Theology Question For Calvinist/Reformed Members

[makesends]

That is the key to knowing the cause cause of going to the Lake of Fire...

For, if salvation is all about the soul's attitude?

Salvation is not all about the soul's attitude. Since your premise is wrong, the rest is useless.

Then what takes over a soul when grace holds down the sin nature to let the soul decide? EVIL! Not sin.
Satan's fall began with evil in his heart... He rejected God from a perfect state of being. Unlike us, he had no sin nature when he rejected God!

Evil and sin are not the same thing. Jesus did not die for evil. He died for our sins.

Jesus could not die for evil! For it would require that he reject Himself if that were the case..

​

2 Thessalonians 3:1-2​

​

Finally, brothers, pray for us that the Lord’s message may spread rapidly ​

and be honored, just as it was with you, and that we may be delivered ​

from wicked and evil men, for not all have faith.​

​

Note: It does not say..."sinful men."

No one's sins are sending them to the Lake of Fire.
For Jesus paid for all their sins.
They go to the Lake of Fire because of evil.
For they freely chose (like Satan did) to reject the Lord!
No one is going to the Lake of Fire for their sins!

1 John 2:2​

​

He is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, ​

and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

The penalty for all man's sins had been dealt with by God with having Jesus on the Cross!

and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

​

God is not simple minded....


........

Correction. The rest of your reasoning is bogus.

 

[GeneZ]

Salvation is not all about the soul's attitude. Since your premise is wrong, the rest is useless.

Correction. The rest of your reasoning is bogus.

Your boxed in way of thinking must stay put, for it has molded and conformed you to the shape of that box.

In your world?
God really had nothing to save.
So, he created something to be called saved.

I will leave you in your stabilized confusion.
Others here will try to comfort you.... that is your comfort.

 

[makesends]

Your boxed in way of thinking must stay put, for it has molded and conformed you to the shape of that box.

In your world?
God really had nothing to save.
So, he created something to be called saved.

I will leave you in your stabilized confusion.
Others here will try to comfort you.... that is your comfort.

Haha! Well, if I am boxed in, should I tell you that your mindset is disparate and unbalanced? Your statement here makes you seem to see things as wide open to chance —er, possibility— from my POV.

"In your world?"
God created something for no particular reason, and it somehow got out of hand, so he, by great power and wisdom accommodated himself to redeem it —whatever it is?

Meanwhile, my view is open to all sorts of vistas that you apparently are not aware of. The fact that God made this existence for his own purposes and for his own sake opens up life and Scripture becomes food.

As @Arial said, "But I practically disappeared when the notion struck me, except for one who was created by God, for the most magnificent purpose of all, to be given to the very Son of God. All I could do was worship in awe, and I could only glimpse what I was seeing, for the concept was too awesome to stand in."

 

[GeneZ]

Haha! Well, if I am boxed in, should I tell you that your mindset is disparate and unbalanced? Your statement here makes you seem to see things as wide open to chance —er, possibility— from my POV.

"In your world?"
God created something for no particular reason, and it somehow got out of hand, so he, by great power and wisdom accommodated himself to redeem it —whatever it is?

Meanwhile, my view is open to all sorts of vistas that you apparently are not aware of. The fact that God made this existence for his own purposes and for his own sake opens up life and Scripture becomes food.

As @Arial said, "But I practically disappeared when the notion struck me, except for one who was created by God, for the most magnificent purpose of all, to be given to the very Son of God. All I could do was worship in awe, and I could only glimpse what I was seeing, for the concept was too awesome to stand in."

At least one of us is wasting his time.

Could be you.
Could be me..

The Lord will sort this one out when its the right time.


Wishing you a nice Day.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You keep missing the point and use many words to do so. Your response is telling me that you believe you no longer can sin.

It is frankly inexplicable how my response could tell him anything of the sort, because nothing I wrote said anything like that. He inferred what he wanted to see, and that is on him. Implication is on me, inference is on him.

To underline the point I was making, no less than the apostle Paul himself admitted the internal struggle between the old nature (which is being put to death) and the new nature (which is being conformed to the image of the Son), laments his regret when his old nature won out, and thanks God for the victory in Jesus. Paul doesn't pretend that looking to Jesus takes away the struggle.

But that struggle is not between the material body and immaterial soul. As I said previously (and GeneZ cannot refute this), Paul contrasts those in the flesh versus those in the Spirit, the old humanity in Adam versus the new humanity in Christ, the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit. The Gnostics were wrong—and so is GeneZ.

You teach what you prefer to hear.

This, of course, is laughably false. What I prefer to hear is that humans are basically good, generally speaking, but I believe and teach the complete opposite. I teach not what I prefer to hear but what I believe, and GeneZ has failed to demonstrate any error therein—because he can't, for it is clearly stated thus in Scripture. Again, the struggle is not between the material body and immaterial soul, but rather the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit.

