arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 5, 2023 7:36:35 GMT -8
If that is the Reformed position I am unaware of it. One would have to know exactly what they meant when they said it if they did. For instance does it say from the Father to the Son or on the Son? (Meaning His flesh as substituting for us.) Does it actually use the word "retribution"? Jesus did actually go through the suffering and He died a death reserved for sinners, or the worst of crimes which is sin. And it was the will of the Father for the Bible says it was. And Jesus willingly laid down His life. It was undeserved punishment in place of deserved punishment. But it was not the Father doing the punishing, it was men. It was the Father's will that it be done---and that was love. Love for Jesus and love for us. We are His inheritance. (We see how far our definition of love fails when it comes to God's love. The same is true with His justice.) In any case, no matter what the Reformed view is my view is: Jesus did not take the wrath of God for us upon Himself. He took the punishment for our sins upon Himself so we would not face the wrath of God. In the way in which He did it, He conquered both the power of sin over us and death. Both of which lead to facing the wrath of God. And if that differs from the Reformed position that would not mean that in essence I am not Reformed, as I hold to the doctrines of TULIP and the tenants of traditional Christianity. The label merely differentiates me from the free will, free choice, view. Calvinism/Reformed Theology teaches it was the Fathers ( Gods ) wrath poured out on the Son,
Wrath means retribution, anger, vengeance.
Take a look here:
|
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 5, 2023 8:34:15 GMT -8
What is known as Calvinism today comes out of the reformation but is not the same thing as Reformed theology, which also comes out of the Reformation but the Scottish reformation, not the earlier one of Luther and Calvin. Reformed theology is not a denomination and neither is Calvinism. Both are theologies.
There are dispensationalist Baptist churches known as Calvinist in teaching because they have TULIP. They have their own eschatological beliefs drawn from a framework of dispensations that are identified as dispensations by them, used for interpretive purposes. Reformed theology has the interpretive framework of covenant. These Baptist churches are not confessional, meaning they do not have a detailed confession of all things pertaining to salvation and the scriptures,that is taught and adhered to. Which leaves each individual church subject to the interpretations of the teachers and a lack of unity of teaching.
There are Reformed Baptist churches who are not dispensational in interpretive method but use covenant as the framework. And they are confessional. They have their own confession which I am not familiar with in its totality. Therefore I cannot present what they have to say regarding penal substitution.
The Presbyterian reformed churches use the Westminster Confession, which as I said, is a product not of the early reformation of Calvin and Luther, but of the reformation in Scotland, John Knox being considered as the wind behind the flames of reformation in Scotland. Here is what it has to say on the subject. As the Scots are well known for, it is concise, brief, while at the same time definitive.
In chapter 8 of the confession, titled "Of Christ the Mediator" after having dealt through points 1-3 with God's eternal purpose in choosing and ordaining Christ as mediator between God and man, Jesus' identity as the second person of the Trinity, incarnation, and His divine nature and human nature, it continues.
3.The Lord Jesus in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all the fulness should dwell to the end that being holy, harm.ess and undefiled and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety. Which office He took not unto Himself but was thereunto called by His Father; who put all power and judgement into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.
4.This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified and died; was buried and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered; with which He also ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.
There is nothing in there about God's wrath being poured out on the Son. No retribution or anger or vengeance. The substitution was not about facing the wrath of God for the ones He substituted for. It was not about God's need to pour forth His wrath. It was about satisfying God's justice against sin. And that justice having been satisfied in Christ as our substitute, those in Him will not face His wrath.
