Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada
| Re: why and how God repented that He had made Saul king over Israel?|
Please someone tell me why and how God repented that He had made Saul king over Israel?
If Saul was designed or made to rebel and lie like he did, God could NOT repent.
1 Sam 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
John MacArthur does a fine job explaining this [url=http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-12-4.htm]here[/url].
Likewise, [url=http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-T-9.htm]this[/url] might shed some light.
Daniel van de Laar
| 2005/4/4 16:54||Profile|
| Re: Calvinism - free will|
Calvinism and Free Will- what a great discussion!
I would like to preface my statement by saying that I have a lot of friends on both sides of "the fence" on this issue and I have no problem fellowshiping with either side regulary and hope that this friendly discussion on this website continues to be just that.
Maybe this explenation sounds a little too simple and maybe it is but here goes!:
We as Christians should base our every belief and doctrine on the Holy Word of God not on the opinions of men. I have greatly appreciated all of the verses provided by all of the previous posters (is that a word?) and think that it is pretty apparent that both sides can provide Scripture for their respective positions. So here is what I proppose... God made time, God made scientific law. God is not bound by time and God is not bound by scientific law. If He wants to stop the sun from setting for a little while longer then usual He does. Period. What is physically impossible He does easily because He created the boundries by which we live. What I'm saying is that God is BIGGER than time or scientific law because He created them. I believe the same is true of the free will of man. God made our free will. It is obvious from Scripture that man has a "say" in his salvation. God also made predestination. It is also obvious that we are the "elect" "chosen before the foundations of the earth" as I have heard some Calvinists say. God created free will and He created Predestination. Just becuase it doesn't humanly make sense for these two things to dwell in harmony doesn't mean that it isn't possible. God is BIGGER than "free will" and He is BIGGER than "predestination." God is not bound by things that we are bound by whether it be the physical, the scientific or the logical.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9 ESV
I hope this all makes sense to you and that it is helpful or at the very least not divisive.
| 2005/4/14 22:24||Profile|
| Re: Calvinism - free will|
Calvinisms first point speaks to the total depravity of man. Arminianism counters: although we are born as sinners, mankind is given a divine spark that enables us to respond positively to God.
What would 'born as sinners' mean in Finney's theology? In "Lectures on Systematic Theology: Lec 24 Moral Depravity" he writes:"I object to the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness, that it makes all sin, original and actual, a mere calamity, and not a crime. For those who hold that sin is an essential part of our nature, to call it a crime, is to talk nonsense." In the piece you quote we read
Calvins definition was just another way of expressing original sin (Psalm 51:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Although, we do not inherit anyone's sin (Ezekiel 18:20),
Understood properly, the teaching of Constitutional Sinfulness does not teach that we inherit 'anyone's sin'. This gets into the territory of 'transmission'. How we come to share Adam's condition (I am choosing my words very carefully here) is a continuing matter of discussion among Bible students but the fact of a shared condition with Adam is the 'orthodox' position of most evangelicals. The German's refer to 'Inherited Sin' but this is a quesionable title.
The Ezekiel reference has often come into these discussions so I think it is time to examine it. Eze 18:1-4 KJV The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, (2) What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? (3) As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. (4) Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. He may even have been quoting from Jeremiah! Ezekiel's prophetic ministry began at the point that Jeremiah's finished. Jeremiah was carried hostage by 'Jews' while Ezekiel, as a 'young man' was carried captive into Babylon. Consequently the historical background into which each of them ministered is the same. It was the 'end' of the faith as they knew it. The promises of a perpetual Davidic dynasty seemed to have been broken, as were those of Zion. Even the 'everlasting' rituals of the first Temple had all ceased. Israel's theology was in tatters. Isaiah had predicted this a century earlier, but Jeremiah and Ezekiel lived it. Against the background of this apparent failure God spoke through Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
The reason I said Ezekiel may have been quoting Jeremiah is that we know that the prophecies of Jeremiah made it to the exiles in Bablyone, as the book of Daniel shows. (Daniel 9:2) Jeremiah had used this exact imagery of 'sour grapes' approximately 12 years before Ezekiel! Jer 31:27-31 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. (28) And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD. (29) [u]In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. (30) But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.[/u] (31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: It is important to remember that Jeremiah's prophecy predates Ezekiel's and gives the context for this statement.
