Calvinism and Context?
- Thread starter throughfaith
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Nope, those aren't sworn oaths merely declarations and protestations. It's not until Job 31(I realize earlier I stated 27 but I rechecked) that he invokes the sworn oath of innocence.
Think of it this way. You and I are in a disagreement over something, I say "I am innocent" 3 times and you persist. Finally I say "It's between me and God." Now, here it is just statements but in the framework of the book of Job which is heavily reliant on forensic language the declaration takes on the force of law. Job's innocence cannot be besmirched except by God. No one else has standing to bring a case.
Think of it this way. You and I are in a disagreement over something, I say "I am innocent" 3 times and you persist. Finally I say "It's between me and God." Now, here it is just statements but in the framework of the book of Job which is heavily reliant on forensic language the declaration takes on the force of law. Job's innocence cannot be besmirched except by God. No one else has standing to bring a case.
No, not saying that at all.
As for your statements about how confusing you find me, I speak of Spiritual things. Unless you've been taught of the Father you will not grasp them. As you repeat but do not seem to understand, fleshly minds cannot discern the things of the Spirit.
Doctrine, theologies, all these constructs are accessible to man's logic and reasoning. Yet the true things of God's person and character is only discerned in the Spirit.
As for your statements about how confusing you find me, I speak of Spiritual things. Unless you've been taught of the Father you will not grasp them. As you repeat but do not seem to understand, fleshly minds cannot discern the things of the Spirit.
Doctrine, theologies, all these constructs are accessible to man's logic and reasoning. Yet the true things of God's person and character is only discerned in the Spirit.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
My discretion in answering you is not for lack of answers, but because what you have displayed through this thread.
You completely missed the work of God because you were caught up in defending your precious doctrine. You even hindered it in places. Rather than forwarding the cause of the gospel your pride blinded you.
You completely missed the work of God because you were caught up in defending your precious doctrine. You even hindered it in places. Rather than forwarding the cause of the gospel your pride blinded you.
Let's take the mention of Adam to its logical conclusion, and see why God offers the gift of eternal life freely to all mankind through Christ.
1. God breathed into Adam the breath of life. A lump of clay became a living, breathing, human being, made in the image and likeness of God.
2. Not only that but God made him "a little lower than the angels" and gave him the almost supernatural ability to name all the animals that God had created.
3. He also gave him a very special garden -- the Garden of Eden -- which had absolutely everything that man's heart could desire. It was literally Paradise.
4. On top of that God gave a Adam a beautiful wife, created out of Adam's rib. God even officiated at their marriage. Adam lacked for absolutely nothing.
5. And finally God placed the Tree of Life in the middle of that Garden. Which meant that God planned to give all mankind eternal life.
6. But God gave Adam and Eve only one commandment -- which was not grievous in the least -- that they were forbidden to eat of the forbidden fruit. That would be a test of their love to and obedience for God. And they BOTH failed. They loved themselves more than they loved God.
7. Because of Adam's disobedience, sin and death (including the Second Death) came upon all mankind, and Adam brought a curse upon all of God's creation.
8. However, God had already anticipated this disaster, and therefore appointed Christ to be the Lamb of God who would TAKE AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD by the sacrifice of Himself. This was decreed even before the world was created.
9. Now God offers the gift of eternal life freely to "whosoever will" take of the water of life.
And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17)
Which again leads to the conclusion that election for salvation is a perversion of the Gospel -- it is "another gospel", hence accursed (Galatians 1).
1. God breathed into Adam the breath of life. A lump of clay became a living, breathing, human being, made in the image and likeness of God.
2. Not only that but God made him "a little lower than the angels" and gave him the almost supernatural ability to name all the animals that God had created.
3. He also gave him a very special garden -- the Garden of Eden -- which had absolutely everything that man's heart could desire. It was literally Paradise.
4. On top of that God gave a Adam a beautiful wife, created out of Adam's rib. God even officiated at their marriage. Adam lacked for absolutely nothing.
5. And finally God placed the Tree of Life in the middle of that Garden. Which meant that God planned to give all mankind eternal life.
6. But God gave Adam and Eve only one commandment -- which was not grievous in the least -- that they were forbidden to eat of the forbidden fruit. That would be a test of their love to and obedience for God. And they BOTH failed. They loved themselves more than they loved God.
7. Because of Adam's disobedience, sin and death (including the Second Death) came upon all mankind, and Adam brought a curse upon all of God's creation.
8. However, God had already anticipated this disaster, and therefore appointed Christ to be the Lamb of God who would TAKE AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD by the sacrifice of Himself. This was decreed even before the world was created.
9. Now God offers the gift of eternal life freely to "whosoever will" take of the water of life.
And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17)
Which again leads to the conclusion that election for salvation is a perversion of the Gospel -- it is "another gospel", hence accursed (Galatians 1).
