Jesus is God the Son. God the Son said that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (salvation from the second death).
So God the Son has elected to show mercy to all who hear and believe. That is, after all is said and done, God the Son's choice of whom will receive his mercy, is "whosoever will believe in HIM"! JOHN 3:16
God has mercy on all men. Surely no one would disagree with that.
Where does it say that God has mercy on All men, even those who die lacking faith in God?
Doesn't he make the rain fall and sun shine on good and evil alike?
I never read and John Edward before. Thank goodness.
God commands us to love our enemies. John Edwards apparently believes that men are held to a higher standard than God.
Men are not capable of perfection.
This is nonsense: it is impossible to simultaneously desire salvation and oppose His will.
Are the saved children of Jesus, or brethren?
Where does it say that God has mercy on All men, even those who die lacking faith in God? </font>[/QUOTE]Romans 11:32
Doesn't he make the rain fall and sun shine on good and evil alike? </font>[/QUOTE]See Revelation 20:15!
Where does it say that God has mercy on All men, even those who die lacking faith in God? </font>[/QUOTE]Romans 11:32 </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps, but that is in the discussion of God and Israel, not God and all men! God has always treated Israel different that the rest of mankind.
Look again. Paul is showing that God has bound all men over to disobedience. He showed us that in the first 3 chapters as he pointed to the short comings of both Jews and Gentiles. Why did God do this? So that he could show all men mercy by offering them entrance into the covenant of grace through faith in his son. Showing mercy doesn't necessarily mean salvation for certain. It could simply mean an opportunity for salvation. That God would even allow us the opportunity to believe and enter covenant with him is an act of mercy.
Johnathan Edwards rules out any mercy shown by God to those after their physical death.
He believed that whatever fate awaits the dead after their physical life is ended is seal with no repreive, no mercy shown by God towards them.
proving another gross injustice of misunderstanding of the death of the firstborn of all creatures.
apparently edwards didnt agree with God when HIS firstborn was sacrificed for all creatures.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
Col 1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
was johnathan edwards blind to understanding God?
apparently reconciling all things must have meant all things that God choose to accept in Edwards assumptions.
again Edwards overlooks that the righteous firstborn is sacrificed for the unrighteous sinner...oops.
did edwards forget that God is Sovereign and man isnt?
Jesus righteousness isnt adequate to die for the sins of the world, and God is not Sovereign over his creation.. yep, that about sums up Johnathan edwards beliefs.
I don't have time now to respond to all the objections posted above, but let me take a few:
How in the world does one get that impression from Edward's comments? The text for the sermon is Romans 5:10, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." If we have indeed received the everlasting life of John 3:16, it is in spite of the fact that we were enemies of God. Its called mercy.
Edwards would affirm that; in fact he does in another part of the same sermon (Read Section VI-Restraining grace a great privilege. Heres the main points.
It is possible to desire salvation and oppose God's will. One could, for example, merely desire salvation to escape hell, and yet refuse to submit to Christ's lordship. One could desire salvation merely to escape temporal judgement of his sin, and still love his sin.
I'm not sure that I understand the objection made here, but the assessment of what Edwards believed is correct. And this is the biblical view. If one dies in his sin, eternal damnation is the unalterable conseqence.
The affect of this doctrine should cause us to fear and reverence God, to cause us to see that He owes mercy to no one, and to cause us torun to Him to seek the mercy that only He can provide. If we receive it, its called grace.
God owes mercy to no one? What!!!
by simply observing the activities expressed in romans between the jew and gentiles. One doesnt arrive at that conclusion
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
God shows mercy to all. both jews and gentiles.
does he owe mercy to none, either, or both?
showing mercy to both groups is why God made them...
does God owe all of mankind mercy?.
to the smallness of the thoughts in the mind of johnathan edwards and his subscribers.
Me2 states that "God made all men, to show mercy to all men". infinitely and perfectly
and if God expresses himself as infinite.
that means he shows mercy infinitely!.
unless your under the belief that MAN HAS EQUAL OR MORE SOVEREIGNTY AS GOD. such as mr. edwards.
Jonathan edwards postulates that man is capable of infinitelty refusing the infinite mercy shown of God to them in the afterlife.
So God simply gives up because by his omniescience he knows that man will refuse atonement and mercy shown from God to mankind in Hell infinitely.
as if Man even has a choice in the matter. yet does mr. edwards even strive to comprehend that it is GOD WHO BLINDS THEIR EYES FROM ACCEPTING HIS TRUTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING OTHERS.
No I guess He didnt study that far. yet he loved to write about his misunderstandings that mankind had the power to refuse Gods advancements within his sovereignty. or that jesus didnt die for all sin. even the sin of unbelief.
Skandelon, You are right! But so am I, as I stated this is in Paul’s discussion of Israel to the Romans, it is Paul's conclusion of the discussion.
I do agree that in God, Grace and Mercy are the same thing. Both are Attributes of God, both are applied by God in the same manner. It is the way we humans perceive either that gives them their name.
Grace and mercy are not the same thing.
Mercy = God WITHHOLDING from us the things which we deserve (immediate judgement of the law)
Grace = God GIVING to us the things which we do NOT deserve - life through the righteousness and blood of His Son.
Edward's point, if I understand correctly, is that mercy is given to all men in that what we deserve is immediate death and judgement for our sins. Every moment of continued life given to non-believers is, in fact, due to the mercy of God. Read his famous sermon "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" it makes this point more clearly.
The further point is that God is in no way bound to show mercy to sinners. He does so only in that it pleases Him to do it, NOT because it is required. (For if God is mercy, He is also justice. Is He bound to give immediate justice to us? Certainly not. Neither is He bound to give mercy.)
Romans 9:18 (KJV)
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
Any show of mercy by God is presupposed upon His choice, not our choice.
Certainly, though, while grace and mercy are not the same, there is a coorelation in God's choosing.
John 5:21 (KJV)
"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will."
If God gives us what we do not deserve and withholds that which we do deserve, both are divine acts of graciousness, or Grace! AND, both are acts of mercy, so they are the same, and it truly is our human perspective that makes the difference in what we call them! Regardless of what Edwards says!
If we see mercy, it is because we feel in ourselves that mercy is the need because we sense that we are in some kind of peril.
If we see grace, it is because we feel in us that we are receiving of what we perceive as God’s grace, and that we haven’t done anything and we are therefore not in peril.
Thus what we Call God's behavior toward us depends on the state that we are in. The very same divine behavior is perceived differently by different persons in the same place. One perceives Grace while another perceives mercy.
The definitions of grace and mercy might be helpful in understanding.
I'm not sure how important this semantic discussion is to the issue at hand. However, I would encourage you to read your own post!
In your definition is my definition. I said MERCY is God withholding what we deserve (immediate judgment) and GRACE is God giving what we DO NOT deserve.
Your definition is: "MERCY implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands … GRACE implies a benign attitude and a willingness to grant favors or make concessions."
Certainly the two are, as I said, connected, but also distinct. I think this is an area where we can agree (and granted, Yelsew, there have been precious few of those ) Don't argue just for the sake of arguing.
Do you agree that the name we humans give or attach to divine behavior is a matter of human perspective, and not a true, separate, distinct attribute of God?