ELECT Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God

[Idolater]

Of course. That's why God's grace is so amazing.

lain: Your sanctimony is noted.

 

[MennoSota]

lain: Your sanctimony is noted.

Your idolatry is noted.

 

[Winston Smith]

Sounds like you have a bone to pick with God.
Humans are, by nature, chaff, not wheat. There is no obligation upon God to turn humans into wheat and redeem us. The right and proper thing to do is to gather up the chaff and then burn it.
But, God chooses to turn some chaff into wheat according to His will, because He can. God doesn't give us the list by which He chooses. That seems to irritate humans. God seems to shrug that complaint off like a parent who does what is wise and doesn't tell his 2 year old why. The 2 year old may ask "why, why, why" and the Father can determine whether to answer or not. God does not answer you regarding why he chooses to redeem some chaff, by making them wheat. A Sovereign King does not have to devulge his reasoning for his decision. That seems to irritate you.

The argument that God can do w/e he wants b/c he's the final boss. But doesn't that contradict scripture where it says His moral character never changes, that the law is written in our hearts and we are called to be Holy as God is Holy, that we are to be like Him...? Does God truck in contradiction like that, like a malignant narcissist dictator expecting us to stick to the law while He can do w/e he wants b/c he created everything? Does that even sound right to you? Thanks

 

[Idolater]

Your idolatry is noted.

See?

Loser.

 

[Winston Smith]

That's because your question is built upon a faulty premise.

It might help if you could say what that faulty premise is.

After Christ's work on the cross, He appears to the apostle Paul and gives him revelations concerning the gift of God which is eternal life. Unfortunately, too many people decide not to accept that gift from God. They simply lack the faith that is required.

The "chaff" is only chaff because it refuses to trust in its Creator. God tells us they are without excuse for refusing to come to Him.

Someone who honestly can't see God is without excuse? How is that their fault? Thanks.

 

[glorydaz]

The argument that God can do w/e he wants b/c he's the final boss. But doesn't that contradict scripture where it says His moral character never changes, that the law is written in our hearts and we are called to be Holy as God is Holy, that we are to be like Him...? Does God truck in contradiction like that, like a malignant narcissist dictator expecting us to stick to the law while He can do w/e he wants b/c he created everything? Does that even sound right to you? Thanks

There's another faulty premise. God does not expect us to "stick to the law".



The law was given to show men their sin and their guilt....SO they would turn to Him for His mercy and Grace. Man was created to be in fellowship with God, to believe in Him and trust in Him instead of in their own attempts to be righteous. It's a simple thing, but man can't believe there are no strings attached to this great gift God offers us.

 

[glorydaz]

It might help if you could say what that faulty premise is.

I would say it's in the way you're reading the text...out of context and such.

Man can choose the broad path and live a life of destruction, or he can choose the narrow path that leads to life as it was intended for man to live. The former seems the easy path, and the latter takes a simple faith.

Someone who honestly can't see God is without excuse? How is that their fault? Thanks.

Man was created with the knowledge of God in his very being. He needs only look around at creation...the wonders of the universe...the birth of a child....the love of family...his conscience knowing good and evil. We all know God exists. Many don't want to admit it, because they don't know how to reach Him, or they don't want to give up doing what they know they shouldn't be doing.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

 

[MennoSota]

The argument that God can do w/e he wants b/c he's the final boss. But doesn't that contradict scripture where it says His moral character never changes, that the law is written in our hearts and we are called to be Holy as God is Holy, that we are to be like Him...? Does God truck in contradiction like that, like a malignant narcissist dictator expecting us to stick to the law while He can do w/e he wants b/c he created everything? Does that even sound right to you? Thanks

You have created a contradiction in your head.
What does God's word say? We know God and His Sovereign love through what He has revealed in scripture.
All that God does is perfect and perfectly ordained by His will.
Do you doubt God is working all things for good?

And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory.

 

[Rosenritter]

You teach that God is reactionary, thus you diminish His foreknowledge, His omniscience, His omnipresence and His omnipotence. Moreso, you deny His sovereignty.
What Jonah teaches us is that God is patient with sinners and He mercifully grants time for repentance.

Forgiveness and mercy is not in reaction to repentance?

 

[Rosenritter]

God without knowledge is dangerous. God without power is weak.

AMR

And a claim to know the unknowable and to have power to create paradox is insanity. A God that doesn't know how to create a square circle must be very dangerous and/or weak indeed?

