Uhren
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
German
Noun
Uhren
- plural of Uhr.
Bart Goddard wrote:
> gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>God did NOT cause Judas to betray Jesus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you have any basis for that last statement? We
>>>>>don't know what God will is.
>>>>
>>>>Well, we do know what God has revealed concerning
>>>>His will.
>>>
>>>
>>>But we don't know _all_ of God's will, and specifically,
>>>you still don't have any evidence that God did not
>>>will Judas to betray Jesus.
>>
>>But what HE has revealed we do know.
>
>
> You made the statement "God did NOT cause Judas to
> betray Jesus." Show me where God revealed this to you.
> So what if God revealed something else to you. What
> has He said about Judas? You have to keep adding
> to Scripture to support your doctrine.
Hi Bart:
The verses I used for God willing the salvation and not willing the
damnation of man were universal, and hence included Judas.
By "cause" I meant that God was not the immediate cause of Judas
sinning. God is the ultimate or remote cause of all things. Thus when
Judas betrayed Jesus he did it using the power that God gave him. But
since we KNOW that God NEVER tempts anyone to sin, that God did not
instigate Judas to sin.
>>We know that He does not
>>"secretly" will the opposite of what He has told us He wills.
>
>
> How do we know that? There are lots of paradoxes in Scripture.
> It's not a matter of "willing the opposite", but of human
> minds not being able to resolve the paradox.
>
> And again, how do you know that? You're adding to Scripture
> again.
>
>
>>And what I meant about Him "secretly" willing something other than He
>>has said, I was referring to: Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in
>>secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of
>>Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare
>>things that are right.
>>
>>Thus the Lord tells us specifically that HE DOES NOT SECRETLY will the
>>opposite of what HE has revealed!
>
>
> No, it just says that His revelation is plain. It says nothing
> about that which He has not revealed. (And surely you're not
> saying that God has revealed everything. So there must be some
> secrets.)
I believe that the above text is obvious, and needs not further
comment. I believe you just reject its clear meaning. God clearly and
succinct states that He wills all to be saved, and none to be lost.
That is sufficient for me. Now, it goes without saying, that one is
saved or lost according to God requirements. Only those believing in
Christ are saved.
>>God Himself would not consider it
>>just to create people to damn them, where they have no choice in the
>>matter.
>
>
> Whenever someone says "God would" or "God would not", he's
> doing nothing but speculating. The bit about the potter and
> the clay gainsays this "rule" you just concocted.
I don't believe it does, nor do I believe that I am speculating.
Since God HAS revealed His will in this matter.
Next, the common Calvinistic interpretation of the section of Romans
about the potter and the clay is more often than not misinterpreted and
misapplied. If one looks at the OT passages from which Paul took the
story, one can see that the clay had a definite part in its formation.
It is a little long passage, and frequently people stop too soon to see
the interchange God states between His actions and those of the clay.
Below I emphasize with CAPITAL letters those portions which contradict
the idea that God treats us as dirt clay.
Jer. 18:2 Arise, and go down to the potters house, and there I will
cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potters house, and, behold, he wrought a
work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter
to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the
LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potters hand, so are ye in mine
hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a
kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 IF THAT NATION, AGAINST WHOM I HAVE PRONOUNCED, TURN FROM THEIR EVIL,
I WILL REPENT OF THE EVIL THAT I THOUGHT TO DO UNTO THEM.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning
a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 IF IT DO EVIL IN MY SIGHT, THAT IT OBEY NOT MY VOICE, THEN I WILL
REPENT OF THE GOOD, WHEREWITH I SAID I WOULD BENEFIT THEM.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame
evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every
one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Thus it is evident from the passage itself that the idea that God just
willy nilly makes us good or bad without any input from us is not
according to what God says. And in fact God specifically states that how
he treats us is according to how we behave.
>
> Rom 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his
> power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath
> prepared for destruction?
This verse actually mitigates AGAINST the Calvinistic position. What is
important to note is that God "bore with great patience." It is absurd
to believe that God "bore with great patience" that which HE caused!
The passage does not say that God PREPARED these vessels for
destruction, and in fact the passage from Jer. 18 shows that the vessels
or pots of clay, chose to form themselves for destruction.
