Is it the will of God...

No.

 

No? Really? I must be badly mistaken about Calvinism, then. Can you please explain your answer?

 

Helen,

The verse says "crucify again to themselves". So there must have been a first time of crucifying to themselves.

 

No, again. It means that THIS time it is to themselves.

 

The sentence structure won't bear your idea, Helen.

Why are kicking against the idea that your are responsible for the sin of crucifying Jesus? Do you just want to lay the blame on the Jews and the Romans around 30-33 A.D.?

 

This is absurd Joseph and you have been around long enough to know it. There is no Calvinist with a contempt for God's will. That is an unfortunate statement from you that I hope was the result of quickness rather than studied forethought.

The revealed things belong to us; the secret things to God as the book of Deuteronomy said. You seem to portray the very attitude that Paul condemns in Romans 3, which was why I cited it to begin with. I anticipated your response, as did Paul, and with him, I say "May it never be." Do not question the righteousness of God because of your own inability to understand it. Rest on his word and his revelation of himself.

We have established that God ordains all things. Consider Psalm 139 where the Psalmist says that God ordained all his days when there was as yet not one of them. Do you not believe that pertains to the unborn whose days have not yet seen light though they are still humans? Surely you would not deny that. So Scripture affirms that God ordains the days, even those lives whose last day ends with their own slaughter in their mother's womb. I have no problem affirming that because Scripture clearly teaches it. I neither have a problem affirming that God holds all men responsible for their own sin because Scripture affirms it. Paul affirms that God is completely fair and just to do just that. Therefore, I affirm it.

I do not set up my own understanding as the touch stone upon which these issues must be decided. I think that is the fallacy you have entered into which such a proposition as you have put forth here.

Let us ask the question in another way: If you had lived in the first century, would it have been right for you to protest the murder of Jesus? A simple yes or no would be appropriate (in keeping with your own demands for this thread).

 

Helen,

God is love.
God is merciful.
God is omipotent.
God is omniscient.
God is omnipresent.
God is good.
God is all wise.
God is holy.
God is sovereign.
God is righteous.
God is full of grace.
God is full of truth.
God is immutable.
God is full of joy.
God is kind.
God is forgiving.
God is invisible.
God is all glorious.

That's at least a pretty good start at understanding my foundation for believing the Bible.

 

I don't know what Ken's thinking is but I would say yes. Either God is sovereign or he isn't. Such sovereignty is not potential -- indeed potential sovereignty is not sovereignty. It is actual.

 

He died for all of our sins. But that was HIS decision. He did not have to do it. He has taken responsibility for us. And that is the exact opposite of what you are trying to say about us taking responsibility for Him.

We have sinned. We have deserved death. However He CHOSE to love us and fix the situation. It was HIS decision in regard to our sins. Again, we are not necessary to Him.

 

You are talking nonsense, Helen. You are saying that a man can be murdered and the man murdered is responsible for it.

I have other things to do on my day off from work so I will leave this discussion now.

Have a great end of the this year and a great beginning of the new year in the Lord, Helen, and you too, Joseph.

Ken

 

Baloney. I am saying just the opposite where all men but Christ are concerned. That is why I stated earlier that there was only one man born to die, and that was Christ Himself. The rest of us were born to live if we accept Him.

Please do not equate the sacrifice of Christ with murders we perpetrate on each other.

 

Let us ask the question in another way: If you had lived in the first century, would it have been right for you to protest the murder of Jesus? A simple yes or no would be appropriate (in keeping with your own demands for this thread).

OF COURSE it would have been right to protest it! However that would not have stopped it from happening. You see, protest would have been against the crucifixion, not against salvation. The fact that the two were necessarily connected did not seem to be in anyone's understanding at the time.

And no, we cannot go back in time with our present knowledge and pretend we would know better what to do or say...

 

Thanks Helen. This is precisely the answer we would all give and yet the very same issue that illustrates teh problem of Joseph's binary thinking. If you protested and worked agains the murder of Christ, you would have been protesting against the will of God. Joseph has used this thread to argue exactly that, that Calvinists can't protest abortion because they would be protesting against the will of God. You however, admit such is possible and even necessary, though it wouldn't change the outcome. In so doing, you have illustrated that Calvinism is a viable belief system when it comes to sin.

 

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory...

 

The reason I didn't bother to answer this question is that it appeared to me to be an attempt to corner the Calvinist by seeking simple yes or no answers to questions that that cannot be fairly answered in such a manner. My suspicion proved correct as I followed your further dialogue with Ken. He finally went along with your later demand for simple yes or no answers, thus particapating in the unfair caricaturization of his own position, and you followed through with attempting to drive home the point that Calvinists believe in going against God's will. You said, "Finally, at least there are Calvinists out there who are honest about there contempt for God's will." Frankly, Joseph, this kind of thing is bush-league. If you don't want to have a real discussion about what Calvinists actually believe, then why bring up questions to them?

Pastork

[ December 26, 2002, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

Joseph, If you have been reading along here, your question has been answered (with Scripture), and you have been asked a question in return. Now it's your turn. Why don't you answer?