Combined post to godrulz, Knight and drbrumley:
To godrulz:
godrulz said:
God's love is not limited.
No, it's not. But it is special and discrete, like a man's love for his wife. It is a sacrificial love which actually accomplishes that for which it was intended. It is not the ineffectual, sloppy, pathetic and beggarly love of the God of Open Theism. If godrulz would take his head out of the sand and recognize the particular, discrete and individual election that is taught throughout scripture, he would not be hung up on this.
godrulz said:
His plan of redemption is not limited to the elite.
No, not limited, but special, particular and discrete. Once again, an understanding of individual election would help godrulz immensely. But, according to his own words, he's not prepared to study it.
godrulz said:
... God impartially loves everyone, the whole world. He died for all men. He would be pleased if all men were snatched from Satan and returned to the Father's heart.
That's not what scripture says (which you're admittedly not prepared to study). It says that God has mercy upon whom He will have mercy. It says that He has formed pots of honor and pots of dishonor and the pots have no grounds for complaint.
godrulz said:
Does your theology lead to passivity (logically it should)?
This shows how Open Theists are completely retarded when it comes to understanding their opponents. How many times do they have to be clubbed over the head with the fact that determinism is not just an end, but the means to the end as well. No, godrulz, logic does not lead the determinist to passivity. Logic leads the determinist to actively pursue and to rejoice in the conversion of the unregenerated elect.
godrulz said:
God's perfect, objective provision must be subjectively appropriated.
In other words, man must save himself. One can never say, "Jesus saved me," because all Jesus really did was provide the "grounds" for salvation. The actual effectual saving is done by the individual for himself. On the Open View, Jesus could say, "No, we did it together! [high five with Jesus]" The Open View makes people into co-saviors, which undermines the teachings of the entire canon of scripture.
godrulz said:
... God alone initiates and provides salvation (grounds...we cannot die for our own sins). The manward side is that we must receive Him to have life (conidtions...God does not believe or rebel for us...Jn. 1:12, 3:16, 36; Rom. 1).
Did you miss Jn 1:13? ("nor of the will of the flesh ..."). Those who received him did not do so of their own wills, godrulz. Their conversion were subsequent to be born of above. Did you miss the whole first part of Jn. 3, which teaches that Nicodemus was already born again when he came to Jesus by night (v. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee [Nicodemus], Ye [Israel] must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou [Nicodemus] hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one [incuding Nicodemus] that is born of the Spirit.
godrulz said:
A literal payment commercial transaction theory (Anselm) of the atonement, widely held by Christians, logically leads to universalism.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Jesus paid for the sins of those individuals given to Him by the Father, no more, no less. Not merely "grounds," but actual redemptive payment.
godrulz said:
The reason you wrongly conclude that God's impartial love for the world is limited and His atonement is only intended for a small elite group is a deductive TULIP idea that is based on an unbiblical view of hyper-sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control).
You keep forgetting, GR,
you're the one who ignores the teaching of scripture to maintain your deductive theology and preconceptions.
godrulz said:
God's will is not the only factor in the universe, by His sovereign choice. A reconciled love relationship is not coerced/caused/unilateral.
Straw man, GR.
godrulz said:
It is contrary to God's self-revelation in Scripture.
You disqualified yourself from discussing Scripture when you refused to address individual election taught throughout.
godrulz said:
... You impugn the character of God and dare to tell me my defense is a mantra?
You're not qualified to discuss the character of God, GR, when you flat-out ignore His teaching on individual election.
godrulz said:
... There is no good reason why God would not save all men if He could.
"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?" (Ro 9:20)
godrulz said:
... Your view makes His love arbitrary and limited.
Arbitrary, yes. Limited, no, but special and discrete. On the Open View, God's love is no different for a saved person than an unsaved person, which means it is meaningless and ineffective.
godrulz said:
He damns my sister and mother, but saves myself and my cousin, for His good pleasure?
"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?" (Ro 9:20)
godrulz said:
Don't bother preaching the gospel to everyone as commanded.