 

[Rosenritter]

If God is omnipotent, then omniscience is a trivial thing, only requiring that He knows what He is doing, and who would ever grant that His power is limitless, but that He might not know what He Himself is up to?

People try to put the cart before the horse when they argue from omniscience, that God cannot be omnipotent. He is omniscient because He is omnipotent. You have to argue directly that He isn't omnipotent, to argue that He isn't omniscient, not the other way around. And that brings you into the problem of evil, and the only ones with a satisfying solution to the problem of evil, are the Catholics. The Clavinists and the Open Theists have the same problem, when considering some of the atrocities that have occurred throughout history, and that are still occurring today (in Africa, for example). Why does God permit such wickedness? Clavinists have to answer not only why He would permit it, but why He would bring it about.

Catholicism, for its part, believes in God's limitless power---omnipotence---and omniscience, authentic human freedom, and that the Body of Christ herself, is the solution to the problem of evil.

Can you explain why the "Open Theist" would have an inherent difficulty with the "thorny problem of evil?" I likely have more in common with that position than some others here, but I just introduced and explained that same "problem of evil" to someone tonight (likely within three sentences) and she said it made perfect sense.

 

[Idolater]

Can you explain why the "Open Theist" would have an inherent difficulty with the "thorny problem of evil?" I likely have more in common with that position than some others here, but I just introduced and explained that same "problem of evil" to someone tonight (likely within three sentences) and she said it made perfect sense.

Any atrocity. Why'd God permit that to occur? Openness believes that God doesn't know ahead of time that atrocities will occur, nor when, nor where, etc. But once He does know that an atrocity is occurring, why doesn't He stop it?

That problem.

 

[Rosenritter]

Any atrocity. Why'd God permit that to occur? Openness believes that God doesn't know ahead of time that atrocities will occur, nor when, nor where, etc. But once He does know that an atrocity is occurring, why doesn't He stop it?

That problem.

This doesn't affect the question (nor the answer) but I think that Openness does allow that God knows that atrocities will occur, and that he may even know when or where they will occur... the caveat being that there are reasonable limitations to when such could be knowable.

For example, God wouldn't be able to give you a fixed list of all instances of all atrocities that every man will commit before such men were created, but he could know that a certain man has set his mind to commit an atrocity, and know that the man was inclined towards that atrocity before his own heart was set or even aware of the inclination.

So here's the short answer. God doesn't stop men's atrocities because this isn't His world. It's man's world, and man chose to learn the full knowledge of good and evil by making himself his own god and rejecting the true God. God allows man to know the evil because man is stubborn and won't believe anything until he sees it himself. God is able and willing to heal the effects of this evil when he takes back this world as his own and comes into His Kingdom, this is His promise and this He will do.

Revelation 21:4 KJV
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Thorny problem of evil explained and resolved. I don't think this is an "Open Theist" question, but rather more an issue for those that would say that God's Kingdom is currently reigning on earth.

 

[Idolater]

This doesn't affect the question (nor the answer) but I think that Openness does allow that God knows that atrocities will occur, and that he may even know when or where they will occur... the caveat being that there are reasonable limitations to when such could be knowable.

For example, God wouldn't be able to give you a fixed list of all instances of all atrocities that every man will commit before such men were created, but he could know that a certain man has set his mind to commit an atrocity, and know that the man was inclined towards that atrocity before his own heart was set or even aware of the inclination.

Which is only what us people are capable of knowing some of the time, if not most of the time. That's one of the reasons I couldn't be 'Open' myself: The characterization of God's knowledge seemed close to our own knowledge, which didn't even pass a 'sniff test' for me, let alone seem accurate in the light of certain scriptures that make His knowledge seem expansive and unlimited, at least to me and my reading.

So here's the short answer. God doesn't stop men's atrocities because this isn't His world. It's man's world, and man chose to learn the full knowledge of good and evil by making himself his own god and rejecting the true God. God allows man to know the evil because man is stubborn and won't believe anything until he sees it himself. God is able and willing to heal the effects of this evil when he takes back this world as his own and comes into His Kingdom, this is His promise and this He will do.

Revelation 21:4 KJV
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Thorny problem of evil explained and resolved.

Well that's just what Catholicism believes and teaches on the matter. The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church's' words are,

"If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question... There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil."

