Keeping Our Christian Doctrines Consistent with the Doctrine of God

[makesends]

Well, assuming you agree the God's love (agape) mean a volition to favor ..... I don't see why putting billions of people in hell is favoring me.

When assumptions are put aside, maybe his putting billions of people in hell makes some small difference in your understanding of the horror that sin is.

 

[makesends]

True enough

Well, assuming you agree the God's love (agape) mean a volition to favor ..... I don't see why putting billions of people in hell is favoring me. Now, not sending us to hell is a show of love to us, but not sending someone to heaven is not doing me much of a favor (showing me love) unless you stretch the definition to somehow being a minute favor somehow to me and you.


I'd say "yes". But the subject at hand is: Is the act of God sending people to hell a show of His love? I think it is a show of His wrath which is the opposite of "love".



Is the act of God "allowing" someone to kill all of one's children also a demonstration of God's love (favor)?

None of these things are a thing unto themselves.

 

[Eleanor]

When assumptions are put aside, maybe his putting billions of people in hell makes some small difference in your understanding of the horror that sin is.

And particularly for the sake of your understanding and appreciation of what his grace to you is (Ro 9:23).

 

[fastfredy0]

But it is not up to your interpretation of what he does, as to what its meaning or use is. It is not in your purview to put it into effect.

Well, many of the opinions stated on this site are subject to that observation. "His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts". On the other hand, there must be some commonality between our way of thinking and what scripture says or scripture would be useful. I also put out there that our 'sin nature' does not help our understanding.
I freely admit I am not a prophet. giggle

—I don't think that you would argue that knowing he does that, would have no effect on you.

Just putting my opinion out there. I'm sure God will chastise me like He did Job. But, what am I to do? Should I not contemplate on God, come to conclusions and implement obedience as best I can?

So what little importance YOU might put to that 'small' effect, is not likely the same importance HE puts to it.

FOR SURE. I fall fall short of be all-knowing, just ask my wife.

 

[makesends]

Well, many of the opinions stated on this site are subject to that observation. "His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts". On the other hand, there must be some commonality between our way of thinking and what scripture says or scripture would be useful. I also put out there that our 'sin nature' does not help our understanding.
I freely admit I am not a prophet. giggle



Just putting my opinion out there. I'm sure God will chastise me like He did Job. But, what am I to do? Should I not contemplate on God, come to conclusions and implement obedience as best I can?

That's one of my happiest reminders of God's grace—a little like the pressure that encumbers a preacher, or anyone who assumes to represent what God has said, we MUST speak out —indeed we can't help it! (Jeremiah 20:9)— and we are commanded to, yet none of us can do the truth justice: And on top of that, our every idle word will be judged. So, all we can do is try to be careful, and pray for help, and depend on God's grace, in the end of the matter. In fact, God is so good about that that I tend to get careless at times.

FOR SURE. I fall fall short of be all-knowing, just ask my wife.

 

[makesends]

One is "subject" to another in the sense that all must be in accordance with justice; e.g., sin cannot be overlooked in the name of love, for love must satisfy justice.

But you wouldn't (I'm pretty sure) say that justice is the central attribute under which all others fall governed, and not vice versa.

It is human to say that one (or each) of his attributes governs the others. That's why I say that his attributes are what we attribute to him, and when he in his word attributes them to himself, (or, as in most cases, the one holding the pen (or dictating) attributes them to God under God's plenary verbal inspiration), it is a form of anthropomorphism. It is our way of understanding him.​

​

It is helpful to say that he is his attributes, but that too, because we are mere humans, brings up miscomprehensions.​

​

So I say that God does what he is. That his love is just, and his justice is loving should go without saying. But we humans love to fragment those into specifics we do not understand, to fit our preferences. (Let me stand on this soapbox a little longer): "But that would not be loving for God to condemn anyone for what he did not give them ability to stop doing." REALLY??? Whom does God love? "The WORLD!" Yeah, you go with that!!! Good luck! —But I prefer the mercy of God over some non-specific goodness. When humans demand to be their own determinists, that, too, was decreed that they demand it.​

 

[makesends]

John 6:40 does not pick out certain people beforehand, but rather picks the mechanism by which a person can be saved.

Where does it say that he "does not pick out certain people beforehand"? Is this, like John 3:16, another one where you suppose that "whosever believes" is an open matter to God? The Greek gives no sense of the unknown, but merely means, "those that believe".

But besides that, all verses/ passages in the Bible are in the context of all the rest of it. You can't use one verse to cancel out the others that show he is particular in the extreme, and was so from the beginning. For him to elect is to CAUSE. And chance can cause nothing.

