Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[MrG]

When you apply your interpretation to the BIble and then claim that your description of God is the "Biblical God", then that's not helpful for the discussion. The reality is that each of us interpret scripture based on our particular authoritative assumptions. So when you preface your comments by saying "The God of the Bible is..." you're being misleading. It's really "My interpretation of what the God of the BIble is...".

It's important to understand that in the context of your comments below because you are, in effect, applying a single interpretation of scripture to those verses in order to support your doctrine. Those verses, in many cases, can just as readily be understood differently.

You're a little convoluted here, but it appears that you're saying that God, in order to be God, must be bound by the things He can or cannot do. That's specifically the point I made, so it also appears that you agree that in principle, there are things God cannot do.

It appears that you are basically saying that God can be arbitrary in who He saves or who He damns. There doesn't need to be a reason for Him to do so, if I read you correctly. Such an arbitrary judgment would contradict God's perfect attributes of mercy and justice. The scriptures are clear that God is not an arbitrary God, as demonstrated in Luke 11:9-13 (all who ask will be given) and John 6:44-45 (God draws men, but ALL are taught to be drawn).

In reading Romans 9, context is everything, and in using it to say that Paul was in any way justifying an arbitrary God is a misinterpretation. The context Paul was writing in was to Jews who considered themselves, by birth and by obedience to the law of Moses, God's only chosen people. They considered the Gentiles to be unable to be chosen and unable (in their sense) to be heirs of salvation. Paul rather bluntly, in Romans 9, swings the pendulum all the way to the other extreme to make a point that God has a different set of criteria for salvation. In the beginning of verse 10 - after setting the ground for showing the Jews why the law of Moses doesn't save - he then reiterates rather clearly that all who believe will be saved. Indeed, Christ stands at the door and knocks for ALL people, not just those whom God has arbitrarily chosen. God only rejects those who actually choose to reject salvation; he does not make the determination in and of Him self who will reject it, though He does know in advance what the results will be.

I noticed that you really didn't address the importance of obedience in everything God tells us to do. Since we are told to be like God (Matt 5:48), then obedience is evidently an important aspect of what God is. He must obey the same principles he tells us to obey, and that includes loving all people and not arbitrarily judging others by saving or damning them based on a whim.

Your first point is understood and appreciated (still havent figured out navigating the quoting much.)

However I would have to say your exegesis of Romans 9 is laughable, you have missed out most of what it says and just told me what you think it says (however you are right in the initial thought of the chapter), please go back to my potter question directly quoted from this chapter. This chapter has written all over it the work of God rather than man in salvation, v16 is very telling

So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Its not down to our will or running but its down to God that shows mercy

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

As the context of v44 shows its those that are drawn that this applies too.

Also all who ask will recieve I am just saying that its those that are drawn that ask.

Also I am also by no means rejecting any aspect of Christian living or obedience, I am saying these things follow as natural fruits of regeneration (or being born again) and are therefore evidences of someone being elected by God and drawn to Himself.

Oh and you made this point

You're a little convoluted here, but it appears that you're saying that God, in order to be God, must be bound by the things He can or cannot do. That's specifically the point I made, so it also appears that you agree that in principle, there are things God cannot do.

I am saying God can do whatever He pleases and cannot go against His will and therefore cannot do anything that does not please Him. I did not say God can do anything I said He does whatever He pleases. I actually think the same thing about humanity, we can only act according to our nature, The natural man does not seek God (Romans 3:11) therefore no one would come to Christ without this "irresistible grace" hence calvinism does not show a restriction in those that can be saved but actually shows how it can be possible at all.

[LordUther]

You'll notice I put, "within limits" because when we sin, we aren't being what we were designed to be.

But according to your own teachings man is so evil that he would never chose to be saved, so surely being evil is what we were designed to be. Or are you saying God created a faulty product?

