-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
I was listening to an Art Azurdia CD earlier today, and he spoke of the fact given us in the Revelation that the saints rejoice at the coming of Christ in wrath and vengeance. (it's quite true, I'm sure you know)
This may offend our western sensibilities. Imagine singing praises to the Lord Jesus as He casts the sinner away from Himself into eternal perdition.
But perhaps then we will understand that God's love and God's justice are not mutually exclusive?
This may offend our western sensibilities. Imagine singing praises to the Lord Jesus as He casts the sinner away from Himself into eternal perdition.
But perhaps then we will understand that God's love and God's justice are not mutually exclusive?
A
In psychology, desensitization (also called inurement) is defined as the diminished emotional responsiveness to a negative or aversive stimulus after repeated exposure to it. It also occurs when an emotional response is repeatedly evoked in situations in which the action tendency that is associated with the emotion proves irrelevant or unnecessary.
Proverbs 24:17 Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles:
Obadiah 1:12But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
This is after a former judgement of God.
Ezek 35:15As you did rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto you: you shall be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Edom, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze 16:23;33:11“As surely as I live,” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, oh house of Israel?”
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Then we have:
Ps 11:10 When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die
Ps 58:10 The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.
Deut 32:43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.
Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has pronounced judgment against her on your behalf!
prov 24:19-20 Do not fret because of evildoers or be envious of the wicked; for there will be no future for the evil man; the lamp of the wicked will be put out
One extreme is to become holier than God
Another extreme is to become holier than other believers in not-rejoicing.
And yet another extreme is to revel in rejoicing.
Justice, which belongs to God, triumphed and we should rejoice in that. This will happen in the end
as it has been and will be throughout history. But in the meantime, we love our enemies.
Another off topic blurb
by Abiding
Proverbs 24:17 Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles:
Obadiah 1:12But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction; neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.
This is after a former judgement of God.
Ezek 35:15As you did rejoice at the inheritance of the house of Israel, because it was desolate, so will I do unto you: you shall be desolate, O mount Seir, and all Edom, even all of it: and they shall know that I am the LORD.
Eze 16:23;33:11“As surely as I live,” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, oh house of Israel?”
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Then we have:
Ps 11:10 When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die
Ps 58:10 The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.
Deut 32:43 Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.
Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has pronounced judgment against her on your behalf!
prov 24:19-20 Do not fret because of evildoers or be envious of the wicked; for there will be no future for the evil man; the lamp of the wicked will be put out
One extreme is to become holier than God
Another extreme is to become holier than other believers in not-rejoicing.
And yet another extreme is to revel in rejoicing.
Justice, which belongs to God, triumphed and we should rejoice in that. This will happen in the end
as it has been and will be throughout history. But in the meantime, we love our enemies.
Another off topic blurb
by Abiding
and is this not exactly what we see today?
we seem to go along with our 5 minutes of hate.
then we are allowed our 5 minutes of love.
depending on who is the enemy of the enemy of our friend.
INGSOC
there's really only one thing i can't stand....
Psalm 139:21
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? - This is in the consciousness of the psalmist a proof of his own real piety, as derived from his feelings toward those who were the enemies of God. The word hate here, as applied to them, must be understood in the sense that he disapproved of their conduct; that he did not desire to be associated with them; that he wished to avoid their society, and to find his friends among men of a different character. See the notes at Psalm 1:1. Compare Isaiah 5:5.
And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? - The expression here - "grieved" - explains the meaning of the word "hate" in the former member of the verse. It is not that hatred which is followed by malignity or ill-will; it is that which is accompanied with grief - pain of heart - pity - sorrow. So the Saviour looked on people: Mark 3:5 : "And when he had looked round about on them with "anger," being "grieved" for the hardness of their hearts." The Hebrew word used here, however, contains "also" the idea of being disgusted with; of loathing; of nauseating. See the notes at Psalm 119:158. The feeling referred to is anger - conscious disgust - at such conduct; and grief, pain, sorrow, that people should evince such feelings toward their Maker.
Barnes
we seem to go along with our 5 minutes of hate.
then we are allowed our 5 minutes of love.
depending on who is the enemy of the enemy of our friend.