The Gnostics were wrong—and so is GeneZ.

Pride is the enemy and downfall of the liberal theologian, as well as the legalistic theologian.

Such commentary is not relevant to our discussion and dismissed accordingly.

 

[GeneZ]

It is frankly inexplicable how my response could tell him anything of the sort, because nothing I wrote said anything like that. He inferred what he wanted to see, and that is on him. Implication is on me, inference is on him.

To underline the point I was making, no less than the apostle Paul himself admitted the internal struggle between the old nature (which is being put to death) and the new nature (which is being conformed to the image of the Son), laments his regret when his old nature won out, and thanks God for the victory in Jesus. Paul doesn't pretend that looking to Jesus takes away the struggle.

But that struggle is not between the material body and immaterial soul. As I said previously (and GeneZ cannot refute this), Paul contrasts those in the flesh versus those in the Spirit, the old humanity in Adam versus the new humanity in Christ, the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit. The Gnostics were wrong—and so is GeneZ.




This, of course, is laughably false. What I prefer to hear is that humans are basically good, generally speaking, but I believe and teach the complete opposite. I teach not what I prefer to hear but what I believe, and GeneZ has failed to demonstrate any error therein—because he can't, for it is clearly stated thus in Scripture. Again, the struggle is not between the material body and immaterial soul, but rather the works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit.

The Gnostics were wrong—and so is GeneZ.




Such commentary is not relevant to our discussion and dismissed accordingly.

Nice slider..... but no hit.

 

[Eleanor]

Haha! Well, if I am boxed in, should I tell you that your mindset is disparate and unbalanced? Your statement here makes you seem to see things as wide open to chance —er, possibility— from my POV.
"In your world?"
God created something for no particular reason, and it somehow got out of hand, so he, by great power and wisdom accommodated himself to redeem it —whatever it is?
Meanwhile, my view is open to all sorts of vistas that you apparently are not aware of. The fact that God made this existence for his own purposes and for his own sake opens up life and Scripture becomes food.
As @Arial said, "But I practically disappeared when the notion struck me, except for one who was created by God, for the most magnificent purpose of all, to be given to the very Son of God. All I could do was worship in awe, and I could only glimpse what I was seeing, for the concept was too awesome to stand in."

I see God's whole purpose in creation to be his glory through the glory of the Son in preparing a bride for him.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

Sounds like the debate between supralapsarian and infralapsarian controversy.

This is what I know:

God commanded Moses to build an [earthly] Tabernacle and pattern it according to the Heavenly Tabernacle.

So, now we have the revelation of a Heavenly Tabernacle. So, let's look at what transpired in the Heavenly Tabernacle.

1. A Redeemer was foreordained before the creation of heaven, earth, and man.
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1 Pe 1:18–20.

2. This Redeemer is loved by the Father who sent Him to the people foreordained and chosen to be redeem.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Jn 17:23–24.

3. This Redeemer will often suffer in the discharging of His mission to redeem this foreordained and chosen people named in this "charter."
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb 9:26.

4. A "book" or unwritten "charter" was determined that included names of a people the Redeemer was sent to redeem.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. Rev. 13:7–9.

5. As the Redeemer discharges His mission, He will say things that have been kept secret since the beginning but enough upon which those He came to redeem may identify Him as Redeemer and His particular mission to redeem the people named in the "charter."
35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Mt 13:35.

6. A kingdom was prepared for a people to inhabit it.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: Mt 25:34.

7. A people were foreordained and chosen to inhabit this kingdom.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Eph 1:3–4.

8. Messengers sent from God would be killed in the presenting of varying messages to this foreordained and chosen people named in the "charter."
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; Lk 11:49–50.

9. Everything revealed concerning this Redeemer, His mission, and the redeemed were all completed "It is finished" in eternity before God created heaven, earth, and man.
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. Heb 4:2–3.

From my understanding of Scripture God in eternity deemed a people in Himself (which is where His foreknowledge of us rests), but by virtue to "blowing" this deemed and chosen people into the nostrils of the man and into his loins this people became "lost" in the sense that we are no longer IN God but "outside" Him and the best He can do for us in this existence is dwell IN us as down payment until the end and we are again restored back into God from whence we were first contemplated. So now God must now RE-deem us from this existence in time and translate us into eternity which is what happens the moment we die.

Does this answer your initial question?

 

[Mr GLee]

Creates "all fact?"

Did God create all the names Adam chose to give the animals that God brought his way?

Yes he inspired them all. All names having a spiritual meaning assigned by God the one author

In that way they are used as ceremonial shadows to the unbelieving world as them not revealed the mystery of faith.