[LordUther]

So ask yourself do these verses contradict what I said? I am saying God is Holy, infinite and able to do what He pleases. Would a holy God want to lie? Would a Holy all powerful God want to give in to temptation? The answer is a massive no, it would go against His nature to do these things. Does God have the free will to go against His own nature? I would say no, therefore:

• God can do whatever He pleases
  
• God would not be pleased to lie and cannot go against His will.
  
• God cannot lie
  

Sorry but you're trying to prove that God can do anything he wants, and you do this by proving he cannot lie? So God is limited then.

[MrG]

Sorry but you're trying to prove that God can do anything he wants, and you do this by proving he cannot lie? So God is limited then.

I am saying He can do whatever He pleases, lying does not please Him as it is against His nature, God is unable to do anything outside of His nature because of His complete Holiness therefore He cannot lie.

I did not say He can do anything, just He can do anything that pleases Him.

[LordUther]

I am saying He can do whatever He pleases, lying does not please Him as it is against His nature, God is unable to do anything outside of His nature because of His complete Holiness therefore He cannot lie.

I did not say He can do anything, just He can do anything that pleases Him.

So you agree with us then that God is limited...?

[MrG]

So you agree with us then that God is limited...?

No

[MrG]

So you agree with us then that God is limited...?

Is it a limitation to be unable to do anything you dont want to do and only do what you do want to do?

[LordUther]

Is it a limitation to be unable to do anything you dont want to do and only do what you do want to do?

Yes it is a limitation. As a free will being I can choose to do things I don't want to do. Are you suggesting that I have more ability than God?

[MrG]

Arent those bad decisions we make, and temptations we have, often called weaknesses?

I am saying God does not have those. He can only do good, that sounds like the most free individual you can ever imagine.

Duplicate mod please delete

Edited August 11, 2013 by MrG

[MrG]

Yes it is a limitation. As a free will being I can choose to do things I don't want to do. Are you suggesting that I have more ability than God?

Arent those bad decisions we make, and temptations we have, often called weaknesses?

I am saying God does not have those. He can only do good, that sounds like the most free individual you can ever imagine.

[mfbukowski]

Uh oh.

I saw the "semantics" alarm go off on this thread, which automatically calls me when semantic issues arise.

May I be of assistance?

First aid consists of pointing out that this is a semantic issue, and then checking vital signs for improvement.

[LordUther]

Arent those bad decisions we make, and temptations we have, often called weaknesses?

I am saying God does not have those. He can only do good, that sounds like the most free individual you can ever imagine.

No not really, I don't want to live a celibate life, but I have chosen to do so because it's God wants of me. I don't want to give up drinking & smoking, but I am doing it because it's what God wants of me. I did not wish to go back to church, but I am going because it's what God wants of me.

And you're confusing being free with being limitless. It's obedience to laws that makes us free, so therefore God has to obey laws ti remain God...and that includes the Laws of physics...and you can't create something out of nothing!

[MrG]

No not really, I don't want to live a celibate life, but I have chosen to do so because it's God wants of me. I don't want to give up drinking & smoking, but I am doing it because it's what God wants of me. I did not wish to go back to church, but I am going because it's what God wants of me.

And you're confusing being free with being limitless. It's obedience to laws that makes us free, so therefore God has to obey laws ti remain God...and that includes the Laws of physics...and you can't create something out of nothing!

We certainly are singing from different hymn sheets here aren't we haha Im gonna leave this for now and just be happy to agree to disagree but thanks for that will be back on later.

[Questing Beast]

If YOU are all that Is, then everything is YOU. That is not "nothing"....

[mfbukowski]

And you're confusing being free with being limitless. It's obedience to laws that makes us free, so therefore God has to obey laws ti remain God...and that includes the Laws of physics...and you can't create something out of nothing!

The way I see it, God is self-determined.

That means he has voluntarily limited his behavior to laws which he has set up for himself, and he abides by them- if he would break his own law he would be in contradiction to himself and therefore cease to be God.