In the argument against penal substitution and therefore Calvinism and Reformed, a statement of belief must come from the churches. An argument can be made against what Calvin said as was done in the link you gave, but should his statement be attributed to all of Calvinism or Reformed? Or only to those who adhere to it themselves? (Which is the problem you ran into elsewhere. An argument for one particular view of what was also named as the doctrine of penal substitution, and that view being rather atrocious and not well thought out, being considered the absolute correct view, no other view allowed or banning will result?) Obviously that view exists and is claimed as belonging to Calvinism, when it may not be the actual view of even the majority of those who consider themselves Calvinist, irregardless of whatever Calvin had to say about it, or meant by what He said.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 5, 2023 9:42:21 GMT -8
What is known as Calvinism today comes out of the reformation but is not the same thing as Reformed theology, which also comes out of the Reformation but the Scottish reformation, not the earlier one of Luther and Calvin. Reformed theology is not a denomination and neither is Calvinism. Both are theologies. There are dispensationalist Baptist churches known as Calvinist in teaching because they have TULIP. They have their own eschatological beliefs drawn from a framework of dispensations that are identified as dispensations by them, used for interpretive purposes. Reformed theology has the interpretive framework of covenant. These Baptist churches are not confessional, meaning they do not have a detailed confession of all things pertaining to salvation and the scriptures,that is taught and adhered to. Which leaves each individual church subject to the interpretations of the teachers and a lack of unity of teaching. There are Reformed Baptist churches who are not dispensational in interpretive method but use covenant as the framework. And they are confessional. They have their own confession which I am not familiar with in its totality. Therefore I cannot present what they have to say regarding penal substitution. The Presbyterian reformed churches use the Westminster Confession, which as I said, is a product not of the early reformation of Calvin and Luther, but of the reformation in Scotland, John Knox being considered as the wind behind the flames of reformation in Scotland. Here is what it has to say on the subject. As the Scots are well known for, it is concise, brief, while at the same time definitive. In chapter 8 of the confession, titled "Of Christ the Mediator" after having dealt through points 1-3 with God's eternal purpose in choosing and ordaining Christ as mediator between God and man, Jesus' identity as the second person of the Trinity, incarnation, and His divine nature and human nature, it continues. 3.The Lord Jesus in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all the fulness should dwell to the end that being holy, harm.ess and undefiled and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety. Which office He took not unto Himself but was thereunto called by His Father; who put all power and judgement into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same. 4.This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified and died; was buried and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered; with which He also ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world. There is nothing in there about God's wrath being poured out on the Son. No retribution or anger or vengeance. The substitution was not about facing the wrath of God for the ones He substituted for. It was not about God's need to pour forth His wrath. It was about satisfying God's justice against sin. And that justice having been satisfied in Christ as our substitute, those in Him will not face His wrath. In the argument against penal substitution and therefore Calvinism and Reformed, a statement of belief must come from the churches. An argument can be made against what Calvin said as was done in the link you gave, but should his statement be attributed to all of Calvinism or Reformed? Or only to those who adhere to it themselves? (Which is the problem you ran into elsewhere. An argument for one particular view of what was also named as the doctrine of penal substitution, and that view being rather atrocious and not well thought out, being considered the absolute correct view, no other view allowed or banning will result?) Obviously that view exists and is claimed as belonging to Calvinism, when it may not be the actual view of even the majority of those who consider themselves Calvinist, irregardless of whatever Calvin had to say about it, or meant by what He said. Thanks for bringing up the WCF. I will agree the confession is reformed . I will respond either tonight after work or tomorrow. This gives us some common ground to work from since you affirm the WCF. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 5, 2023 11:25:31 GMT -8
What is known as Calvinism today comes out of the reformation but is not the same thing as Reformed theology, which also comes out of the Reformation but the Scottish reformation, not the earlier one of Luther and Calvin. Reformed theology is not a denomination and neither is Calvinism. Both are theologies. There are dispensationalist Baptist churches known as Calvinist in teaching because they have TULIP. They have their own eschatological beliefs drawn from a framework of dispensations that are identified as dispensations by them, used for interpretive purposes. Reformed theology has the interpretive framework of covenant. These Baptist churches are not confessional, meaning they do not have a detailed confession of all things pertaining to salvation and the scriptures,that is taught and adhered to. Which leaves each individual church subject to the interpretations of the teachers and a lack of unity of teaching. There are Reformed Baptist churches who are not dispensational in interpretive method but use covenant as the framework. And they are confessional. They have their own confession which I am not familiar with in its totality. Therefore I cannot present what they have to say regarding penal substitution. The Presbyterian reformed churches use the Westminster Confession, which as I said, is a product not of the early reformation of Calvin and Luther, but of the reformation in Scotland, John Knox being considered as the wind behind the flames of reformation in Scotland. Here is what it has to say on the subject. As the Scots are well known for, it is concise, brief, while at the same time definitive. In chapter 8 of the confession, titled "Of Christ the Mediator" after having dealt through points 1-3 with God's eternal purpose in choosing and ordaining Christ as mediator between God and man, Jesus' identity as the second person of the Trinity, incarnation, and His divine nature and human nature, it continues. 