>>He is malevolent. To
>>created billions who have no free will,
>
>
> Our wills are what got us into so much trouble. What
> would be so malevolent in reigning in such a destructive
> force?
What is malevolent is the idea that God causes us to sin, and then
punishes us for that sin. But of course, God does not do this. God does
not lie to us. In God there is no darkness at all. The darkness is in
the minds of those who lie about Him. God's offer of salvation to all
without exception is a valid offer, one which can be accepted by anyone,
because God enables all to receive Christ because He draws all to
Christ. God does not secretly will the damnation of most, and enable
only the few, draw only the few, love only the few. Such is the
furtherest from God's mind.
Man by one act of one man, Adam, caused all to be disobedient. But God,
who is infinitely gracious, infinitely loving, But also infinitely just,
sent His only beloved Son to die in our stead. Thus by one act God
rectifies the sin of Adam. Rom 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is
the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more
the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus
Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Many think it very bad that by a single sin, the eating of the forbidden
fruit, all mankind were brought into disobedience. But I see it as the
infinite Goodness and Grace of God displayed! For God says:
Romans 11:32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He
might have mercy on all.
These two "alls" are mutilated by the Calvinists. In the same sentence,
because of their system of theology, they must make the first "all" mean
all men without exception, for certainly all men are disobedient. But to
maintain their heretical system, they must change the meaning of the
second "all" to mean a very few, the "elect."
But God desires to have mercy upon all, even as He desires all to be
saved. But only those who believe in Christ receive this mercy. Note
that the passage says "He MIGHT have mercy on all."
>>God tells us that HE is not the way you seem to
>>suggest. God does not tell us that He loves us, and secretly hate us.
>
>
> I don't know where you're getting your information, but
> it isn't from Scripture. At no point does he say that He
> is not the way I suggest. OTOH, He does say both that He
> hates us and loves us.
Scripture please.
>>I agree that God is also just, and will punish every man for his sins,
>>one way or the other. But God has made provision in Christ for the
>>sins of all. Thus for those who accept God's righteous provision,
>>Christ suffered the death for our sins we so richly deserve.
>
>
> This is the Calvinist position, by the way, that Christ died
> only for those who accept God. Predestined election follows
> quickly from your assertions.
No, the Calvinist position is that Christ died only for the elect.
I believe that Christ died for every person, those who will be lost as
well as those saved.
>>1 Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that
>>they might be saved.
>>
>>[Interesting, is Paul so out of touch with God, that he doesn't know
>>even what to pray for?]
>
>
> But what does this have to do with free will?
Read George Smith's post in which he quotes Augustine, who quotes many
passages which, at least Augustine and a few hundred million of the rest
of us think, proves free will.
>>In fact God is so specific, that HE even says that we must believe in
>>Christ IN ORDER TO BECOME His Children!
>
>
> No He doesn't. He says His children believe in Him.
Sorry, we need the verse which contradicts your thesis: Here it is:
John 12:36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be
the children of light.
>>But never mind that, all the authors of the Bible got it wrong.
>
>
> No, you just read it wrong and add stuff you wish was there.
> The test for something isn't the cause of it.
Read John 12:36.
>>13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
>>
>>[NO NO NO! Paul, you are simply mistaken! You KEEP getting things
>>mixed up. You don't seem to be able to get the correct order of
>>salvation and faith!
>
>
> This verse doesn't say that calling causes salvation or
> preceeds it.
It does. Shall be saved. Again read John 12:36.
OR Try Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do
to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
or Acts 2:38; or John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye
might have life through his name. or John 4:10 Jesus answered and said
unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to
thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would
have given thee living water.
> If I say "Whatever pot of water that has steam
> coming off it is the one that is hot" am I implying that
> the steam causes the heat? Or that steam preceeds the heat?
>
> What is your basis for replacing correlation with cause?
>
> The very next verse shows you that you have it backward:
>
>
>
>>14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
>
>
>>>influence and coercion?
>>
>>Well, God influences us for good. God never influences us for evil, as
>>James states. But man can act against all influences.
>
>
> I asked for the difference between influence and coercion,
> especially when God is the coercer or influencer. I could
> just as well say "God never coerces for evil."
>
> What's the difference between "influencing for our good"
> and "coercion for our good"?
I think this is pointless.
Gary
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