An analogy for us would be to decide to go on a diet, or give up smoking , or take on celibacy, or whatever we decide to do to voluntarily limit our actions. If we break those rules for ourselves, we are being self-contradictory. For us, it isn't a big deal because we are not God- we can just repent and try again to do what is right.

So it isn't really that God is "more" or "less" free by following the laws he has established for himself (like not violating the laws of physics, perhaps) it is more that he would contradict his own purposes in doing so.

Following laws is what makes us free- especially and arguably, only when we have made -or agree to abide by- those laws ourselves.

The reason that traffic rules work is because everyone tacitly agrees to abide by them- or else chaos would ensue. We see that "limitation" as an advantage which enables us to get from one place to another without chaotic traffic accidents every other block because of someone deciding to drive on the wrong side of the street, or driving on sidewalks, etc.

So laws do make us free, but only when we adopt them for ourselves.

We have prisons for people who decide not to obey them, but they are certainly free to do otherwise. We see flagrant examples every day lately of people who just decide to do what the rest of humanity has decided is unacceptable behavior- killing innocents, abductions, etc etc. Clearly they are "free" to grab a gun and kill anyone they like, but consequences will follow- and their future freedoms will be limited by those consequences.

[danielwoods]

In a creatio ex nihilo scenario, our wrong choices were designed into us by the hand of God. Hence God in judging us, judges Himself. Quite a conundrum there.

Not at all. This is false, unless you believe that God is unable to create a free willed being.

[danielwoods]

But according to your own teachings man is so evil that he would never chose to be saved, so surely being evil is what we were designed to be. Or are you saying God created a faulty product?

I'm not sure where you're getting that. I'm not a calvinist (if that's where you're getting it). However, I will say that "doing evil things" goes against what God designed for us, hence the many negative consequences that occur as a result of sin that non-believers can't figure out why or what to do about them. (such as guilt, STD's and the like)

[cdowis]

My theory as to why did God go through all this trouble, I think the greatest reason is to share his love/life/relationship with others.

Huh? Share love with the "others" that are his own creations, ex nihlo. Seems rather hollow to me -- does it make sense if I were to have a relationship with a sock puppet?

My mind just cannot wrap itself around that concept.

Then why create Satan if he knew beforehand that he'd be evil?

It's an interesting question. I think the answer lies in an attribute of his nature, that being his justice. He doesn't condemn us (or not create us) based on his foreknowledge of what we will do, or be.

I said nothing about punishment, but the act of creation. His whole plan revolves around getting praise from his creations.

There's another thing that I often think about. That is that even people who don't believe or are even hostile toward God, praise him by simply living as they were designed to. For example, people often sing and have fun enjoying life, just as God designed them to do, even though they wouldn't acknowledge that they are praising God, but yet they are doing exactly what God designed them to do, within limits of course, and to me this gives God glory.

I am talking specifically about the creation of Satan and his angels or daemons.

[danielwoods]

My theory as to why did God go through all this trouble, I think the greatest reason is to share his love/life/relationship with others.

Huh? Share love with the "others" that are his own creations, ex nihlo. Seems rather hollow to me -- does it make sense if I were to have a relationship with a sock puppet?

My mind just cannot wrap itself around that concept.

It doesn't make sense to have a relationship with a sock puppet, that's silly. We aren't sock puppets are we?

Certainly isn't what I said.

Then why create Satan if he knew beforehand that he'd be evil?

It's an interesting question. I think the answer lies in an attribute of his nature, that being his justice. He doesn't condemn us (or not create us) based on his foreknowledge of what we will do, or be.

I said nothing about punishment, but the act of creation. His whole plan revolves around getting praise from his creations.

There's another thing that I often think about. That is that even people who don't believe or are even hostile toward God, praise him by simply living as they were designed to. For example, people often sing and have fun enjoying life, just as God designed them to do, even though they wouldn't acknowledge that they are praising God, but yet they are doing exactly what God designed them to do, within limits of course, and to me this gives God glory.

I am talking specifically about the creation of Satan and his angels or daemons.