-
1
-
1
- Show all
That's because you're unfamiliar with the forensic language and procedures I am speaking of. Job's oath is the if...then statements where he puts his being in peril in order to forward a final defense. It's a last ditch form of non-rational proof that was acceptible in the ANE trials after all means of rational proof had expired. It is a formal oath of innocence that calls on the deity to answer, in Job's case God Himself. A typical theodicy from the era would have ended with an Elihu coming in and answering for the deity and that would have been it, the gods are super powerful and men are worms with no rights. Case closed. But Job is different precisely because God answers for Himself. And in answering for Himself and not enforcing the terms of Jobs if...then statements God renders verdict, though the reader already knows the verdict from the start. And God's answers only superficially agree with Elihu's because they speak to God's majesty, yet the aspects and conclusions diverge in key places which are beyond the scope of these back and forths for me to expound on.
What you have taken in as God's answer is distinctly not God's answers because His character is unlike those pagan deities who lorded their superiority over men and would not answer for the calamities they sent. Instead of seeing the beauty in God's care and the gentleness of His reply, you see Him trampling Job because the mighty need not answer the weak.
What you have taken in as God's answer is distinctly not God's answers because His character is unlike those pagan deities who lorded their superiority over men and would not answer for the calamities they sent. Instead of seeing the beauty in God's care and the gentleness of His reply, you see Him trampling Job because the mighty need not answer the weak.
Dude. You got your clock cleaned buddy. Seriously it was a cringeworthy rout. Just sayin'.
I have yet to hear anything substantial enough to put a dent in reformed theology.
I really was hoping that I would......but it never happened.
And between this and the other threaded must amount to a couple of hundred pages by now.
I have yet to hear anything substantial enough to put a dent in reformed theology.
I really was hoping that I would......but it never happened.
And between this and the other threaded must amount to a couple of hundred pages by now.
-
2
- Show all
you're right that i'm not Babylonian.
it doesn't matter Job if has invoked a Babylonian oath against God. both Elihu and God brush the pretext away, Elihu explicitly and God implicitly, proclaiming wisdom: fear the LORD, who are you to complain without knowledge?
it does not make Elihu out of place. it makes Job out of place to speak -- which is Elihu's message to him, and is God's message to him, and which Job understands, and righteously agrees to. he puts his hand over his mouth. it makes Elihu's burden to say this to Job, holy.
it doesn't matter Job if has invoked a Babylonian oath against God. both Elihu and God brush the pretext away, Elihu explicitly and God implicitly, proclaiming wisdom: fear the LORD, who are you to complain without knowledge?
it does not make Elihu out of place. it makes Job out of place to speak -- which is Elihu's message to him, and is God's message to him, and which Job understands, and righteously agrees to. he puts his hand over his mouth. it makes Elihu's burden to say this to Job, holy.
-
1
- Show all
E
Agree, is is impossible to put a dent in Reformed Theology/Calvinism is locked up pretty tight as a superimposed system on scripture.
What I find interesting how you are unwilling to tackle "irresistible grace" as a as the faulty fulcrum of this dogma.
Can you make an irrefutable biblical case for it?
Elihu certainly makes the accusation, but God in no way brushes the pretext away considering that He speaks to Job and confronts Job according to the terms of the oath. God rebukes Job for speaking against His character through saying things like it matters not if we sin or don't sin since calamity comes upon all, but that is distinctly different from the typical response of these types of works. God doesn't say Job is out of place to speak at all or to expect justice from God, but Job went beyond that.
Your insistence on your read of Elihu does far worse than render you misunderstanding Elihu, it gives you the wrong read of God. The point of Job is that God is not like the pagan deities, and Elihu giving the expected answer of these texts prepares the reader for something different when the typical structure shifts and God speaks. They're looking for the differences between God and the pagan deities who are capricious and cruel but through their stature owe men no account. And rather than seeing God's answer for what it is, the appeal to His character for Job to trust Him rather than relying on his own limited understanding you read it as if God confirms everything Elihu stated and God is just like the pagan deities of the ANE in character just even more powerful.
Your insistence on your read of Elihu does far worse than render you misunderstanding Elihu, it gives you the wrong read of God. The point of Job is that God is not like the pagan deities, and Elihu giving the expected answer of these texts prepares the reader for something different when the typical structure shifts and God speaks. They're looking for the differences between God and the pagan deities who are capricious and cruel but through their stature owe men no account. And rather than seeing God's answer for what it is, the appeal to His character for Job to trust Him rather than relying on his own limited understanding you read it as if God confirms everything Elihu stated and God is just like the pagan deities of the ANE in character just even more powerful.
I feel the same. Though in a couple of different manners.
Not purely because the lack of substance to anything you say, your empty tired arguments are the same as any good indoctrinated robot of Calvinism, but even more so at your lack of discernment for the spiritual battle that was raging. It's quite clear your accusations about natural men is true from your complete insensibility.
Not purely because the lack of substance to anything you say, your empty tired arguments are the same as any good indoctrinated robot of Calvinism, but even more so at your lack of discernment for the spiritual battle that was raging. It's quite clear your accusations about natural men is true from your complete insensibility.
- Status