makesends
Well-known member
How does that show how anything can be, that was not intentionally caused by the Omniscient Creator?
Moses and Jesus taught free will
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
makesends
Well-known member
God predetermines their end. But he damns them for what they have done.
makesends
Well-known member
Classes? Not particularly —individuals.
makesends
Well-known member
And the problem with that is...?
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
The problem is that makes God God. Can't have that, since God is love.
Rockson
Well-known member
No!
You're misusing or confusing the difference between FAVOR and FAVORTISM. God did not show favoritism in regard to how many he loves he's offered salvation to all! An offer to impart something however can be rejected. God shows favor however to those who will receive his grace. But that doesn't mean he showed favoritism. Two different things!
If a business in town puts a coupon for a blessing in everyone's mailbox if some choose not to come and get it you cannot claim the business showed favoritism! They did not. This was the accusation of Cain....that God was showing favoritism towards Abel! He DID NOT. He told him clear that if he did the same thing that Abel did he would be accepted. There is NO favoritism with God! Acts 10:34
civic
Well-known member
God is love.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails.
God doesn’t act contrary to His nature. Calvinists predestination is unloving. Tulip is unloving.
Love and Sovereignty
What is knowable about God is based on what he has revealed about Himself in scripture. Any proposition or doctrine of Him being otherwise without becoming contrary to who He has revealed Himself to be is nothing but the evilest assault on the character and nature of God. It amounts to proposing that God can be contrary to Himself without changing. God is immutable and does not change.
God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect in God have been revealed plainly to us by God. He has done this both through his word and his works. And he has sworn never to change.
God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. It has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign and so can do it is pure evil.
With God, might is not right. The fact that he can do something is not a justification for him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that he can do is restricted by the rule he values most - love.
If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because he is sovereign. If he does it just because he is sovereign then he would not be God again but something else.
God can do any and everything is what sovereignty stands for. God will only do what is loving is what righteousness stands for.
Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love.
What if God’s essence, his spirit, is more like light, an orb radiating all his characteristics from a core of some type of energy, say love?
Not only does this configuration fit scripture declaring that God is spirit (John 4:24), that he is light (1 John 1:5), and that he is love (1 John 4:8), but it also fits the living out of God’s image in the body of Jesus Christ. In him, we do not witness a love regulated by sovereignty, but a sovereignty regulated by love.
Thinking and living in these terms does not in any way shelve the idea of God’s sovereignty, but it does place it within the heart of God’s love. From love, he rules.
Therefore, instead of asking how an all-sovereign God exercises his love, we might ask how an all-loving God exercises his sovereignty. This, I think, is the better conversation. l.meyers
1 John 4:7-5:4
God is love. The same construction is found in 1 John 1:5 ("God is light") and in 1 John 4:24 ("God is spirit"). The noun love, referring to a process, is the predicate of the sentence; it says something about God's quality, character, and activity. The translator must take care not to give a rendering that equates God and love. This would imply that the clause order is reversible and that God is love and "love is God" are both true propositions-which is certainly not what John meant to say.
After "love is of God" in v. 7a the present clause functions as a climax: God is not only the origin of love, but love itself. At first sight this construction might suggest that John intends to identify God with an abstract principle. That this is not the case becomes clear, however, when one looks at the context, where God is represented as the personal agent of the act of loving.
The proposition "God loves us" might stand alongside such statements as, "God creates," "God rules," "God judges." Accordingly, "God is love" does not mean to say that love is one of God's activities, but that all His activity is loving activity. Whether he creates, or rules, or judges, he does so in love. All that he does is the expression of his nature which is-to love. ‡
The Greek construction cannot be followed in several languages because a corresponding verbal noun simply does not exist in the language, or, if existing, cannot be thus construed, or, if thus construed, would not express the same meaning. Therefore, translators have tried to express the force of this construction otherwise, for example, 'God's character is to habitually-love,' 'all God's deeds are loving deeds,' 'God is one who continually and really loves,' 'God has-as-quality love.' (from the UBS New Testament Handbook Series. Copyright © 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies.)
God is love, God is light or God is spirit are what is known as an anarthrous predicate. John does not say that light is God, but only that God is light. The two phrases are not interchangeable. The word God in the Greek has the article, the word light does not so it means that the two words are not interchangeable. The absence of the article emphasizes ones character or nature. It literally would read: God as to His nature is light.The same is true with the phrase God is love. Love is not God. In other words He is a loving God. It is Gods nature or character to be loving.
1 John 4:8
God is love ho Theos agapee estin. Anarthrous predicate, not hee agapee. John does not say that love is God, but only that God is love. The two terms are not interchangeable. God is also light (1 John 1:5) and spirit (John 4:24). (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)
conclusion: God is love and all His attributes flow from His nature as a loving God. God cannot act contrary to His nature. In Calvinism God acts contrary to His nature and by definition is unloving.
hope this helps !!!
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-known member
Let’s test that theory.
- FAVORITISM (Merriam-Webster): the showing of special favor.
- FAVOR (Merriam-Webster): friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior; gracious kindness (also an act of such kindness); effort in one's behalf or interest; a special privilege or right granted;
That we were all sinners and the wages of all sin is DEATH, proves that for anyone that God does not JUSTLY condemn to “the second death” … God has clearly shown special favor (see definition above). The act of showing special favor is, by definition, favoritism (see definition above).