The context is the provision of a 'new covenant' which Jeremiah goes on to say will be...Jer 31:32 YLT Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them--an affirmation of Jehovah.This is a replacement covenant and is clearly described as such in Hebrews 10:9. According to Hebrews, this is because a new priesthood had come into being...Heb 7:11-12 YLT If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood--for the people under it had received law--what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron? (12) for the priesthood being changed, of necessity also, of the law a change doth come,This is a key bible truth that 'law and priesthood' are inseparably joined, and a change in the priesthood there is as the KJV says 'of necessity' a change also of the law.
Jeremiah in his prophetic vision is connecting the present with the future; a frequent event in the Biblical prophets. Israel's law had a corporate and hereditary element. Exo 20:5-6 KJV Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (6) And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Amo 3:1-2 KJV Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, (2) You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.This was built into the law, but a covenant is announced in Jeremiah which will replace that covenant and change the law, and it is Jeremiah who first calls this a 'new covenant'.
According to HebrewsHeb 9:15-17 YLT And because of this, of a new covenant he is mediator, that, death having come, for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those called may receive the promise of the age-during inheritance, (16) for where a covenant is , the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, (17) for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth,This is a vital bible truth; a covenant is 'not in force' [u]until[/u] the death of the covenant victim. The New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel could not come 'into force' until the death of the covenant-victim; ie Calvary. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant each have a mediator and each had a earthly space/time beginning.Exo 24:8 KJV And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Luk 22:20 YLT In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.The first Lord's Supper in the upper room looked forwards, since then each Lord's Supper has looked backwards. Those who are initiated into this New Covenant have a New Priest and a New Law. The penalties and consequences of the 'old' law are no longer 'in force' for them. Gal 3:23-25 NASB But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. (24) Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. (25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.The 'old' law with its corporate and heredity consequences was no longer 'in force'.
This is what Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies look forward to, but until we are personally initiated into that New Covenant the old legislation obtains. This is uniquely true for those who were initiated into the Old Covenant but in many ways Israel was a visual aid for the whole race.
Consequently, and I'm sorry to have taken so long about it, 'constitutional sin' is a fact of life for every member of the human race until that individual is brought into a New Covenant.
Lastly, 'Constitutional Sin' does not teach that we inherited Adam's sin, but that we received (still choosing my words carefully) Adam's condition that he 'acquired' as a result of his transgression. Romans 5:12 teaches us very plainly that Sin (the Greek gives it a definite article, The Sin, thus personifying it) entered the human race 'as a result of' Adam's transgression. Constitutional Sin is not Adam's transgression, but The Sin which entered Adam as a result of his transgression. It is Sin-Personified that is the human condition not and inherited guilt from Adam's transgression.
| 2005/4/15 4:07||Profile|
Dan (and Adam/Kirindor)--
I've always had a bit of a problem with Jonathan Edwards over this issue of desire. JE seems to say we are locked into whatever our strongest desire is. He comes across at times almost like a behavioralist/determinist.
Though I too am a Calvinist, I believe we have an actual ability to choose.
Dan, you said: "So, as a "Calvinist" I understand free will as being the freedom to respond [to] or deny desires that I have no control over."
How is it that you are [i]not[/i] saying: "So, I understand free will as being the freedom to [i]control[/i] desires that I have no control over" ??
(Aren't "response" and "denial" aspects of control?)
Surely we have not created our desires (hungers, thirsts, emotions) nor the things we desire. God created both the objects of our desires and our response mechanisms to these stimuli. But surely (at least as regenerate individuals), we have a modicum of control over what desires we nurture or suppress. The fact that I desire a good thing today that I did not desire yesterday may have come about as a result of godly self-discipline. I actually chose to desire what God would have me desire. I lined up my will--I conformed it-- to his own.