 

[EarlyActs]

Where does it say that he "does not pick out certain people beforehand"? Is this, like John 3:16, another one where you suppose that "whosever believes" is an open matter to God? The Greek gives no sense of the unknown, but merely means, "those that believe".

But besides that, all verses/ passages in the Bible are in the context of all the rest of it. You can't use one verse to cancel out the others that show he is particular in the extreme, and was so from the beginning. For him to elect is to CAUSE. And chance can cause nothing.

the one picked out was Christ. The Jn 6 is the most interesting interchange on this issue. If a person believes Christ was picked out by God, the person is saved; it is not a direct selection of the person.

cp this line from ch 10: 'this (tragedy of blindness) did not happen because he sinned nor his parents, but to glorify God.' All around the world there are heavy guilt/shame beliefs projected on people who are afflicted. The Christian answer is so liberating.

 

[makesends]

the one picked out was Christ. The Jn 6 is the most interesting interchange on this issue. If a person believes Christ was picked out by God, the person is saved; it is not a direct selection of the person.

"Well, that's not fair —why should Jesus be picked out and not the rest???"

But to logic —if direct selection of who will believe is not the way it is done, how does it happen? By CHANCE? Answer it plainly —if "whosoever" believes by free will, how do they believe? How does it just so happen that that particular person believed???

cp this line from ch 10: 'this (tragedy of blindness) did not happen because he sinned nor his parents, but to glorify God.' All around the world there are heavy guilt/shame beliefs projected on people who are afflicted. The Christian answer is so liberating.

Red herring

 

[EarlyActs]

"Well, that's not fair —why should Jesus be picked out and not the rest???"

But to logic —if direct selection of who will believe is not the way it is done, how does it happen? By CHANCE? Answer it plainly —if "whosoever" believes by free will, how do they believe? How does it just so happen that that particular person believed???

Red herring

I don’t think you’ll be able to figure out why that one does vs another, but if we continue to preach that God chose Christ to be the elect, to accomplish all redemption to him, sinful men will be drawn to affirm and honor him.

 

[makesends]

I don’t think you’ll be able to figure out why that one does vs another, but if we continue to preach that God chose Christ to be the elect, to accomplish all redemption to him, sinful men will be drawn to affirm and honor him.

Partial truth, then?

Did God choose Christ from among a pool of possibles? Christ was elect for a purpose, no doubt. Are you saying that the rest of us are not chosen from the foundation of the world? Are you saying that God had no particular "good works" or any other particular plans concerning us? Or he did, subject to our approval and cooperation?

Do you, like some, believe God can't accomplish his plans without our cooperation?

 

[EarlyActs]

Partial truth, then?

Did God choose Christ from among a pool of possibles? Christ was elect for a purpose, no doubt. Are you saying that the rest of us are not chosen from the foundation of the world? Are you saying that God had no particular "good works" or any other particular plans concerning us? Or he did, subject to our approval and cooperation?

Do you, like some, believe God can't accomplish his plans without our cooperation?

Just preach the truth as it is in Jesus and let God solve that riddle.

Btw I think you’ll find most references to being chosen actually include the dative ‘in Him.’ For ex, Eph 1.

 

[JesusFan]

I don’t think you’ll be able to figure out why that one does vs another, but if we continue to preach that God chose Christ to be the elect, to accomplish all redemption to him, sinful men will be drawn to affirm and honor him.

Jesus is God, so are you affirming here a Barthian view of Him being the elect for all humanity then?

 

[EarlyActs]

Jesus is God, so are you affirming here a Barthian view of Him being the elect for all humanity then?

No, only what Jn 6:40 says that all who believe on him are then in Him. Meanwhile he is the one who is the Elect. "Here is my son, my chosen one, in him the nations will put their trust."

 

[makesends]

Just preach the truth as it is in Jesus and let God solve that riddle.

It's not a riddle. Impugning the nature of God to diminish his authority, justice and power in the name of "love" is to diminish his love.

Btw I think you’ll find most references to being chosen actually include the dative ‘in Him.’ For ex, Eph 1.

Agreed. And I love that. HOW, then, does that relate to the subject at hand? We are most definitely chosen, no? And that, for God's purposes, with no question of whether he will accomplish precisely what he set out to do.

 

[EarlyActs]

It's not a riddle. Impugning the nature of God to diminish his authority, justice and power in the name of "love" is to diminish his love.

Agreed. And I love that. HOW, then, does that relate to the subject at hand? We are most definitely chosen, no? And that, for God's purposes, with no question of whether he will accomplish precisely what he set out to do.

I don't think the NT meant to set up a group of people who felt directly chosen; the weight of the NT is on the choosing of Christ, and when a person is in fellowship 'in Christ' and active toward His goals, they are also elect. Cp Acts 13:47 about being lights to the world; of course he meant those in Christ first; it is a quote of Isaiah.