INGSOC
there's really only one thing i can't stand....
Psalm 139:21
Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? - This is in the consciousness of the psalmist a proof of his own real piety, as derived from his feelings toward those who were the enemies of God. The word hate here, as applied to them, must be understood in the sense that he disapproved of their conduct; that he did not desire to be associated with them; that he wished to avoid their society, and to find his friends among men of a different character. See the notes at Psalm 1:1. Compare Isaiah 5:5.
And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? - The expression here - "grieved" - explains the meaning of the word "hate" in the former member of the verse. It is not that hatred which is followed by malignity or ill-will; it is that which is accompanied with grief - pain of heart - pity - sorrow. So the Saviour looked on people: Mark 3:5 : "And when he had looked round about on them with "anger," being "grieved" for the hardness of their hearts." The Hebrew word used here, however, contains "also" the idea of being disgusted with; of loathing; of nauseating. See the notes at Psalm 119:158. The feeling referred to is anger - conscious disgust - at such conduct; and grief, pain, sorrow, that people should evince such feelings toward their Maker.
Barnes
T
237
HUmility - understanding your correct place in the order of things.
So then what you are saying is: there is a minimum standard of humility we must have. He who meets the minimum requirement is "morally good" and God will do all that is necessary for his salvation. His humility earns him that position, so if he understands correctly that position (is humble) he will boast of his humility. If He has that humility and Go fails to save HIm, he has a just complaint. He who lacks the minimum standard of humility is damned, not for rejecting God, but for not meeting the humility standard.
There are people who hear and understand the gospel who want to believe but are not able to. They do not find belief in their souls. Have you ever met them? We need to love them - sometimes faith is given later on. There are no minimum standards of anything necessary to receive the gift of faith.
HUmility - understanding your correct place in the order of things.
So then what you are saying is: there is a minimum standard of humility we must have. He who meets the minimum requirement is "morally good" and God will do all that is necessary for his salvation. His humility earns him that position, so if he understands correctly that position (is humble) he will boast of his humility. If He has that humility and Go fails to save HIm, he has a just complaint. He who lacks the minimum standard of humility is damned, not for rejecting God, but for not meeting the humility standard.
There are people who hear and understand the gospel who want to believe but are not able to. They do not find belief in their souls. Have you ever met them? We need to love them - sometimes faith is given later on. There are no minimum standards of anything necessary to receive the gift of faith.
A
None hears and understands and cant believe
Mark 4:12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Acts 28:28 26“‘Go to this people and say,“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”27For this people’s heart has become calloused;they hardly hear with their ears,and they have closed their eyes.Otherwise they might see with their eyes,hear with their ears,understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them.’[SUP]a
[/SUP]Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.
Unbelief which is an act of the will causes hardenning
I may have just missed yout point
Mark 4:12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Acts 28:28 26“‘Go to this people and say,“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”27For this people’s heart has become calloused;they hardly hear with their ears,and they have closed their eyes.Otherwise they might see with their eyes,hear with their ears,understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them.’[SUP]a
[/SUP]Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.
Unbelief which is an act of the will causes hardenning
I may have just missed yout point
Tdrew,
If you're looking for more to discuss on the subject I'll offer this. I reject Calvinism because despite its statements to the contrary it has an extremely low view of God's sovereignty. A great deal of its argumentation works along the idea that if God is sovereign then man can have no part in in Salvation. I'd pull a reference for the specific statements I'm referring too but it comes from a paperback of Institutes that is no longer in my possession. I could probably find the reference if I had too though...
Anyway the contingency is such, if God has full authority then he must do everything in regards to salvation. In reality the opposite is true. If one is in total control they may have anyone under their control do any amount of anything to achieve any given objective.
If God is sovereign then he doesn't need to have any part in salvation at all. He can delegate as much or as little of the work required to it as he pleases. The Calvinistic God is a workhorse who does all because he must to all if he wants it done, he has extremely limited authority to delegate.
I would say that God did most of the work for Salvation because he choose to be involved in that project. It was important to him. He can say that for you to be part of the project (salvation) you must choose to be part of that project. That choice being delegated to the individual is an expression of authority in and of itself.
