Kay

“It just puts us into little ‘buckets’ of pre-conceived ideas.”
Mark,
Agreed – I’m not a fan of pre-conceived ideas either.

“See to me the test is in the scriptures, not in philosophical reasoning!”

Mark,
I understand what you’re getting at, but I think we are allowed to use reason. (Isa.1:18)

Let’s consider II Peter 3:9.
“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Does the context really limit the words “any” and “all” to only the elect?

Earlier in the chapter, Peter begins by encouraging these Christians to beware scoffers, who would mock the Christians’ belief in Christ’s second coming and the destruction of the world (II Peter 3:1-4). He reminds that these scoffers are “willfully forgetful”(3:4-6) The difficulty for the Christians’ was that they were being mocked because fulfillment seemed anything but imminent, so Peter reminds them that time has a different meaning to God, and He will keep His promise (3:8). Finally, he also reminds them that God is patient, longsuffering, and therefore waits because He does not want any to perish (3:9).

Now consider the implications of this context upon this question: Who are the ones to come to repentance?
Peter mentions “us” in verse 9, but he also mentions the entire world and even “ungodly men” in the context. Let us consider that the words “any” and “all” are indeed general. Granting this, let us consider two interpretations and determine which makes the most sense with the context. Now if this verse refers only to the elect, then God is “longsuffering” for the elect to “come to repentance”. How is this possible if it is God who predestines all things, and if it is God who brings about their salvation through the direct operation of the Holy Spirit? Is God being longsuffering with Himself? What is He waiting on? Surely not the non-elect to come to Him, or to be willing, or to repent *because He knows He isn’t drawing them*? Right? Now, if God has already predestined these, with whom is He being longsuffering?

To affirm God’s sovereignty is to affirm that God could sovereignly create *ANY* kind of world God wished, even one in which he would leave it to humans to exercise free libertarian choices. Less control is not the same as less sovereignty IF God *chooses* to have less control.

Why should we limit God of this possibility? Just because Calvin or someone said so?

It all hinges on your view of the character of God. Does divine compassion and love for his creatures serve as the primary template through which all the Divine attributes operate? Or does a notion that God somehow needs to protect His sovereignty serve that function?

The basic issue here is which theological paradigm does a better job of representing the biblical picture of God’s character: which theological system gives a more adequate account of the biblical God whose nature is holy love? Why should His sovereignty need to be put above His love? Who decided that?

What do we make of an offer that *cannot* be accepted even though the one making the offer knows this is the case or—to make matters worse—could in sovereignty make the receiver able to accept but does not? To say that God presents a bona fide offer of salvation to all but that He grants only to some the ability to respond to that offer is not a “mystery,” it is a logical inconsistency that no pious appeals to “God’s ways are above our ways” will mitigate.

Again, to affirm God’s sovereignty is to affirm that God is very able to sovereignly create ANY kind of world God wished, even one in which He would leave it to humans to exercise free choices.

Less control is not the same as less sovereignty IF God *chooses* to have less control. And who are we to decide that is not an option for Him? Hmm?

Mark,
“After all, we should all be striving to holiness and sanctification and helping each other to do that.”
Amen.

I don’t have time for one of my longwinded replies today, (I hope you smiled) – however, just a couple of quick observations.

I feel a “brethrenly” concern for you – as it appears to me that the theological views you currently hold about God are somehow robbing you of joy and peace.

As to the stoning of a child you mentioned – I take it you meant Deut. 21:18-21. First, the person in view is a not a small child but a grown “son.” The Hebrew term for “son” (ben) employed here is indefinite. It is sometimes used of children of both sexes. Of itself, the word “son” does not give any indication of age. It can refer to a child or a young man (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; 19:1; 1 Kings 1:33); age must be determined from the *context.* In this case, the son in view is not a child, for the sins named the in text to show his contumacious manner are *gluttony* and *drunkenness (v. 20); hardly the sins of the average 6 or 10 year old. The case also indicates that the parents have tried to restrain their son, but all their efforts have failed (vv. 18, 20); specifying that he is physically beyond their control. The parents bring their son to the magistrates to judge the matter (v. 19); hence, the son would have opportunity to speak on his own behalf. All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child but, rather, a youth at least in his middle teens or older. The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults.