Do you preach the gospel to everyone, godrulz?
godrulz said:
... We are lying to people to call them to repentant faith knowing God may or may not actually regenerate them if they respond in brokenness.
This is a perfect example of the error of ignoring the difference between God's prescriptive will (which commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel) and God's decretive will (which saves precisely and discretely those for whom Christ died). Salvation is not an offer, but a command.
godrulz said:
... If they are not elect it must be a display of emotion. We are cruel deceivers at best.
Not when evangelism is done biblically.
godrulz said:
God loves His bride and people in a special way. This is not arbitrary. Loving our spouses does not negate the commands to love our neighbours, enemies, the lost, our family, our pets, etc.
Just as God's specific saving love for His elect does not negate His general grace and love for creation. The difference between godrulz's demitheology and the Settled View is that the Sand God's love doesn't really accomplish anything, whereas the Rock can actually be trusted to save each and every individual for whom Christ died.
godrulz said:
Love seeks the highest good of another. God is love.
It's all lip-service when that love doesn't actually do anything.
godrulz said:
... Condemning people to eternal punishment in eternity past before the person or their responsible choices are made is highly arbitrary and not parallel at all.
It is completely arbitrary, as is sacrificial love. That's the whole purpose of the Potter-Pot metaphor. Pots don't mar themselves. Pots don't talk back to the Potter. The Potter is completely arbitrary in His decision to make the pot for honor or for dishonor. The pot has nothing to say about it, nor can he; he's a pot.
godrulz said:
Eenie-meanie-minnie-moe is not how God decides who goes to heaven or hell? What is the explicit biblical criteria?
God's choosing is the "criteria." Not by the will of man, not by the will of flesh, but by the will of God.
godrulz said:
... Faith is within our mental and volitional capacity in response to God's influence (persuasive vs causative/coerced).
No, faith is a gift that God gives to elect individuals, GR. The individual can't believe until he has been given the gift of faith. Regeneration precedes belief. Until you recognize that election is individual, as taught throughout scripture, you will keep plugging your ears and humming in abject denial of and contradiction with the texts that you've been shown. Will you ever deal with them, or will you continue in your denial?
To Knight:
Knight said:
What are the capabilities of the "fleshly mind"?
Can the "fleshly mind" do things that are not of God's decretive will?
No, no one can. That's what Paul means when he rhetorically asks in behalf of the gainsayer: "For who hath resisted his will?" (Ro 9:19). The answer is: No one has resisted God's decretive will.
Knight said:
No, you say?
Then why accuse it of something that God designed for His glory?
This sounds familar. Where have I heard this before? "Why doth he yet find fault?" (Ro 9:19). Why did Paul ask this rhetorical question? Because he knew that his descriptions of God as individually and arbitrarily choosing the elect would be met with that very question: "If it is God who decides whom will receive mercy and whom will be hardened (Ro 9:18) for His own purposes and glory (Ro 9:17), then why accuse us of something designed for His glory?" You're a living example of the mindset that Paul chides, and answers: "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?" (Ro 9:20)
Knight said:
Who are you to mock God's handiwork?
Yeah, who does Paul think he is? How dare he suggest that one's salvation "is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy"? (Ro 9:16).
Knight said:
P.S. (from threads abroad)
When the Bible says... (in 2nd Samuel 24:1)... "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel,".
What was God mad about?
He was mad about Israel disobeying His prescriptive will, all according to God's decrees, obviously. I thought we went over this.
Knight said:
If God ordains which husbands love their wives and which do not, that's arbitrary.
Yes, and that's God's prerogative as the Potter. Just as God ordained that He would show mercy and compassion to some and not to others. Who are you to talk back to your Potter? Shall the thing formed say to HIm that formed it, "Why have you made me this way?" Answer: No, absolutely not, because you're a pot.
To drbrumley:
drbrumley said:
Funny that Paul instructs ALL husbands and not just those foreoradained. Just a thought!
It's a good thought, too, because it demonstrates the difference between God's decretive will (e.g. some husbands love their wives and some do not) and God prescriptive will (e.g. all husbands are commanded to love their wives).
All according to God's decrees, obviously,
Jim