Calvins arugmentation is contingent on Gods inability to delegate any part of the work of salvation to the individual. And so Calvin's argument is based on Gods lack of authority in this matter.
And so I'd have none of it. I also tend to dislike Calvin personally, I see him as more of a politician than a preacher. But that just my historical side coming out.
If you're looking for more to discuss on the subject I'll offer this. I reject Calvinism because despite its statements to the contrary it has an extremely low view of God's sovereignty. A great deal of its argumentation works along the idea that if God is sovereign then man can have no part in in Salvation. I'd pull a reference for the specific statements I'm referring too but it comes from a paperback of Institutes that is no longer in my possession. I could probably find the reference if I had too though...
Anyway the contingency is such, if God has full authority then he must do everything in regards to salvation. In reality the opposite is true. If one is in total control they may have anyone under their control do any amount of anything to achieve any given objective.
If God is sovereign then he doesn't need to have any part in salvation at all. He can delegate as much or as little of the work required to it as he pleases. The Calvinistic God is a workhorse who does all because he must to all if he wants it done, he has extremely limited authority to delegate.
I would say that God did most of the work for Salvation because he choose to be involved in that project. It was important to him. He can say that for you to be part of the project (salvation) you must choose to be part of that project. That choice being delegated to the individual is an expression of authority in and of itself.
Calvins arugmentation is contingent on Gods inability to delegate any part of the work of salvation to the individual. And so Calvin's argument is based on Gods lack of authority in this matter.
And so I'd have none of it. I also tend to dislike Calvin personally, I see him as more of a politician than a preacher. But that just my historical side coming out.
T
OOOppppss...I missed your first line and tried to delete the above post. Of course I don't agree with you......yet.....
One example of someone who had great understanding in the presence of God and yet could not believe: Balaam. He saw God and understood God's plans well enough to concoct a temporally effective strategy against them. Men are capable of some understandiing about God apart from God - but that understanding is itself morally bad. Men can understand a simply not find faith in their soul.
I agree that unbelief is an act of the will and causes hardening. No problem with men doing evil on their own, apart from God. But nothing that men do on their own apart from God can be morally good. That is the total depravity that I see in scripture.
One example of someone who had great understanding in the presence of God and yet could not believe: Balaam. He saw God and understood God's plans well enough to concoct a temporally effective strategy against them. Men are capable of some understandiing about God apart from God - but that understanding is itself morally bad. Men can understand a simply not find faith in their soul.
I agree that unbelief is an act of the will and causes hardening. No problem with men doing evil on their own, apart from God. But nothing that men do on their own apart from God can be morally good. That is the total depravity that I see in scripture.
A
JGPS what bugs me the most is that the root of most of the doctrines start out
with philosophical arguements and continues with philosophical arguements whenever
a debate goes on.
It usually deals with something emotionally charged and usually ends up emotional.
Id like to take what the bible says and let the talk compare bible with bible to
add to the convo.
I kinda like what you wrote. But delegation although we know He does
ill hold more to the fact the bible tells me men take part in their salvation
because He wanted it to. But agree with their formulated understanding of
Gods sovereignty and their attempt to give it honor minimizes it by not
allowing man to choose. It takes way more power to romance every man
from cradle to grave then it does to elect in advance.
But honestly even that was philosophical. The bible tho gives me a way
different picture than theirs.
T
You have fallen into a false dichotomy. God's absolute control does not over-rule human freewill. There is not a dichotomy between the two. God's absolute control (as revealed in scripture) is what establishes human free will. Every human act and decision comes from a burning of the heart; coercion is not from God. God's planning of history (he sees the end from the beginning) is what establishes that fire in the human heart. We are not capable of providing our own salvation nor even a slight piece of it. What He delegated us to do is to "work it out". His eternal plan is that we will work out the salvation that He freely placed inside us.
Rom 4:14 teaches that if salvation were contingent on our upholding a standard, the entire covenant would be voided (as if God had never given it). Our failure to uphold the standard would be a sure thing.