3.The Lord Jesus in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure; having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, in whom it pleased the Father that all the fulness should dwell to the end that being holy, harm.ess and undefiled and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator and surety. Which office He took not unto Himself but was thereunto called by His Father; who put all power and judgement into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same. 4.This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified and died; was buried and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered; with which He also ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world. There is nothing in there about God's wrath being poured out on the Son. No retribution or anger or vengeance. The substitution was not about facing the wrath of God for the ones He substituted for. It was not about God's need to pour forth His wrath. It was about satisfying God's justice against sin. And that justice having been satisfied in Christ as our substitute, those in Him will not face His wrath. In the argument against penal substitution and therefore Calvinism and Reformed, a statement of belief must come from the churches. An argument can be made against what Calvin said as was done in the link you gave, but should his statement be attributed to all of Calvinism or Reformed? Or only to those who adhere to it themselves? (Which is the problem you ran into elsewhere. An argument for one particular view of what was also named as the doctrine of penal substitution, and that view being rather atrocious and not well thought out, being considered the absolute correct view, no other view allowed or banning will result?) Obviously that view exists and is claimed as belonging to Calvinism, when it may not be the actual view of even the majority of those who consider themselves Calvinist, irregardless of whatever Calvin had to say about it, or meant by what He said. Thanks for bringing up the WCF. I will agree the confession either tonight after work or tomorrow. This gives us some common ground to work from since you affirm the WCF. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 5, 2023 11:38:45 GMT -8
The Reformed Baptist confession is The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. I just looked it up and it only deviates on a couple of points from the Westminster. On the mediation of Christ it is word for word with the WCF.
So this whole doctrine of penal substitution with the meaning that is being attached to it is not a part of Calvinism as such but comes out of non confessional Calvinist churches establishing their own doctrine.
It is not a part of any Reformed theology doctrine. So the people who banned you for coming against what they were teaching didn't actually know what they were talking about, and yet were able to do it with such arrogance and pomposity!
So there may be no reason to leave Calvinism, just the misrepresentations of it.
As to those two preachers I recommended, Sproul is reformed Presbyterian and Voddie is Reformed Baptist. Both are covenentle.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 5, 2023 11:42:35 GMT -8
The Reformed Baptist confession is The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. I just looked it up and it only deviates on a couple of points from the Westminster. On the mediation of Christ it is word for word with the WCF. So this whole doctrine of penal substitution with the meaning that is being attached to it is not a part of Calvinism as such but comes out of non confessional Calvinist churches establishing their own doctrine. It is not a part of any Reformed theology doctrine. So the people who banned you for coming against what they were teaching didn't actually know what they were talking about, and yet were able to do it with such arrogance and pomposity! So there may be no reason to leave Calvinism, just the misrepresentations of it. As to those two preachers I recommended, Sproul is reformed Presbyterian and Voddie is Reformed Baptist. Both are covenentle. I’m very familiar with both teachers/ preaches . I have many of their books. I’ll quote RC on the atonement later today . |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 5, 2023 16:43:10 GMT -8
Here is one area of the WCF that I disagree with wholeheartedly. This is not the God of Scripture I know or will affirm is true about Him. "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (Westminster Confession of Faith, III.1) The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website : "Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-usCalvin below: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66 “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121 “When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission.” The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 8 “For myself, I take another principle: Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some....” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169 “Indeed, the ungodly pride themselves on being competent to effect their wishes. But the facts show in the end that by them, unconsciously and unwillingly, what was divinely ordained is implemented.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.173, “Does God work in the hearts of men, directing their plans and moving their wills this way and that, so that they do nothing but what He has ordained?” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.174 |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 5, 2023 16:47:23 GMT -8
continued:
Eternal / Exhaustive Divine Decree that the WCF affirms.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to present problems with Reformed Theology (EDD ).
How do the Reformers answer?
1. God determined that Sodom would become so wicked.
2. God determined that their wickedness would include sexual perversion.
3. God determined that Lot would offer his daughters to be abused..
4. Even though God brought Lot's wife out of the city, God determined that she would be lost, in spite of having warned her not to look back.
5. Why would God warn her if she was determined before the foundation of the world to be lost?
6. God determined that Lot's daughters would commit incest with their father.
7. And is further compounded by what Jesus Himself said :That there was actually a way that the Sodomites could’ve been saved (Matthew 11:23).
how do people believe these things about our Holy God ?