The only possible QUESTION, is “Have we been shown special favor?”
- Our sins are forgiven.
- We have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
- We have been given eternal life.
- We have become Children of God.
- We will be glorified and spend eternity in heaven.
Does what we have been given qualify as special favor (see definition above)?
atpollard
Well-known member
That is Aphrodite that is EXCLUSIVELY the deity of “Love”. For “God” (YHWH), Love is a vitally important aspect of His innate character, but it is NOT the exclusive aspect of His innate character. All LOVE is of God, but God is more than just LOVE. (I will leave you to search His Word and discover the rest of His character for yourself.)
atpollard
Well-known member
Right from the start …
Genesis 3:6-10, 21 [NKJV]
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. 8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" 10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
... 21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. 8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" 10 So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself."
... 21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
… The efforts of Man failed and it was GOD that covered the “nakedness” of man.
All Glory to God Alone!
Azriel
Well-known member
It's amazing how you can have a theology that excludes God's love and still talk people into it. It's a mystery I tell you. And enigma wrapped up in a burrito.
atpollard
Well-known member
Rockson
Well-known member
You don't have to test my theory and nor do you need to declare it such. Why? He said he DOES NOT show partiality. Does not, does not, DOES NOT. Acts 10:34
You can ask questions about things. eg (another subject)
You can ask where was Jesus born of a virgin?
You can ask how Jesus was born of a virgin?
You can ask why Jesus was born of a virgin?
You can ask when Jesus was born of a virgin?
You cannot ask was Jesus born of a virgin......at least a Christian committed Christian cannot.
Point....You cannot ask is it true God does not show favoritism when he says he doesn't! What questions can you ask? You can ask why does it seem maybe he does when scripture says he doesn't? That's when you get into context and the way it's meant to be understood. But God DOES NOT show partiality or favoritism. You MUST stay with that.
You come to the place to understand. God shows favor but that is for those who choose to love him and keep his commandments. Seeing he has opening invited all to the banqueting table there is no favoritism found in him.
Doesn't matter what George and Charles Merriam the founders of your dictionary says. If they read what I just said to you they'd probably say to you listen to that other poster. Everything he's saying makes sense.
Yes. You demonstrated that. Sorry atpollard but you were confused.
So was George and Charles of your dictionary above the word of God?
The guys who gave you that definition would probably agree with me not you. They'd understand that if a store as I said gave coupons to everyone in town they did not show favoritism to anyone even in the light of the fact that not all came to redeem their coupons. To even accuse them of favoritism is an evil accusation in and of itself.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
You can make any verse mean anything you want by leaving out the context. The context of Acts 10:34 is God does not show favoritism when it comes to Jews and gentiles.
Azriel
Well-known member
Glad to hear it.
civic
Well-known member
Where did it say God forgave them in the passage are you reading into the bible ( eisegesis ) your own doctrines again ?
Where is sacrifice for sin mentioned ? or Atonement mentioned ?
Its called an argument from silence once again. Nice try. That passage doesn't support your premise try another one.
Genesis 4 is the first time sacrifice/offering in mentioned in Scripture with Cain and Abel. cf Hebrews 11:4.
hope this helps !!!
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
dittoYou don't have to test my theory and nor do you need to declare it such. Why? He said he DOES NOT show partiality. Does not, does not, DOES NOT. Acts 10:34
You can ask questions about things. eg (another subject)
You can ask where was Jesus born of a virgin?
You can ask how Jesus was born of a virgin?
You can ask why Jesus was born of a virgin?
You can ask when Jesus was born of a virgin?
You cannot ask was Jesus born of a virgin......at least a Christian committed Christian cannot.
Point....You cannot ask is it true God does not show favoritism when he says he doesn't! What questions can you ask? You can ask why does it seem maybe he does when scripture says he doesn't? That's when you get into context and the way it's meant to be understood. But God DOES NOT show partiality or favoritism. You MUST stay with that.
You come to the place to understand. God shows favor but that is for those who choose to love him and keep his commandments. Seeing he has opening invited all to the banqueting table there is no favoritism found in him.
Doesn't matter what George and Charles Merriam the founders of your dictionary says. If they read what I just said to you they'd probably say to you listen to that other poster. Everything he's saying makes sense.
Yes. You demonstrated that. Sorry atpollard but you were confused.
So was George and Charles of your dictionary above the word of God?
The guys who gave you that definition would probably agree with me not you. They'd understand that if a store as I said gave coupons to everyone in town they did not show favoritism to anyone even in the light of the fact that not all came to redeem their coupons. To even accuse them of favoritism is an evil accusation in and of itself.
Rockson
Well-known member
He does not show favoritism towards those beaten down along the side of the road who are hurt and are in need of salvation either. Jesus told us everyone in need around us is to be considered to be our neighbor. Luke 10:25 Sorry but your doctrine has Jesus like the priest in the parable walking by NOT WILLING to want to be a help.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
I corrected your abuse of Acts 10:34 so you not only change the subject, you accuse my doctrine of something you pulled out your keister. Nice work.
Similar threads