Of course, what we [i]cannot[/i] do is to desire God himself without the gift of faith. Once granted justification, we cannot NOT desire God...but we can help that desire to flourish.
Well, that's my two cents worth on "choice," for whatever it's worth.
| 2005/4/29 1:15||Profile|
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada
How is it that you are not saying: "So, I understand free will as being the freedom to control desires that I have no control over?
Every morning I get dressed and freely make a decision about what I am going to wear. My choice is limited to only those garments that are readily available. I can choose to wear dirty clothes, borrowed clothes, etc - but in the act of getting dressed I have a perfect freedom to choose, but my choice is limited to whatever palette of options I have available.
No one would soberly suggest that I lack free will in getting dressed in the morning simply because my choices are limited.
Likewise, I have only so many desires to choose from in any given situation. For example, In finding my wife, I had a perfect freedom to pursue any sort of woman - but I was only attracted to some of them. Did I choose who I would be attracted to? Of course not! I could choose to resist the attraction - but I had no say in who I was attracted to.
That is the heart of it. I didn't pick and choose who I would be attracted to - and in the same way we have no choice about any of our attractions, be they physical, spiritual, intellectual or whatever - we have little say in the matter. We are free to suppress or indulge our attractions - but we do not determine what they are going to be.
Unless God makes Himself "attractive" to an individual - that individual is not going to pursue God. He has the option (just as I had the "option" to date morbidly obese women) - but men will not pursue God just because the option is available to them. Men pursue God when God makes Him self attractive to them.
I hope that explains it. ;-)
Daniel van de Laar
| 2005/4/29 15:08||Profile|
was adams sin then just a legal ponouncement that fell on all mankind or was it a moral change in the hearts of all men that followed adam. Here's where I get confused.
| 2005/4/29 19:14||Profile|
| Re: dan|
Dan - you said
"Unless God makes Himself "attractive" to an individual - that individual is not going to pursue God."
Does this mean a sinner can stand before God and claim the reason he is a sinner is because God never made himself "attractive" to him?
I guess then this persons crime of rebellion is then Gods fault?
| 2005/4/30 9:12|
| Re: question?|
Do we inherit a sin nature from Adam or our parents?
No!! It is impossible for moral character to be passed from one generation to the next. Sin does not exist until one actually sins. Read Ezekiel chapter 18. This chapter teaches that sin cannot be inherited or transmitted from your parent or ancestors. Each person alone is responsible for his own free moral choices.
| 2005/4/30 9:16|
Though I agree we can have no desire for God unless granted the gift of faith, I don't really think that's the case with many other choices in life.
Take your example of women, for example.
I doubt you are saying that once you marry that attractive-to-you woman she must stay exactly as she is for life or your feelings for her will of necessity wane.
Surely you realize she may become pudgy or wrinkly or handicapped or whatnot. If you have absolutely no control over your desires, I guess you'll be relegated to a second-rate marriage...or else you'll divorce the hag and get you a pretty-young-thing that makes your heart go pitty-pat.
Though it is not easy, we can and we should discipline unruly desires and cultivate godly ones. If I am naturally attracted to racy, voluptuous, worldly chicks rather than wholesome, wise, and slightly plain ones, then it behooves me not merely to accept my desires as is (as something I cannot change because I have no control over them) but to willfully bring them in line with godly character.
Yes, two equally winsome women may strike our fancy differently and we have less control over that...but we still have control. Suppose one of them is already my wife. Even if I find the other woman more attractive, my desire needs to remain with my wife. And that certainly can be accomplished.
We [i]can[/i] change our desires. It may be a long, difficult process, but we have real choice. We are not held captive by our current "attractions."
| 2005/4/30 13:51||Profile|
You can hold God culpable only if you believe Christ is not sufficiently beautiful in some OBJECTIVE sense. Is [i]that[/i] what you're saying?
The sinner has no excuse for rejecting objective beauty even if God never opens that sinner's eyes to see past his own flagrant rebellion.
| 2005/4/30 14:00||Profile|