The shadows all spoke of the suffering of Christ beforehand and the glory that did follow the cross, and first cetury reformation. We can look back to the work of the Spirt of Christ faith by the dame faith of Christ by which they looked ahead

Not all Israel is born agin Israel It would seem he divorced the one that worshiped shadows.

1 Peter 1:8_11 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

 

[Whatever]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ

I've always wondered about this.

The Parable of the Weeds Explained
Matthew 13:37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.

He is talking about people. The Son of Man only sows good seed.
The devil only sows bad seed.

It sounds like all the elect were the only seeds the Son of Man sowed.
All the rest of the human race were sown by the devil.

How does the devil sow seed?

God would sow good seed by supernaturally making sure that each female egg was fertilized by the specific sperm God wants.
The two people come together in God's providence.

All the rest of those born were born - I can't say outside of God's will, but were just allowed to be born as Tares to be the vessels of wrath that try and test and persecute the elect. To make His wrath and power known (Romans 9:22)

Seem farfetched?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance?

Yes.

 

[Arial]

I've always wondered about this.

The Parable of the Weeds Explained
Matthew 13:37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.

He is talking about people. The Son of Man only sows good seed.
The devil only sows bad seed.

It sounds like all the elect were the only seeds the Son of Man sowed.
All the rest of the human race were sown by the devil.

How does the devil sow seed?

God would sow good seed by supernaturally making sure that each female egg was fertilized by the specific sperm God wants.
The two people come together in God's providence.

All the rest of those born were born - I can't say outside of God's will, but were just allowed to be born as Tares to be the vessels of wrath that try and test and persecute the elect. To make His wrath and power known (Romans 9:22)

Seem farfetched?

Well its a parable. That makes it a little harder to figure out where a fact is given and a parable ("it is like this"----) begins. Where something is actual and something is not. The good seed and the Son of Man, the field and the sons of the kingdom all have scriptural evidence that makes them actual. But, in this parable I think what Jesus is saying is that those who are Christ's and those who are not will dwell together until the end, the harvest. Not that the devil is actually creating people---sowing seed. But maybe he is.

We are just gleaners here, gleaning what we are able to from what is given, but it scarcely scratches the surface of what is that cannot be seen.

Since I wrote that post and asked that question I have come to believe that the elect, since he knows them before ever the world was created, were created for the purpose of giving them to Christ. Which of course, opens up another whole can of worms, people being who they are and cannot stop asking "how" and "why" and. and "if then".

 

[David1701]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

God predestined certain people to be conformed to the image of Christ (and, therefore, all that is necessary to bring that about - the Fall, lineage, the Cross, being kept safe until repentance/faith given, etc., etc.).

This predestination was done before the world existed.

God works all things according to the counsel of his own will.

Put all this together and what have you got? Exactly what you said...

 

[Arial]

God predestined certain people to be conformed to the image of Christ (and, therefore, all that is necessary to bring that about - the Fall, lineage, the Cross, being kept safe until repentance/faith given, etc., etc.).

This predestination was done before the world existed.

God works all things according to the counsel of his own will.

Put all this together and what have you got? Exactly what you said...

Since I wrote that OP I have come to be settled in my mind, that that is the case.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, it's a parable. That makes it a little harder to figure out where a fact is given and a parable ("it is like this"----) begins, where something is actual and something is not.

Yes, there is a difference between fact and parable. However, what matters is the truth and both convey the truth.

So, what is the truth being conveyed? I will circle back to this question in a moment.

The good seed, the Son of Man, the field, and the sons of the kingdom all have scriptural evidence that makes them actual. But I think what Jesus is saying in this parable is that those who are his and those who are not will dwell together until the end, the harvest. Not that the devil is actually creating people (sowing seed)—but maybe he is.

I don't think the evil one can create people. There is only one Creator. But it is clear that he has a people. Not only here in this parable ("the people of the evil one") but elsewhere, too, scripture speaks of the devil having his own people. For example, Jesus identified the Pharisees as belonging to the devil, which he called their father (John 8:44). "He was a murderer from the beginning," Jesus said, a statement which may allude to the first murder in scripture. It is not a coincidence that John tells us Cain "belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother" (1 John 3:12).

So, it seems he has a people.

In fact, it seems like both Christ and the evil one have their own people. And that draws my attention to the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15, where God assures the serpent, "I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring's heel." We know from scripture that her offspring or seed is Christ, but who is the serpent's offspring or seed? It is surely the antithesis to Christ, opposing the redemptive purposes of God. And I suspect this has both a corporate and individual dimension, the reprobate (many antichrists) and the man of lawlessness (the antichrist), respectively.