I've read "A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology" by Kenneth J. Grider, and am slowly working my way through the work cited in the original post. I could be persuaded to read other stuff of that nature if it were well written and of wide acceptance. I generally prefer whole (systematic) theologies, such as Grider wrote.
Rom 4:14 teaches that if salvation were contingent on our upholding a standard, the entire covenant would be voided (as if God had never given it). Our failure to uphold the standard would be a sure thing.
I've read "A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology" by Kenneth J. Grider, and am slowly working my way through the work cited in the original post. I could be persuaded to read other stuff of that nature if it were well written and of wide acceptance. I generally prefer whole (systematic) theologies, such as Grider wrote.
Calvinism is a philosophy though, it touches on theology but it effectively has nothing to do with soteriology proper because it has no practical implication on soteriology. Our goals and perceptions are the same weather said things are entirely out of our control or entirely in it.
Taking this discussion seriously is watering a dead vine, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism has any fruit unique to that point of view. The Christians that hold those views have many fruits of course, but that is because they are Christians and have fruits. Adopting one view over the other does nothing to directly give one more love, joy, peace, patience, long-suffering or goodness or gentleness or faith. Both sides have all those things. Neither point of view changes anything concerning what is right or wrong. Nor does it affect how a Christian should live.
It is a difference of perspective, no more or less. Neither calvinism nor arminisanism nor any in-between comes from scripture, but they put their views into scripture and so see scriptures as supporting their cause. It is a philosophy and should be addressed as such in my view.
I'm glad you liked my post.
Taking this discussion seriously is watering a dead vine, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism has any fruit unique to that point of view. The Christians that hold those views have many fruits of course, but that is because they are Christians and have fruits. Adopting one view over the other does nothing to directly give one more love, joy, peace, patience, long-suffering or goodness or gentleness or faith. Both sides have all those things. Neither point of view changes anything concerning what is right or wrong. Nor does it affect how a Christian should live.
It is a difference of perspective, no more or less. Neither calvinism nor arminisanism nor any in-between comes from scripture, but they put their views into scripture and so see scriptures as supporting their cause. It is a philosophy and should be addressed as such in my view.
I'm glad you liked my post.
A
Well the more i thought about it the more im not sure i have it figured out enough to say.
Im in agreement that mans will alone isnt going to help him without intervention.
And i still dont think Balaam wanted to believe. Nor did the children of Israel although
they seen more than enough, heard the gospel, but hardened their own hearts.
So after that. My point isnt those who had enuf to understand and saw enuf to believe
couldnt. the bible says they wouldnt. What i first responded to was that you said:
"There are people who hear and understand the gospel who want to believe but are not able to"
Thats what i disagree with totally. Unless and only unless your saying no not without Gods intervention
then i would say without Gods intervention they wouldnt hear, understand, nor desire to believe.
Im in agreement that mans will alone isnt going to help him without intervention.
And i still dont think Balaam wanted to believe. Nor did the children of Israel although
they seen more than enough, heard the gospel, but hardened their own hearts.
So after that. My point isnt those who had enuf to understand and saw enuf to believe
couldnt. the bible says they wouldnt. What i first responded to was that you said:
"There are people who hear and understand the gospel who want to believe but are not able to"
Thats what i disagree with totally. Unless and only unless your saying no not without Gods intervention
then i would say without Gods intervention they wouldnt hear, understand, nor desire to believe.
A
I agree with half of what you said. But not about how it effects people
It completely changes their whole world view. It effects their fruit, and
divides the body terribly.
But maybe you meant it shouldnt have much effect. meaning the
Spirit will produce fruit in you in spite of doctrine...not sure what you mean.
If it didnt have so much effect id have never had to study it but
found it was unavoidable due to the havoc it has brought to the
fellowship of the body and the visable church.
It completely changes their whole world view. It effects their fruit, and
divides the body terribly.
But maybe you meant it shouldnt have much effect. meaning the
Spirit will produce fruit in you in spite of doctrine...not sure what you mean.
If it didnt have so much effect id have never had to study it but
found it was unavoidable due to the havoc it has brought to the
fellowship of the body and the visable church.