Mark,

By now I think you already know that I don’t hold calvinist doctrine.

Personally, I would have a big problem following the interpretations of someone like John Calvin, who condoned the death sentence of people he deems are “heretics” or people accused of being witches. I feel no affinity with a person who could stand for that.

To put that into familiar terms for you, imagine that Calvin was in your city and next Sunday the Dandenong Reformed Church is conducting a ‘beheading’ or ‘burning at the stake’ on their lawn. What would you think about that? Would you go to watch the heretics and witches burn? Would you help light the fires? Imagine the t.v. news crews showing up to film it!

I think you would find that abhorrent, right? I truly think you would. But that is just the sort of thing Calvin condoned in Geneva and never once spoke out against. And if he was alive and well today in Melbourne it could be happening near you.

Let’s say Calvin lived today in Melbourne and his ‘Consistency’ police had gotten hold of you the day ‘before’ you had converted to calvinism – *you* would have been condemned to die as a heretic. What a sad end for you Mark.

Think about it – *your* head at the end of the chopping block because another fallible human being like yourself, decided they were the judge and jury of your non-elect “heresy.”

Mark, have you ever wondered that about your own kids? Or, are you o.k. with the thought that if they are chosen ‘damned’ ones you’ve simply fulfilled God’s will by being their father?

It is puzzling that I see numerous commentaries by John Calvin, but in the same breath he could not figure out the verse “love you enemy as yourself”. For a man to be considered a genius on everything in the Bible and somehow miss what the entire New Testament conveys is a ridiculous notion to me. However, somehow his ‘infallible’ theology allows him to get a pass to endorse the burning and the imprisonment of others because they disagreed with his Institutes, while Jesus went to the cross for us! Totally puzzling.

If only God knows our status as His “elect”, how do you know that John Calvin was saved? I mean – really, how do *you* know Mark? What if Calvin wasn’t “elect” and you are following an entire theological system devised by a man not “of faith”? Calvin’s own paradigm contradicts itself on the fact that Calvin has no way of ascertaining his own elect-ness for you. It’s purely God’s own secret whether or not Calvin persevered to the end.

Please, understand that I’m not writing any of this to be mean or to make light of this. Truly I only hope that you will reconsider all the angles of what you are buying into.

“People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.”
Mark,
Here’s what Genesis 6:5 says in context:
“5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord. 9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypress wood…”
7:13 “On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark”

Notice verses 8-10 &14 and 7:13.

Mark,
Some of your comments lead me to wonder if you are aware that Judaism was never a “works based” religion, but a Covenant-based relationship? The Covenant was established first. Torah obedience was seen as the outflow of the Covenant relationship, but not the means of establishing the relationship with God. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Gal.2:15-16
I think we can agree that the New Covenant is the same way.

“If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination?”
Cheryl,
I’m equally as puzzled. It reminds me of folks I know who during each presidential election try to convince everyone that one of the candidates is “the” anti-Christ – so do not vote for them. And I’m thinking: if you really believe that then why aren’t you standing in your front yard looking up??

Mark,
Isn’t it true that genuine belief in Christ means that reward could not have been the motive for faith?
To me, the reality of the human conscience and reasoning ability (Isa.1:18) makes it practical to assume that we do have free will. If I’m right in that assumption, fine; and if I’m wrong, then according to Calvin, I was pre-destined to be wrong and have lost nothing by my involuntary holding of an erroneous view.

“But it is a complete mystery to me why Calvinists would even pray for someone’s salvation. After all they are taught that God has already picked out the elect from the foundation of the world so no prayer to God would ever change that.”

Cheryl,
I have often wondered the same things.

“Hope this helps.”

Mark,
Given that during our last encounter it appeared you had written me off as a heretic, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the conciliatory tone of your remarks to me here.