Text 309 (emphasis the bishops)​

This solution to the problem of evil, along with the bishops' teaching on 'divine providence,' satisfies my 'inner Clavinist.'

I don't think this is an "Open Theist" question, but rather more an issue for those that would say that God's Kingdom is currently reigning on earth.

idk anybody arguing that. Catholicism believes and teaches that Christians are the "seed" of the kingdom of God on the earth.

 

[Winston Smith]

I would say it's in the way you're reading the text...out of context and such.

Another assertion and I dont even know what it's in response to. What was my faulty premise? Seems an easy question. Honestly, for decades now it's the same thing, intense tap dancing around simple straight forward queries.

Man was created with the knowledge of God in his very being.

The phrase "in his very being" is expansive. What does it mean? That the knowledge is intuited (it's not)?

We all know God exists.

I don't, and you can say yes I do; there's no moving forward from there... Seems convenient.

Many don't want to admit it, because they don't know how to reach Him, or they don't want to give up doing what they know they shouldn't be doing.

Mind reading isn't a thing. Many think they can do it. You can't.

Here. It's amazingly simple. How can someone be faulted for choosing wrongly? How can chaff be faulted for being chaff?

 

[Rosenritter]

Which is only what us people are capable of knowing some of the time, if not most of the time. That's one of the reasons I couldn't be 'Open' myself: The characterization of God's knowledge seemed close to our own knowledge, which didn't even pass a 'sniff test' for me, let alone seem accurate in the light of certain scriptures that make His knowledge seem expansive and unlimited, at least to me and my reading.

God himself indicates that some things cannot be known without other conditions: a typical example is when God tests man (or men) before he determines the extent of their faith or whether they will repent. For example, consider the patriarch Abraham:

Genesis 22:12 KJV
(12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

If God indeed created his children with the ability to make decisions, he cannot know what their decision is when they are not yet decided. I think that he does know our own hearts better than we do (thus he may know what we may do before we ourselves know) and that he is powerful enough to be able to handle any thing that we do do.

Well that's just what Catholicism believes and teaches on the matter. The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church's' words are,

"If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question... There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil."

Text 309 (emphasis the bishops)​

This solution to the problem of evil, along with the bishops' teaching on 'divine providence,' satisfies my 'inner Clavinist.'
idk anybody arguing that. Catholicism believes and teaches that Christians are the "seed" of the kingdom of God on the earth.

I didn't see an answer in Text 309 above. "The whole Christian faith" is the answer? That seems a bit vague.

 

[Idolater]

Here. It's amazingly simple. How can someone be faulted for choosing wrongly? How can chaff be faulted for being chaff?

Evokes Romans 9:19 KJV.

 

[Idolater]

God himself indicates that some things cannot be known without other conditions: a typical example is when God tests man (or men) before he determines the extent of their faith or whether they will repent. For example, consider the patriarch Abraham:

Genesis 22:12 KJV
(12) And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

If God indeed created his children with the ability to make decisions, he cannot know what their decision is when they are not yet decided. I think that he does know our own hearts better than we do (thus he may know what we may do before we ourselves know) and that he is powerful enough to be able to handle any thing that we do do.

My response to you here is that I see between your "he cannot know what their decision is when they are not yet decided," and, "I think that he does know our own hearts better than we do (thus he may know what we may do before we ourselves know)," a contradiction. Because I think that the idea expressed in the latter, extended backwards all the way to the beginning, means that He can (and does) know what our decisions will be, before we ourselves make our decisions.

This is apart from Him guiding everything through His unlimited power over creation, including us, who are free to choose every step of the way, unless our freedom is limited through circumstances that are beyond our immediate control. The bishops of the Catholic Church teach that there are many such commonly experienced conditions, some internal, such as 'force of habit,' and others external, such as a threat to our or to our loved ones' safety, that while they can be caused by our prior free choices, present conditions that render our true free choices in any given moment less than truly voluntary.

In such cases as the above, when we are not truly free to choose, when our freedom is hindered, that to my mind makes us even more predictable as to what we will do, because by definition, being less free renders us more predictable.

I didn't see an answer in Text 309 above. "The whole Christian faith" is the answer? That seems a bit vague.

The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' contains the authorized expression of the whole Christian faith, so I see rather than vagueness dramatic and exhaustive specificity in that Text.

Also, I think that Abraham's testing was not done for God's benefit, but for ours.