I never once presented that as a dichotomy. That statement has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted. The dichotomy I presented is between what Calvin viewed as nessisary if God was in control and what is actually nessisary. If you don't mind have a look at my previous post again, as you seem to have misunderstood it.
I'm quite familiar with Calvinism. I've read Institutes and debated it several times. None of that has a bearing on my critique of it though.
Why not just read Institutes of Christian Religion itself? Go straight to the horses mouth for what Calvin believed.
But if you want my recommendation on things to read I'd suggest Finney's Systematic Theology (they hyperlink is to the edition I own). It is far and wide the other side of theology from what Calvin presents. It's very much ethics focused, revival focused, how now shall we live focused. It appeals hard to scriptures and reason and systematically develops an ethical stance that can adapt to the world as it changes while staying true to Christ and scripture.
I also want to note that this statement:
Is not full Calvinism, but moderate Calvinism. Proper Calvinism allows for only compatibilistic free will, which to someone who thinks of free will in terms of libertarian free will is very much over-riding free will...
So, which free will are you talking about?
I'm thinking your position is a moderate Calvinism not a historical, full, or hyper Calvinism?
I'm quite familiar with Calvinism. I've read Institutes and debated it several times. None of that has a bearing on my critique of it though.
Why not just read Institutes of Christian Religion itself? Go straight to the horses mouth for what Calvin believed.
But if you want my recommendation on things to read I'd suggest Finney's Systematic Theology (they hyperlink is to the edition I own). It is far and wide the other side of theology from what Calvin presents. It's very much ethics focused, revival focused, how now shall we live focused. It appeals hard to scriptures and reason and systematically develops an ethical stance that can adapt to the world as it changes while staying true to Christ and scripture.
I also want to note that this statement:
Is not full Calvinism, but moderate Calvinism. Proper Calvinism allows for only compatibilistic free will, which to someone who thinks of free will in terms of libertarian free will is very much over-riding free will...
So, which free will are you talking about?
I'm thinking your position is a moderate Calvinism not a historical, full, or hyper Calvinism?
I didn't really express myself well there. I mean, in a void a Calvinistic Christian would do no more or less good than the same Christian in a void as an Armenian.
If we talk about the fruit of these doctrines historically then yes we have a horrible bloody trail to follow. Like I said before, I view Calvin as a politician more than a preacher. As such he left polarization and strife in his wake until our own time.
Yes, I meant it shouldn't have much effect. I even mean that if it wasn't for the history and spite and inheirited anger over the issue this issue would not hurt anyone. As it is it really only hurts people rather than helps them
But I am saying that all this strife and division is a fruit of the people and politics around the topic, not the topic itself. People have made an idol of these isms and thats where the warring comes from, not the ideas in and of themselves.
If we talk about the fruit of these doctrines historically then yes we have a horrible bloody trail to follow. Like I said before, I view Calvin as a politician more than a preacher. As such he left polarization and strife in his wake until our own time.
Yes, I meant it shouldn't have much effect. I even mean that if it wasn't for the history and spite and inheirited anger over the issue this issue would not hurt anyone. As it is it really only hurts people rather than helps them
But I am saying that all this strife and division is a fruit of the people and politics around the topic, not the topic itself. People have made an idol of these isms and thats where the warring comes from, not the ideas in and of themselves.
A
well its dangerous to make doctrine from what people say
people havnt been famous of being honest.
When i was 16 i heard the gospel and was just starting into my
major sinning career and blanked it out of my mind for
around 2 years.
That doesnt mean i couldnt believe. I wouldnt and my heart got
plenty hard and i knew or at least felt that God would maybe
give up on me if i kept going.
But like i said we shouldnt base doctrine on experience or
someones confession
people havnt been famous of being honest.
When i was 16 i heard the gospel and was just starting into my
major sinning career and blanked it out of my mind for
around 2 years.
That doesnt mean i couldnt believe. I wouldnt and my heart got
plenty hard and i knew or at least felt that God would maybe
give up on me if i kept going.
But like i said we shouldnt base doctrine on experience or
someones confession