Remember in the Bible God delivers from evil and does not cause evil
James 1:13
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone.
1 Chronicles 4:10
And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested.
Psalm 121:7,8
The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul…
Jeremiah 15:21
And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 5, 2023 16:55:29 GMT -8
One has to love James for how black and white his teaching is in his epistle , much like His brother and Lord Jesus Christ .
Below James dismantles easily the WCF that God ordains all things that come to pass , determines them before creation as the Reformers teach .
He also in the same passage let’s us know the new birth comes after hearing the word if God and where faith as Peter tells us mixed with the word causes the new birth , regeneration as John tells us in 1:12-13 and 20:31. The Bible repeats this same sequence in numerous places in both testaments.
James 1
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
16 Don’t be deceived,my dear brothers and sisters.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
|
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Jul 5, 2023 19:47:24 GMT -8
One has to love James for how black and white his teaching is in his epistle , much like His brother and Lord Jesus Christ . Below James dismantles easily the WCF that God ordains all things that come to pass , determines them before creation as the Reformers teach . He also in the same passage let’s us know the new birth comes after hearing the word if God and where faith as Peter tells us mixed with the word causes the new birth , regeneration as John tells us in 1:12-13 and 20:31. The Bible repeats this same sequence in numerous places in both testaments. James 1 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 16 Don’t be deceived,my dear brothers and sisters.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. Can you show where and how James "dismantles...the WCF that God ordains all things that come to pass?" I can't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 6, 2023 5:13:45 GMT -8
One has to love James for how black and white his teaching is in his epistle , much like His brother and Lord Jesus Christ . Below James dismantles easily the WCF that God ordains all things that come to pass , determines them before creation as the Reformers teach . He also in the same passage let’s us know the new birth comes after hearing the word if God and where faith as Peter tells us mixed with the word causes the new birth , regeneration as John tells us in 1:12-13 and 20:31. The Bible repeats this same sequence in numerous places in both testaments. James 1 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 16 Don’t be deceived,my dear brothers and sisters.17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. Can you show where and how James "dismantles...the WCF that God ordains all things that come to pass?" I can't see it. Maybe dismantles is the wrong word to have used. How about ordaining everything that comes to pass which includes evil. James would say that is incorrect to accuse God of evil or tempting anyone to do evil. God does not temp anyone to do evil. |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 7, 2023 4:09:35 GMT -8
Here is one area of the WCF that I disagree with wholeheartedly. This is not the God of Scripture I know or will affirm is true about Him. "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (Westminster Confession of Faith, III.1) The Famous Calvinist John Piper who gets it from the WCF says the following about evil taken from desiring god website : "Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ “works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Exodus 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Hebrews 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV)." www.desiringgod.org/message...ds-gracious-hand-in-the-hurts-others-do-to-usCalvin below: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66 “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121 “When he uses the term permission, he means that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of everything, because nothing happens without his order of permission.” The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book I, Ch. 16, Sect. 8 “For myself, I take another principle: Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some....” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169 “Indeed, the ungodly pride themselves on being competent to effect their wishes. But the facts show in the end that by them, unconsciously and unwillingly, what was divinely ordained is implemented.” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.173, “Does God work in the hearts of men, directing their plans and moving their wills this way and that, so that they do nothing but what He has ordained?” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.174 |
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 7, 2023 4:38:42 GMT -8
Excuse my late response. I have received no notifications that you responded to this thread for two days. I only know now because I went into the thread. I great many people get stopped in their tracks when they read the first sentence of Chapter 3-1. Not even taking into consideration to read farther, or if they do drop all reason to try and figure out the paradox. (Paradoxes can be solved.)
The rest of the sentence; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Humans being what they are, read the first half of the sentence and the mind immediately goes to the worst thing they can think of, and the Nazis is the first thing 99% of the time. The reaction and rejection of what amounts to the sovereignty of God, kicks in at once. "Not my God!" As though the WCF is saying God ordained such atrocities which would make Him the author of them. It is not.
I am not saying I did not have the same reaction,and do not have it now as a gut reaction but by the time I first read it I already had enough of the theology under my belt to think it through. So my reaction was, "They shouldn't say it like that."