As to how I pray for those I think are non-christians – well this falls along the same lines as when you asked me about having authority over my children and I replied that I viewed it as responsibility to guide them, but not as asserting of authority. My prayers move along the lines of: Dear Lord, You know I’m very concerned about “Pat” so I’m lifting this up to Your care. I realize that You are well aware of the situation and I thank you for that.”
I gave up a long time ago trying to conjure up specific solutions to suggest as if He needs my helpful hints. 😉

“I disagree. I know I am one of God’s elect because everyday I wake up trusting in Jesus as my Lord. I rely on God’s faithfulness not my own assurance that I will believe to the end.”

Hmmm… what if you’re heart is still actually so “totally depraved” that it is deceiving (Jer.17:9) you into thinking that you are trusting in Jesus every day, but really you are not, yet in your “total depravity” you are unable to see it?
Wouldn’t Jesus need to be doing the trusting for you? Otherwise, wouldn’t your trusting be a “work” to keep God’s assurance?

“Mark, have you been born again? Did this happen while you were an unbeliever? If so, then how did you know that you were born again?”
Cheryl,
Perhaps you can unmuddled something for me – if a person believes in calvinist “total depravity” of the human intellect, how can they ever be certain that they are actually born again? How can they even be certain about their own “total depravity?”

“Show me where it says that everything that an unbeliever does that is not in faith is a sin? And how can an unbeliever do anything in faith? Wouldn’t that make him a believer?”
😉

“Our God is a gracious God, filled with loving kindness and abounding in mercy.”

I really appreciate the concept of ‘hesed’ demonstrated throughout the OT.

“What’s the nature of a rebel? Sin?”

Since the root of sin is unbelief, wouldn’t it actually be unbelief? Adam heard God’s words that if he ate of the fruit he would die… and he did not believe God – he quit having faith. (or he had a death wish)

“Kay, what I’m saying is that there is a difference between Adam’s actions and Eve’s feeling (desire). Ofcourse Adam desired to rule Eve because out of that desire he would rule her, but the text is showing us his action vs. Eve’s emotion. What it comes down to then is that there is no way to pin down any sinful action she had done against Adam out of her desire for him whereas in Adam’s case he did do something to his wife.”

pinklight,

For me, the jury is still out on the meaning of ‘teshuqua’ – I’m not sold on ‘desire’ as the only correct possibility. And even if it was a “good” “desire,” it can, as someone else stated, not be returned in kind. Living by one’s emotions, whether good or bad, is not the same as making godly choices. Now if the word in question was ‘love’, I might better understand your point.

The bottom line for me is that, at present, we all suffer the consequences of sin on the world – no matter who deserves blame or punishment.

“Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either – he judt DID rule over her.”

pinklight,
I’m not following you – how do you think Adam could rule without the will/want/desire to do so?

“Did she have a choice in Adam ruling over her? In other words was there anyway that she could stop him from ruling over her when in fact God said that Adam would do so? We know it was Adam’s own will to rule over her since God did not give him rule over her, and God did not give him the choice to rule over her or not to rule over her.”

Oh, my, pinklight – that sounds dangerously like Adam got all the free will choices and Eve got none.

“How come comp thinking has turned the biblical teaching of who needed help from who completely around saying that rather than the man needing the woman (created for him as a helper) that she needed him?”

pinklight,
Repeat after me, “Abracadabra!”

Ortlund’s attempt at slight-of-hand theology is unbelievable. How can you get this:

“Instead of turning away from the bar of God’s justice in bitterness and despair, Adam turns to his wife and says, “I believe God’s promise. He has not cast us adrift completely…I believe God, and I honor you. (pg 110 RBM&W)”

out of this:
“I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

Ortlund says, “God gives the woman up to a desire to have her way with her husband. Because she usurped his headship in the temptation, God hands her over to the misery of competition with her rightful head. This is justice, a measure-for-measure response to her sin.”

What brand of magical logic is he using here? According to complementarians/hierarchists the woman was already under Adam’s authority, but suddenly “abracadabra” it becomes “justice” meted out to Eve.

“Job was a “blameless man” not because he had never sinned but because he trusted in God. Faith is accounted as righteousness.”