I'm saying it a little differently. To me his whole plan revolves around sharing. Sharing life. Sharing love. Sharing connection. Sharing relationship. Sharing power. Sharing everything.

The net result is praise and glory go to the creator of all that exists.

So, he shares these things with everyone, but those who reject the perfect love/relationship with their exercising their freedom also gives glory to God, even though they eventually will be separated from God.

[cdowis]

This is false, unless you believe that God is unable to create a free willed being.

I apologize in advance for my response. I mean this as a sincere question ==>>

Is it possible that God can create a stone so large, so heavy that he cannot lift it?

LDS would say that God cannot contradict himself, cannot violate natural law. So, the answer is that he cannot create a being, ex nihlo, that would have free will.

[cdowis]

Daniel,

I understand that we have a very different view of God, and his Plan for us. I see many difficulties with your position, and I'm sure you feel the same way about mine. The time will certainly come when the truth of the matter will become evident, either in this life or the next.

In the meantime, we can simply respect each other's views, even if we do not agree or even understand them.

It basically comes down to sola scriptura (only the Bible), or continuing revelation from those claiming to be prophets.

Edited August 11, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

God is free to make as many or as little promises to His people as He wants, and He has made plenty in the Bible, but they are just that, to His people.

But once he makes any promises, is he required to fulfill it or can he just ignore it if he wants to?

[jwhitlock]

I am saying God can do whatever He pleases and cannot go against His will and therefore cannot do anything that does not please Him. I did not say God can do anything I said He does whatever He pleases. I actually think the same thing about humanity, we can only act according to our nature, The natural man does not seek God (Romans 3:11) therefore no one would come to Christ without this "irresistible grace" hence calvinism does not show a restriction in those that can be saved but actually shows how it can be possible at all.

Sounds a bit like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

With the arbitrary nature of God giving salvation to whoever He pleases (we are, after all, unworthy in the first place) it doesn't appear that there are any real reasons why or how that happens. Combine that with creatio ex nihilo, and you get something that just reeks of being totally arbitrary - which is inconsistent with the whole tone of God's nature as I find it recorded in scripture.

Isaiah 64:6-9 talks more about this concept of the potter and is far more inclusive than the arbitrariness of Calvinism. Paul becomes all things to all men in order to save some, which is also more inclusive (1 Cor 9:22). Romans 11:26-32 gives a clearer picture of the inclusive nature of God's will (that He might have mercy upon all) than the stark arbitrariness Calvinism interprets chapter 9 with. And finally we get a clear sense of the desire of God to save all, rather than condemn some arbitrarily to burn, from 1 Tim 4:10 (savior of all men). So, far from being laughable, taking the scripture as a whole gives a somewhat different flavor of Romans 9 than you want to lay out.

[MrG]

But once he makes any promises, is he required to fulfill it or can he just ignore it if he wants to?

That goes back to the earlier issue of going against His will lying etc, so the answer is no, He cannot go back on His word, as that would not please Him.

[MrG]

Sounds a bit like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

With the arbitrary nature of God giving salvation to whoever He pleases (we are, after all, unworthy in the first place) it doesn't appear that there are any real reasons why or how that happens. Combine that with creatio ex nihilo, and you get something that just reeks of being totally arbitrary - which is inconsistent with the whole tone of God's nature as I find it recorded in scripture.

Isaiah 64:6-9 talks more about this concept of the potter and is far more inclusive than the arbitrariness of Calvinism. Paul becomes all things to all men in order to save some, which is also more inclusive (1 Cor 9:22). Romans 11:26-32 gives a clearer picture of the inclusive nature of God's will (that He might have mercy upon all) than the stark arbitrariness Calvinism interprets chapter 9 with. And finally we get a clear sense of the desire of God to save all, rather than condemn some arbitrarily to burn, from 1 Tim 4:10 (savior of all men). So, far from being laughable, taking the scripture as a whole gives a somewhat different flavor of Romans 9 than you want to lay out.

But your still not answering my question about whether the Potter has a right to do what the passage says.