We must remember all that we read in the Bible and work it through from that. Always we see the will of man which is bent towards evil of all sorts, and that from His very nature, not the nature with which he was created, in action alongside the sovereignty of God, but never greater than His sovereignty. Therefore we see an abundance of evil acts as brutal as any we can name in our age. We see it at the cross where men out of envy kill a man, the very Son of God. And who was the one who most wanted to kill Him, knowing who He was but the evil one who tried to stop the redemption of mankind and through this redemption all of creation restored? And yet it was the will of God that Christ go to the cross and those humans who sent Him there of their own will and desires, were held accountable for their evil actions.
We must remember the first chapter of Job, before we reduce the sovereignty of God and His governance of His creation to being moved about by the stronger will of man.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Jul 7, 2023 4:43:27 GMT -8
Excuse my late response. I have received no notifications that you responded to this thread for two days. I only know now because I went into the thread. I great many people get stopped in their tracks when they read the first sentence of Chapter 3-1. Not even taking into consideration to read farther, or if they do drop all reason to try and figure out the paradox. (Paradoxes can be solved.) The rest of the sentence; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Humans being what they are, read the first half of the sentence and the mind immediately goes to the worst thing they can think of, and the Nazis is the first thing 99% of the time. The reaction and rejection of what amounts to the sovereignty of God, kicks in at once. "Not my God!" As though the WCF is saying God ordained such atrocities which would make Him the author of them. It is not. I am not saying I did not have the same reaction,and do not have it now as a gut reaction but by the time I first read it I already had enough of the theology under my belt to think it through. So my reaction was, "They shouldn't say it like that." We must remember all that we read in the Bible and work it through from that. Always we see the will of man which is bent towards evil of all sorts, and that from His very nature, not the nature with which he was created, in action alongside the sovereignty of God, but never greater than His sovereignty. Therefore we see an abundance of evil acts as brutal as any we can name in our age. We see it at the cross where men out of envy kill a man, the very Son of God. And who was the one who most wanted to kill Him, knowing who He was but the evil one who tried to stop the redemption of mankind and through this redemption all of creation restored? And yet it was the will of God that Christ go to the cross and those humans who sent Him there of their own will and desires, were held accountable for their evil actions. We must remember the first chapter of Job, before we reduce the sovereignty of God and His governance of His creation to being moved about by the stronger will of man. But that sentence is in opposition to the first. God is either the cause of everything or He is not. That is what the Reformed position is on Gods Sovereignty.
And I agree with your last paragraph.
FYI- in your personal settings you can change your alerts and turn on the ones you want for notifications.
|
|
arial
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by arial on Jul 7, 2023 5:23:26 GMT -8
Excuse my late response. I have received no notifications that you responded to this thread for two days. I only know now because I went into the thread. I great many people get stopped in their tracks when they read the first sentence of Chapter 3-1. Not even taking into consideration to read farther, or if they do drop all reason to try and figure out the paradox. (Paradoxes can be solved.) The rest of the sentence; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Humans being what they are, read the first half of the sentence and the mind immediately goes to the worst thing they can think of, and the Nazis is the first thing 99% of the time. The reaction and rejection of what amounts to the sovereignty of God, kicks in at once. "Not my God!" As though the WCF is saying God ordained such atrocities which would make Him the author of them. It is not. I am not saying I did not have the same reaction,and do not have it now as a gut reaction but by the time I first read it I already had enough of the theology under my belt to think it through. So my reaction was, "They shouldn't say it like that." We must remember all that we read in the Bible and work it through from that. Always we see the will of man which is bent towards evil of all sorts, and that from His very nature, not the nature with which he was created, in action alongside the sovereignty of God, but never greater than His sovereignty. Therefore we see an abundance of evil acts as brutal as any we can name in our age. We see it at the cross where men out of envy kill a man, the very Son of God. And who was the one who most wanted to kill Him, knowing who He was but the evil one who tried to stop the redemption of mankind and through this redemption all of creation restored? And yet it was the will of God that Christ go to the cross and those humans who sent Him there of their own will and desires, were held accountable for their evil actions. We must remember the first chapter of Job, before we reduce the sovereignty of God and His governance of His creation to being moved about by the stronger will of man. But that sentence is in opposition to the first. God is either the cause of everything or He is not. That is what the Reformed position is on Gods Sovereignty.
And I agree with your last paragraph.
FYI- in your personal settings you can change your alerts and turn on the ones you want for notifications.
|
|