And I think this harmonizes beautifully with Genesis 3:15. The seed of the woman refers not only to Christ personally but to the elect corporately. All who are in Christ—by sovereign grace and covenantal union—are counted as her seed. (Thus, she is the mother of all the living; cf. 1 Cor 15:22). This covenantal typology sets a pattern that unfolds across redemptive history: the woman, her offspring, and the warfare she endures at the hands of the serpent and his seed. Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Egypt and Israel, Babylon and Jerusalem, the antichrist and the church, the goats and the sheep, Satan and Christ. This conflict is not just a mythic archetype but a real, historical, and theological drama with a telic focus: the triumph of Christ and his seed over the serpent and his seed.

The weeds and the wheat must grow together until that great and final day.

 

[Arial]

I don't think the evil one can create people. There is only one Creator.

I agree. My question then becomes, are those who belong to the evil one, given to him, in the same sense as the elect are given to Christ? And were they created for that purpose?

I don't believe a definitive answer can be given to that. It only sets our mind to the effort to give definitions to things, and will still not answer the question, but only spiral backwards and backwards trying to find God in words and not faith. (Though it does not annul our faith.) We come to this great chasm of infinity and an infinite God, and our minds can go no farther. He has set our boundaries in spacious places, to be sure, but it is still a "Thus far, and no father."

You know, I do not find the saints of old or even the first century saints, what we have in our Bible, asking these questions or trying to"solve" God. Those who truly knew him, knew who he was, the one true and living God, creator of all things, sovereign over all things, as relational with humans through covenant, the God who acts, and speaks, protects, and provides and judges righteously; holy, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing; the God who keeps his promises and always does what he says he will do. They knew him as their only hope, their only strength, their only rock, their only salvation.

In fact, it seems like both Christ and the evil one have their own people. And that draws my attention to the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15, where God assures the serpent, "I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; her offspring will attack your head, and you will attack her offspring's heel." We know from scripture that her offspring or seed is Christ, but who is the serpent's offspring or seed? It is surely the antithesis to Christ, opposing the redemptive purposes of God. And I suspect this has both a corporate and individual dimension, the reprobate (many antichrists) and the man of lawlessness (the antichrist), respectively.

And I think this harmonizes beautifully with Genesis 3:15. The seed of the woman refers not only to Christ personally but to the elect corporately. All who are in Christ—by sovereign grace and covenantal union—are counted as her seed. (Thus, she is the mother of all the living; cf. 1 Cor 15:22). This covenantal typology sets a pattern that unfolds across redemptive history: the woman, her offspring, and the warfare she endures at the hands of the serpent and his seed. Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Egypt and Israel, Babylon and Jerusalem, the antichrist and the church, the goats and the sheep, Satan and Christ. This conflict is not just a mythic archetype but a real, historical, and theological drama with a telic focus: the triumph of Christ and his seed over the serpent and his seed.

Agree. I always return to what the end game is. Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him the he might be repaid?" For from him and through him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

1 Cor 8:6 Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Rev 21:1-6 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,"Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true. And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

The evil one was given permission to do what he has done in order that the Son, through laying down his own life in place of the life of his people he was gathering, would in that substitutionary death, conquer sin and death and destroy evil forever. And as an aside, the picture given in those verses in Rev is not a picture of heaven, but a picture of earth. The place he created for mankind as their home. It becomes heaven on earth. God with us. All of it for his glory.

The weeds and the wheat must grow together until that great and final day.

Yup. That is what Jesus is saying in the parable.

 

[Whatever]

I don't think the evil one can create people. There is only one Creator.

I was thinking more of God wanted the wheat. The others were born simply because the couple had sex. Maybe the devil was tempting them. You know, like the cartoon of him sitting on a person's shoulder and whispering in his ear.

 

[makesends]

I was thinking more of God wanted the wheat. The others were born simply because the couple had sex. Maybe the devil was tempting them. You know, like the cartoon of him sitting on a person's shoulder and whispering in his ear.

Nothing can happen but by God's reason for it to happen. Every last motion, force, detail, thought, of anything, comes about by God's decree. He planned it this way, including our sinfulness. I married someone. Because we were married I can say that was God's woman for me. But that doesn't mean that I married her in obedience nor in purity of heart.

It's more than God simply "allowing" it to happen.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I was thinking more of God wanted the wheat. The others were born simply because the couple had sex. Maybe the devil was tempting them. You know, like the cartoon of him sitting on a person's shoulder and whispering in his ear.

makesends beat me to it.

Were they born without any purpose on God's part? Surely not. No, they were born not "simply because" a couple had sex but because God had a purpose for each and every one of them. There is a real sense in which God wanted the tares, too—not as his own but nevertheless for a purpose.

 

[His clay]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

While it is late for me to respond to things like this, I'm posting this here more for myself as a reminder for later. I did notice that I said earlier that I would think about it and get back with you. So I need to eventually get around to responding. A friend of mine really helped me with this one a while back.