I'm not sure where you get "choice." It's nowhere to be found. </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. I apologize for misconstruing your argument. I thought when you originally mentioned that verse you were referring to God's sovereign choices.
Apparently you were just pulling that verse out of context, because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument I was making about God's glory when you brought it up in the first place. I should have recognized that and called you on it then.
Sure. Why not? Remember, he does not delight in certain things - in other words, he does not take glory in these things.</font>[/QUOTE]Am I correct in understanding that you believe God could have brought more glory to himself if he created the world in a different way? Does it not seem that you make God an unwise creator?
Let me illustrate my point.
Imagine yourself in a classroom. The teacher explains the assignment to the entire class "once," then proceeds to spend all her time with one student helping him understand the assigment, answering questions, and making sure that student completes the project exactly as the teacher desires all the students to complete it.
All the students can reasonably be held responsible, but I can't imagine how anyone could argue that the teacher is being "fair."
I'm sorry you see that way. Maybe you can take it up with Him in Heaven. Either way, the idea of the gospel being open to all men is much more "reliable" than that door being closed to the majority of humanity.</font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps my argument was too subtle. I'm usually not accused of excessive subtlety. I don't believe that. Rather, it seems to be the logical end of your arumentation.
Did you not admit that God chose people to be the vehicle for his message, then proceed to argue that people have failed? Was your god not aware men would fail? Was your god not wise enough to find a better vehicle? Did your god not care enough to choose a better vehicle? Perhaps your god is too weak to get his message out. I choose my punctuation carefully, and I hope I have left out a more biblical option.
Non-Calvinists, why is your God so small?
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Siegfried, Nov 19, 2002.
Page 4 of 7
-
-
When I witness (and I do, if you can believe that), I tell people that if they put their trust in Christ they will be saved. That is biblical. Nowhere are believers commanded to pick and choose who they think the elect are. We're supposed to go and make disciples wherever we find them in all the nations. -
In other words, your objections to calvinism are based on things that are not calvinism. Calvinists are Bible believing, God loving people who desire to see the name of God magnified through the salvation of souls. I would encourage you to not paint them as something else. -
Just a thought: I have trouble with the words responsible/accountable/culpable/blame being used in respect to God, because they all carry with it the idea of having someone or something to answer to. These words just cannot apply to God, because there is noone or no standard above Him that He can be called to answer to.
God may be the first cause of everything, but He is not accountable for anything. Being accountable would imply an action that can be judged right or wrong. But God IS what is right--whatever He does is right and it is right because it is He who does it. -
As for the whole "equal chance" debate, I never have actually believed in equal chance, due to all those who have never heard, as Calvinists keep leveling at us. This has always been a difficult teaching, regarding those who seemingly have no chance (most non-Calvinists would say if they pray sincerely for the true God to show Himself, He will make sure the Gospel gets to him so he can believe. And, the mitigating factor in the difference in opportunity to hear the Gospel is that people will still be judged according to "to whom much (or little) is given...", which Calvinism doesn't seem to take into account)
Still, don't forget; being in a Christian culture is no guarantee that a person really has "more of a chance". Such a person may also be more likely to rebel against it (especially since he sees the imperfections of it which he sees as "hypocrisy"), or instead, take pride in it as if heritage alone saves him. Actually, the modern "Christianized" world is very much like the Israel Jesus, Paul and the others dealt with in the Bible, doing preceisely these things. Men corrupted God's truth, and people rebelled, and now people have made up their own minds about God and the way to live, and want to hear nothing about the truth of the Bible, as morality plunges ever further and further. (I look around at people, especially kids around the city today, and say "these people have more chance to be saved than others in the world? Just tell them about God and repentance and they'll spit at you, because they've heard it all before, and don't want anyone "telling them what to do"!) So we are truly "hardened" and "blinded" and it can once again be said that the truth is not "given" people. (But this is not from God witholding any chance or ability at all to believe to each individual, but just the general state of the society at large). Those in other cultures hearing it for the first time may be more responsive, because it is new and different; rather than an old established system distorted and watered down by centuries of prominence; which they have long ago already rejected. This is precisely what happened with the Israelites as opposed to the Gentiles, and this was the whole point of Romans 9. God had raised them before others, but now they are hardened, while the others are opened up to.
As for God being free of "blame" because He is not "held to any standard", I guess what people are doing is holding Him up to His own standard He has revealed to us in the Bible. He does actually put it in terms as if He were on trial(Like "taste the Lord, that He is good", "test me in this and see if I will not open up the Heavens...", etc) So to say "whatever God does is right simply because He does it" may make hypothetical sense, but if you take that without His definitions of what He WILL or will NOT do, than you caould have Him "lying" or "sinning", and this made right simply because He does it.
[ November 21, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ] -
-
-
[ November 21, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ] -
He does actually put it in terms as if He were on trial(Like "taste the Lord, that He is good", "test me in this and see if I will not open up the Heavens...", etc) So to say "whatever God does is right simply because He does it" may make hypothetical sense, but if you take that without His definitions of what He WILL or will NOT do, than you caould have Him "lying" or "sinning", and this made right simply because He does it.
The problem I have with those words is that , for one thing, by definition they assume the possibility of wrongdoing. In addition, if I make the statement that God is reponsible/culpable/accountable for something, then it makes it seem as if I am presuming to stand in judgment of God, something that would at least be be very cheeky of me; for while I may have a measure of understanding of what is righteous, my understanding is certainly far from perfect.
-
So He has also shown that it is not in His character to damn people by way of making them helpless, and then holding them "responsible" for what they couldn't help. The whole countercharge of "creating people with less chance" is far different than deliberately creating people with absolutely no chance simply to supposedly get some sort of "glory" from torturing them.
This is why people say it is not according to His character, so "It's right just because He does it" doesn't hold any more than the idea of Him lying being right if He does it. -
[ November 23, 2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ] -
Oh brother! :rolleyes: :confused:
Isn't this what Calvinists are saying is "right" because God does it? -
Ken -
True. But the problem we're having here is that the Calvinists also describe it in terms of God deliberately "hardening" or "passing over" people, and their damnation for "His glory", with various scriptures quoted to this effect. When it's pointed out that this makes God
"responsible" or is "double predestination", then it is insisted that no, man really did it all to himself. -
Eric B,
I guess you'll have it take up that issue with the double predestination types.
Ken -
[ November 24, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ] -
-
So to go back to your original statement:
-
Page 4 of 7