 

[Rosenritter]

Another assertion and I dont even know what it's in response to. What was my faulty premise? Seems an easy question. Honestly, for decades now it's the same thing, intense tap dancing around simple straight forward queries.

Here. It's amazingly simple. How can someone be faulted for choosing wrongly? How can chaff be faulted for being chaff?

Your question seems to be tap dancing.

John 9:40-41 KJV
(40) And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
(41) Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Spoiler

There are some that have the capacity to see but will not see, not because of lack of knowledge but because of a hardness of the heart... but this is not the object of your question. I understand your question to address the question of true lack that might arise for a number of legitimate reasons, including ignorance, brainwashing, poisoning of the well, and false teachers. Is that an accurate assessment?

So to answer that question, let's consider any one of those examples above. If God himself appeared to that person and spoke to him face to face, do you think that would be a fair method of resolving any or all of those difficulties that were simply from lack of understanding? I have two items to suggest that address this question:

1) We shall all stand before God in the judgment, and no one is judged before the judgment. I think it very unlikely that ignorance (or lies or deception) will be allowed to persist at this time.

2) When Jesus tells the parable of the judgment between the sheep and the goats, do the sheep recognize Jesus? or do they protest that they don't even know how they have served Christ? And what of the goats? Is God condemning people for ignorance or of their heart?

Matthew 25:37 KJV
(37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Matthew 25:40 KJV
(40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

But since your question was "having what it takes to see the right way" that was technically a different question. Repentance, a broken heart and a contrite heart, the willingness to show love to their neighbor: that's what it takes to see the right way. These are the sheep that are gathered on his right hand. "Not having what it takes to see the right way" includes rebellion, pride, stubbornness, hatred, fearfulness. God judges our heart, not our heads.

I couldn’t tease out an answer from all that.

The flaw in your question seems to be that you mean to say "guess" rather than "choose." We can be faulted for choosing wrongly, but since your question is worded wrongly (you mean "guess" instead of "choose") you're never going to get a satisfactory answer unless you're willing to read through at least a few sentences.

Luke 12:48 KJV
(48) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

 

[Rosenritter]

My response to you here is that I see between your "he cannot know what their decision is when they are not yet decided," and, "I think that he does know our own hearts better than we do (thus he may know what we may do before we ourselves know)," a contradiction. Because I think that the idea expressed in the latter, extended backwards all the way to the beginning, means that He can (and does) know what our decisions will be, before we ourselves make our decisions.

... only if you presume that our hearts are static and determined entirely outside of our control. If I extend the analogy to a machine built by a novice builder, that builder may make a machine without realizing its flaw, but the master builder who observes the machine being built will know what that machine will ultimately do (or fail at) before the novice activates it.

Even here the master builder cannot know for sure what will happen because the novice has a mind of his own. The flawed machine would fail... but what if that novice says to the master "I don't trust my own skill here, will you please help me fix this?"

This is apart from Him guiding everything through His unlimited power over creation, including us, who are free to choose every step of the way, unless our freedom is limited through circumstances that are beyond our immediate control. The bishops of the Catholic Church teach that there are many such commonly experienced conditions, some internal, such as 'force of habit,' and others external, such as a threat to our or to our loved ones' safety, that while they can be caused by our prior free choices, present conditions that render our true free choices in any given moment less than truly voluntary.

Conditioned responses (including force of habit) are a repetition (or revealing) of choices that we have made beforehand. If you are conditioned to respond in anger at provocation, it is because you have allowed yourself to respond as such in the past and have not exerted active will sufficient to overcome your own conditioning. True repentance does involve effort.

In such cases as the above, when we are not truly free to choose, when our freedom is hindered, that to my mind makes us even more predictable as to what we will do, because by definition, being less free renders us more predictable. The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' contains the authorized expression of the whole Christian faith, so I see rather than vagueness dramatic and exhaustive specificity in that Text.

There wasn't an answer displayed in the part you showed me.

Also, I think that Abraham's testing was not done for God's benefit, but for ours.

If you believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16) then I can see why you would say that Abraham's testing was done (and recorded) for our benefit.

On the other hand, if you believe that God loved Abraham and that "the trial of your faith, being much more precious than gold..." (1 Peter 1:7) and "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth" (Hebrews 12:7) then you should also believe that Abraham's testing was for Abraham's benefit, and that because God loved Abraham, this was also for God's benefit.

Those two statements and beliefs are not mutually exclusive.