So, Adam’s sin was that he chose to quit having faith in God and was terminally unrepentant, therefore he had to be barred from the Tree of Life. But since Eve was deceived into unbelief, upon realizing what had happened, she repented and continued to live a life of faith accounted as righteousness. Is that what you are saying?

“Lin, I absolutely agree with you on this bottom line. You are correct that comps make an idol of the husband and I would add that they make him an inter-mediator between his wife and God. He becomes the one who God must speak to, so that God’s will is only revealed through the proper ‘channel’ of the man. This is not scriptural at all.”

I agree with both of you on this point. Certainly there is nothing recorded in Genesis clearly saying that Adam was any sort of mediator between Eve and God. He is never shown acting “priestly.” In fact, the only things recorded about him are his death in Ch.5:3 and that he had sexual relations with his wife.
He’s not shown teaching “Biblical Manhood” to his sons Cain and Abel. The only thing I see clearly shown is his having sex with his wife. Other than that we only presume he was struggling with the ground by the sweat of his brow to eat grain because God said he would.

“I don’t think we can have it both ways. Either Gen 3:16 is predictive about ONLY Adam and Eve’s relationship or it is predictive about all human marriage. I can’t fathom it being mostly about Adam and Eve, sort of about all marriage, or the worst of them all, all about husbands but only a little about wives.”

gengwall,
I view Gen.3:16 in a different manner – that it is not only a marriage predictive, but predictive of human relationships. Because all human relationship began with Adam and Eve, but not all relationships are marital, I think it must include both.

Somewhat like you commented earlier on the physical power advantage of males, it appears to me the greater physical strength in males gave the first ones an initial power advantage in their rugged existence. Now with machinery to do most physical work and because intellect and education have virtually replaced that particular power advantage in our western culture the dynamics are slowly changing.

Cheryl,
Arriving late to this discussion about your post – due to travel – with my “2 cents” to add…

The more I read Gen. 1-3, the more it seems apparent to me, that comparing Adam and Eve’s marriage to anyone else’s marriage since then, is like comparing apples to rocks. Eve was not one of Adam’s daughters. Eve was his ‘ezer kenegdo.’

In all marriages after Adam and Eve’s, all the women/wives are Adam’s descendents.

It appears to me, that like Adam, that we, his descendents, struggle with wanting to control others.

This struggle for controling other’s is just that same old basic sin of selfishness – it manifests in lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, you name it… but it’s all the same thing – not loving others as we love ourselves.

“Genesis 16:13 (NASB)
13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?”

Cheryl,
One of my favorite verses…I wasn’t thinking in that vein yesterday – glad you were!

“1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?”

For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? . . . But I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27).

“I am not saying that only Adam or men named their children. Naming to a hebrew indicates authority, therefore Eve had authority over her kids. Likewise Adam was in authority over his wife.”
Mark,
Do you think Naomi was taking authority over herself when she changed her name to Mara? (Ruth 1:20)

Don’t you think God already had authority over Abram and Sarai when He changed their names to Abraham and Sarah.

Naming had other purposes besides showing authority in Hebrew culture.

Mark wrote: “Although parents are in authority does that mean we lors it. Do you lord it over your children Kay. I’m sure you dont (if you have kids). Why therefore do egals come to the conclusion that authority=abuse or predjudice.”

Mark,
My children are adults now with children of their own.

You won’t find one Scripture telling anyone to take authority over their children, grown or young.

You won’t see any Scriptures telling parents to force their children to do obey. (?)

Jesus doesn’t force us to follow Him – He leads by example. “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”
Out of love for my children I sought to teach them by example. They were our responsibility intrusted to the care of my husband and myself – we didn’t see that as taking authority over. We saw it as a blessing and a challenge to walk out our faith.

Mark,
Even if you want to argue for possessing authority by naming, that doesn’t stand up to the Hebrew’s cultural practices in the Bible.
The first naming we see done in the Bible after Eve’s, is done by Eve, herself, naming her son, Cain. The Scriptures have many examples of women naming their children, a woman changing her own name – Naomi changed her name to Mara (Ruth 1:20), and God changing people’s names – Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah.