It almost seems today that apostasy is cool. Apostasy is the new black. It means you're a thinking Christian, and you can just claim that name even if you reject everything that it historically means at its core, and that you'll only get flack for it by those unthinking dinosaurs who can't change with the times.
When I grew up, the bigger threats to orthodoxy were found in the cults. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. all worked to undermine orthodox theology.
Now, however, because we exist in a hyper-individualistic culture, we don't join churches, denominations, or even cults. Instead, our apostates grow up within our ranks and stay there. They identify themselves as believers, attend churches that supposedly believe, and claim titles for themselves that were once only given to orthodox Christians.
What is interesting about this is that if a Joseph Smith or Charles Russell were to grow up and teach in the church today, they would likely just stay in it. They would have a blog and just argue that any Christians trying to push them out of the church are just a bunch of close-minded gatekeepers who have to make theology a litmus test for Christian faithfulness. They would work to marginalize the orthodox rather than to be marginalized and excommunicated by them.
That brings us to this question: Have evangelicals and emergings worked so hard to include people into their groups that they are no longer capable of identifying anyone as an apostate, but only Christians with different gods, theologies, ethics (i.e., Christians with different religions)?
If you think I'm off on this, let's look at a specific case. Rachel Evans, by her own admission, does not worship the God of John Piper. She continually puts his deity in lower case, implying that her god is not the same as his. She also repudiates his God. So let's look at this.
What she is essentially saying is that she and John Piper do not worship the same deity. What this means for biblical Christianity is that either Rachel is a Christian or John Piper is, or neither one is, but both cannot be.
I would argue, of course, that since John Piper's God is that of the Puritans, Reformers, Church Fathers, and Apostles and Prophets, that proves that Rachel, by her own admission (not mine), is not a Christian. She, by arguing that John Piper's God is evil, is arguing that she rejects the God of Christianity that looks exactly like John Piper's God and not Rachel's.
However, she still wants to be considered a Christian. She still wants to be considered in the fold. And the point I want to make from above is that many who claim to be Christians want to consider her a Christian as well. Why? Well, we don't want to be judgmental or make theology a big issue in identifying Christians. Um, OK. Then that pretty much proves the point that apostasy is impossible in false Christianity, which is yet another mark that it is not the faith of the prophets and apostles.
Come out from among them and do not be partakers with them and THEN you will be considered the sons and daughters of God. Otherwise, if these supposed churches do nothing to excommunicate these apostates and state clearly that they are not Christians, they will not only throw immature Christians who don't know better to wolves, but they will also prove themselves to be one with those who repudiate true Christianity.
But apostasy is the new black, so it's going to take a love of God and courage that transcends the need for the deluded masses to speak well of you.
"I would argue, of course, that since John Piper's God is that of the Puritans, Reformers, Church Fathers, and Apostles and Prophets, that proves that Rachel, by her own admission (not mine), is not a Christian. She, by arguing that John Piper's God is evil, is arguing that she rejects the God of Christianity that looks exactly like John Piper's God and not Rachel's."
ReplyDeleteJohn Piper's "god" (I'll put it both in lowercase and quotes) may be the "god" of Augustine, but it certainly is not the God of the church fathers prior to Augustine. So its a matter of perspective on whether you believe orthodox Christianity began at the beginning and went into apostasy with Constantine/Augustine and the melding of church with empire, or whether you believe that what was taught from the beginning of Christianity to Augustine was all heresy and only with good ole Augustine did orthodoxy finally emerge. If you think orthodoxy emerged with Augustine, you'll be a Calvinist. If you think orthodoxy died with Augustine, you won't be. In either case, we have before us a HISTORICAL question and theologians are not equipped to answer such a question. All they can do is argue that because they've always believed X is the proper interpretation of Scripture, therefore it is. The thing is, when the whole church is already in apostasy (Augustinianism) then how can apostacizing from that be bad? Show me where Genesis 3 says anything about anyone being damned to hell for Adam's sin! Better yet, show me where the word "hell" is found in Romans 5:12. As it stands it reads that Adam's sin brought "death" into the world and "death" (i.e. mortality) spread to us all. Genesis 3 says the same: Adam was immortal, then he sinned and now he will die. He's tossed out of Eden and denied access to the tree of life which would make him immortal again. Not one word about Adam himself being damned to hell for eating a fruit when told not to, and certainly not one word about the rest of us being damned to hell by it. Until the apostate worshippers of Augustine who believe in this non-sense that we are born damned to hell (rather than just death) by Adam's sin learn how to read and acknowledge their error, they cannot be acknowledged as orthodox or even as literate.
BTW, to my knowledge I'd never heard of Rachel Evans before, but I looked her up. I guess this is the post you are responding to? The abusive theology of "deserved" tragedy.
ReplyDeleteIn any long article such as that written by anyone I suppose I could find something to disagree with. But I do find this particular statement by Rachel to be on the money:
"The great irony of Piper using the book of Job to support his theology is that the story of Job stands as an ancient indictment on those who would respond to tragedy by blaming the victim. That’s exactly what Job’s friends did, and the text is not kind to them for it, because Job is described as 'blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.'"
In the very quote from Job that Piper tweeted, it was Satan who was responsible for killing Job's kids with a fierce wind. Piper is acting like God did it! (Is Piper's "god" Satan?) Yes, I know God allowed Satan to do it according to the text, but not without Satan having to beg for it! Piper would have it as if God wanted it to happen so bad he begged Satan for it! Piper has read the book of Job exactly backwards!
1. You present a false dichotomy between accepting Augustine as orthodox and accepting the Church Fathers before him as such. That's like saying either Nicea is orthodox or Cyprian is in his view of Christ's deity. All orthodox believe that the Spirit is drawing the Church into further clarity of these issues by bringing specific heresy to the forefront at various times throughout her history. That's why I don't judge what the Church Fathers believe about a subject before there is any consensus as the consensus, especially when they are not even addressing the same issues. For instance, Augustine sounds exactly like Irenaeus in his denial of ontological determinism of the gnostics, which is what Irenaeus is denying, not Augustinianism that hasn't even been fleshed out yet. That's anachronistic theology that presents no room for the progressive work of the Spirit in the Church.
ReplyDeleteI'm not Piper's apologist, so I'm not here to argue for him. However, if you think it's all Satan, and not God, who does these things then you aren't reading the text. Not only does God push Satan to do it, but when Job lays the blame solely at God's feet, God's answer is that He has the right to do it, not that He didn't do it.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I would agree with the statement that Rachel made, but it is irrelevant to what Piper was saying and confuses two issues concerning sin. Job is talking about laying the blame of tragedy on a person's specific sin. Piper is talking about how we all deserve punishment and/or need the fires of tragedy to redeem us as sinners in a fallen and sinful world. If that was not true, then why in the world does God even permit tragedy, much less cause it?
And just to be clear, Satan doesn't beg God for it. God pulls Satan in and asks him if he's considered destroying His servant Job. Satan objects that God has a hedge around him, and so God tells Satan that he's free to beat him up. That's clearly right there in the first chapter.
ReplyDelete2. You can read my book if you want to see how Genesis 3 might connect to the idea of the netherworld/hell.
ReplyDeleteGod didn't "push" Satan to do it, nor ask him to do it. He did ask him "Have you considered my servant Job?" and he bragged about how righteous Job is. However, Satan then begged to afflict Job, offering his flimsy Calvinist reasoning "skin for skin, all that a man has he will give for his skin." In Satan's opinion we're all selfish totally depraved people so Job can't possibly be as righteous as God says "a man who eschews evil" and all that. Job's friends agree. But it is Job who is vindicated in the end, and thereby God is vindicated by Job's righteousness proving God's initial statement to Satan about how righteous Job is to be true! Your twisted Calvinist reading of the text treats it as if the story is about God smiting Job (throw in a good Calvinist "justly for his sins" for good measure) and Job complaining as a horrible miserable God-hating sinner and God smiting him some more and yelling at him "I'll mess you up! I'll mess you up, and its perfectly fine for me to do it, because I'm God you maggot." But that isn't what happened in the story. God told Satan that Job is righteous. Satan was incredulous because he's a Calvinist who says no man can be righteous. God said, Oh yeah, let's find out. Satan afflicted Job up the wazzoo. Job stayed righteous, kept trusting in God, didn't blaspheme. Job's friends were Calvinists who told him that God is such a perfectionist nutter that not even the angels are clean in his sight and he must condescend to even look at the stars without vomitting, so how can a man be right in his sight? Nay, Job, saith his friends, you are totally depraved and if you want God to stop smiting you, just admit it you Pelagian. Job said, no you guys are screwed in the head, your theology is nonsense. (Job never spoke against God, the real God, but only the Calvinist god of his friends' theology.) And finally God appears with lots of questions about animals to shock and awe everyone, but also to demonstrate that he doesn't have to condescend to even look at the angels or stars without vomitting; he can even look at and be proud of absurd creatures like the ostrich. He can even be proud of his imperfect and rather stupid creature that hides its eggs in the sand and forgets they will be stomped on, so why can't he be proud of an imperfect righteous man like Job: the moral is you don't have to be perfect to be righteous and that a man can be righteous before God contrary to what Job's Calvinist friends and Satan the Calvinist-in-chief thought, and so God tells them they need Job to act as their priest and make sacrifice for them because Job is approved and they "have not spoken what was right about Me as My servant Job has." AMEN.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteYour reply is dishonest with the text and incoherent. How is the devil's reply concerning man's desire to save himself have anything to do with Calvinism?
Second to this, you've not dealt with the phrase, "Have you considered my servant Job?" Considered what about him? The devil replies that he can't touch Job because God has been protecting him. Hence, the "considering" has to do with considering destroying Job. That means that God is pushing Satan to consider destroying Job, and Satan replies that he can't because Job is protected. God then tells him that He'll remove that protection and let Satan at him. How in the world is God not responsible for what is being done?
Again, you haven't answered my other objection, that God does not blame it on Satan when Job questions God for doing all of this. God's response isn't, "Oh, hey, wait a minute, I had nothing to do with all of this." His answer is to tell Job that He is God and Job is a man and needs to recognize that God is master of all things, and Job is not. Job has accused God throuhout of being wrong in afflicting him, and God's response is not the one you pretend it to be. He takes full responsibility for what happened to Job and doesn't apologize for it. Hence, your answer that "It was only Satan who did it" is neither contextual nor coherent.
Third, you're attempt to read into Satan's statements that he's a Calvinist is a joke. Calvinists believe that Job was righteous and blameless, so that doesn't play into your narrative very well, does it? Calvinism answers the question why one is righteous or evil, not whether anyone can be righteous or evil.
Fourth, Job admits from the beginning that he and his family are sinners or else he wouldn't be performing sacrifices. Righteousness in the Bible isn't about perfection from sin, but one's disposition toward God in repentance. Calvinism doesn't say otherwise. You don't know the system.
Fifth, your reading the epilogue as God saying that He is proud of Job who is righteous is half the story. You're not dealing with the text that shows God as saying that Job should shut up and realize that what he thinks God should act like is none of his business. He isn't the judge and Creator of all things.
Finally, as in your other fallacious comments, your arguments are anachronistic, as though Job is all about Calvinism verses Pelagianism. But as I said before, Calvinism doesn't believe that someone has to be perfect in order to be righteous. That's nonsense. Christ's sacrifice makes it possible for both OT and NT saints to be righteous based upon their relationship with God. So, again, your arguing a strawman.
"How is the devil's reply concerning man's desire to save himself have anything to do with Calvinism?"
ReplyDeleteCalvinism is all about the idea that righteousness is an impossibility. The devil says that Job is only righteous for selfish reasons, hence not truly righteous: sounds familiar right, because its what you say every day as a Calvinist.
"Second to this, you've not dealt with the phrase, "Have you considered my servant Job?" Considered what about him?"
Have you considered how righteous he is? The text makes this plain: Have you considered my servant Job, how there is none like him on the earth, eschewing evil and so on? He is not asking Satan to afflict Job: he is rubbing Satan's nose in the fact that contrary to his Calvinist beliefs, here is a man who is indeed righteous.
"Again, you haven't answered my other objection, that God does not blame it on Satan when Job questions God for doing all of this."
As I already said, I don't see anywhere where Job speaks against or questions God, the real God. He only speaks against, or questions, the god of his friends' Calvinist theology. As a result, God doesn't need to respond to any of those questions since he was not the god that was being questioned, nor does any of God's speech bear at all on any of the questions that Job had asked of the fictional god of his friends.
"Third, you're attempt to read into Satan's statements that he's a Calvinist is a joke. Calvinists believe that Job was righteous and blameless"
ReplyDeleteDon't lie. Every Calvinist interpretation of Job I've ever seen, including Pipers and yours, asserts that Job was a filthy Pelagian who wouldn't admit he was a sinner until God came and smacked him down. But this is not what goes on in the book at all. I know to save face you must lie and pretend you accept that Job was righteous, but you don't.
"Fourth, Job admits from the beginning that he and his family are sinners or else he wouldn't be performing sacrifices."
Exactly, the Calvinist interpretation is entirely false.
"Fifth, your reading the epilogue as God saying that He is proud of Job who is righteous is half the story. You're not dealing with the text that shows God as saying that Job should shut up and realize that what he thinks God should act like is none of his business. He isn't the judge and Creator of all things."
God says at the very end, to Job's friends, "You have not spoken what is right of me as my servant Job has." Its not Job that's being told to "shut up" but his friends.
I know what passage you have in mind, namely the first two verses of Job 38 in the KJV:
"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 'Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?...'"
Although the speech is addressed to Job, the "who" in the question is clearly referring to Elihu whose longwinded and rather pointless harangue was interupted by the LORD's appearance. Elihu began speaking in Job 32, and gave an uninterrupted speech up until Job 38, with absolutely no reply from Job. When God asks Job "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" he is obviously referring to the last speaker, especially considering how well the description "without knowledge" clearly applies to Elihu's speech!
"Finally, as in your other fallacious comments, your arguments are anachronistic, as though Job is all about Calvinism verses Pelagianism."
I'm not referring to the particularly Christian elements of either of these, nor the debate over predestination. I'm only referring to the fact that Calvinism sees righteousness as impossible, and views human beings as motivated only by selfishness, just like Satan in the book of Job complains that Job only serves God because God has "put a fence around him" to protect him. Satan argues that if you take away the benefits, Job will abandon his pretense of righteousness. God proves Satan wrong on this point, thus proving Calvinism wrong as well.
LOL. You've got us nailed on that, don't you. Calvinists don't believe anyone can be righteous? Even if you could somehow make the narrative about that, which it isn't, your caricature of Calvinism as something that does not believe people can be righteous is ridiculous. Calvinism believes that all of the saints are righteous and can act righteously, so where is your argument now? If Satan is stating that he doesn't believe men can act righteously, which is a major stretch, that's not Calvinism. You're attempting to make it so in order to feed into your desired narrative.
ReplyDeleteBut I think it's clear, given the context, that God is asking Satan whether he's considered tempting Job to repudiate God through tragedy because Job is righteous.
"As I already said, I don't see anywhere where Job speaks against or questions God, the real God. He only speaks against, or questions, the god of his friends' Calvinist theology. As a result, God doesn't need to respond to any of those questions since he was not the god that was being questioned, nor does any of God's speech bear at all on any of the questions that Job had asked of the fictional god of his friends."
Well, that's a bit convenient, isn't it. Job clearly speaks against God for wrongly doing this to him, but that doesn't fit your narrative, so it must be that he's speaking against some other god, that of his friends. Nonsense, that doesn't work out in the narrative at all. Job himself admits that he spoke against God, the real one, when he has a conversation with Him at the end of the book. That's why he says that he spoke without knowledge and will not shut his mouth.
"Don't lie. Every Calvinist interpretation of Job I've ever seen, including Pipers and yours, asserts that Job was a filthy Pelagian who wouldn't admit he was a sinner until God came and smacked him down. But this is not what goes on in the book at all. I know to save face you must lie and pretend you accept that Job was righteous, but you don't."
LOL. Don't lie? Job is a filthy Pelagian who won't admit it? Sir, Job is a regenerate believer who is a righteous man. I never implied or said otherwise. We are all sinners in need of redemption, and that is why tragedy remains with us. We need tragedy as an instrument toward our perseverance in righteousness. So your statement here is completely false. You clearly don't understand that Calvinism speaks of the foundation of one's righteousness, not whether one can be righteous.
"Fourth, Job admits from the beginning that he and his family are sinners or else he wouldn't be performing sacrifices."
"Exactly, the Calvinist interpretation is entirely false."
Hugh? That is the Calvinist interpretation. I don't have any idea why you think what I said above conflicts with it.
"I know what passage you have in mind, namely the first two verses of Job 38 in the KJV:"
No, I'm referencing Job's own words about himself in 40:1-5, where God flat out says that Job has been accusing HIM, not some other god, and tells him to answer Him now. Job does so by admitting that he is a unworthy and is in the wrong. But your assessment is also wrong. The text makes it clear that this refers to Job:
42:1 Then Job answered the Lord:
42:2 “I know that you can do all things;
no purpose of yours can be thwarted;
42:3 you asked, 1
‘Who is this who darkens counsel
without knowledge?’
But 2 I have declared without understanding 3
things too wonderful for me to know. 4
42:4 You said, 5
‘Pay attention, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you will answer me.’
42:5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye has seen you. 6
42:6 Therefore I despise myself, 7
and I repent in dust and ashes!
Well I guess James White neglected to send you the memo, since you are the first Calvinist to not (consistently) claim that Job began as a filthy Pelagian in chapter 1 and ended as a good Calvinist in the last chapter.
ReplyDelete"Calvinism believes that all of the saints are righteous and can act righteously, so where is your argument now?"
But what you mean by this lie is very apparent. You mean only that a false fake righteousness is imputed to them. You don't hold them to actually be righteous. When God bragged on Job at the beginning, he did not say, "Have you considered my servant Job? how that I imputed Jesus' righteousness to that filthy good for nothing totally depraved thing whose own works are all but filthy rags?" No, he said "Have you considered my servant Job, how there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God, and eschs evil?" Now, that passage, by the way about "all our righteousness is as filthy rags" comes in Isaiah which is written as you would see if you read chapter 1, to a people who trust wholly in ceremonies and sacrifices for their righteousness, who must be told by the prophet that God is tired of their false righteousness consisting only in new moons and sacrifices and expects them to live morally: it does not mean all human works of righteousness are filthy rags as you Calvinists say, but only that all ceremonial righteousness is. And Job possessed both ceremonial and moral righteousness, without imputation from outside. It was not fictional, forensic, false, fake, imputational righteousness. That's where you are hiding behind Calvinism's ever-changing dictionary.
"No, I'm referencing Job's own words about himself in 40:1-5, where God flat out says that Job has been accusing HIM,"
Its not the case at all. Every time God says "he" or "who" you read the name "Job" into it.
"Shall he that contends with the Almighty instruct him? he that reprove God, let him answer it."
The "he" is Elihu. But Job, being a good man, a man worthy of priesthood acts the part of priest on Elihu's behalf, and answers for Elihu: "Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."
If it were otherwise, and if God truly saw Job as having contended with him and as seeking to condemn God that he may be justified, then why in the world would God say finally in Job 42:7 "And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."?
The Calvinist interpretation is that Job's friends were right all along and that at the end Job confesses as much. Yet the text clearly says that God accuses Job's friends of being wrong, and says Job was right. It is clearly, then, not Job who is accused of condemning God to justify himself, but Job's friends! Just as Calvinism makes God the author of evil in a vain attempt to justify themselves.
It's amazing how much you know my theology, except that you don't.
ReplyDeleteCalvinists believe that the saints are righteous through imputed righteousness and infused righteousness. As we both agreed already, righteousness is not about perfection but pursuing perfection, which is why Job can be righteous, and yet, still need sacrifices. Reformed believers believe that one is both given the righteousness through Christ positionally and are righteous by virtue of their pursuing sanctification to become like Christ. Ergo, you don't know what you're talking about, and your false witness that I am lying is slander. Hmm, who is a slanderer in Scripture? Are you going to make that connection to Satan, or do you reserve that for wild and facile connections to a biblical view you don't like?
Second to this, you are once again attempting to make a book that is not speaking about a later controversy speak to that controversy, as though Job is really countering the idea of imputed righteousness. Give me a break.
"The "he" is Elihu. But Job, being a good man, a man worthy of priesthood acts the part of priest on Elihu's behalf, and answers for Elihu: "Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."
Are you kidding me? Seriously, I've never seen such a case of Scripture twisting in my life. So now the context that clearly refers to Job must refer to something completely beyond the context because if it didn't, then you would be dead wrong. So the whole reason it refers to Elihu, who is not in the context, instead of Job, who it plainly identifies as both the one to whom God is speaking and the one who refers to himself as the one in the wrong, can't determine for us the referents of what is being said. It has to be your being right. Again, that is completely absurd.
"If it were otherwise, and if God truly saw Job as having contended with him and as seeking to condemn God that he may be justified, then why in the world would God say finally in Job 42:7 "And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath."?"
Because right there in the context Job repents and speaks what is right of God. The others do not. That seems clear.
"The Calvinist interpretation is that Job's friends were right all along and that at the end Job confesses as much. Yet the text clearly says that God accuses Job's friends of being wrong, and says Job was right. It is clearly, then, not Job who is accused of condemning God to justify himself, but Job's friends!"
You really need to stop blaspheming orthodox Christianity, because you don't even know what you're speaking against at this point. No Calvinist in the history of Calvinism believes that Job's friends were right. You've misidentified the purpose of the book and thus you have misunderstood the issues it is truly addressing.
"Just as Calvinism makes God the author of evil in a vain attempt to justify themselves."
Hahaha. So wait. Let me get this straight. Calvinists, who believe they are sinners before God and are responsible for all their sin, laying no blame on God for doing evil, are attempting to justify themselves; but a Pelagian, like yourself, is not limiting God's sovereignty and holiness in order to justify himself and see himself as righteous apart from God's glorious intervention of regeneration? Okay dokay.
"Calvinists believe that the saints are righteous through imputed righteousness and infused righteousness."
ReplyDeleteI'll stop you right there because the bolded part is certainly not true. That's not what Piper or White or any of the rest believe. You may have invented your own personal version of Calvinism, but I've never seen any other Calvinist say that.
I won't continue to offer tit for tat on all your nonsense. But I will say that I don't limit God's "sovereignty": the problem is, as is normal, you Calvinist's have changed the meaning of the word.
Grace means favor and the mercy that comes with it, meaning grace essentially means mercy. But not to Calvinists, for whom it means a power of enabling, or really just predestination itself.
The world means, well, the world and the people in it. Except to a Calvinist when reading John 3:16, for whom "the world" must now mean "the elect" because they can't allow God to love the nonelect. WHO'S LIMITING GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY NOW?????
And sovereignty means kingship. A sovereign is a king who is not under tribute to another king, who is not a vassal of an emperor. But not to the Calvinist who make sovereignty mean micromanagement and a sovereign a petty micromanager.
God need not prevent us from having freewill in order to be King. Nor does he need to personally control the weather to be King of the Universe: he can establish laws of nature and let nature handle that for him. But the Calvinist says "No he can't": who's limiting God's sovereignty now???? "To be sovereign God must literally personally control EVERYTHING" says the Calvinist, but only because they have a disease that prevents them from using words according to their true meanings. Even above when you claim to believe in infused righteousness, you probably are playing a trick of redefining infused as meaning imputed!
"I'll stop you right there because the bolded part is certainly not true. That's not what Piper or White or any of the rest believe. You may have invented your own personal version of Calvinism, but I've never seen any other Calvinist say that."
ReplyDeleteThat's because you don't really read any Calvinists. How do you think Calvinists believe in sanctification without infused righteousness? I'm sorry, but you are a fool who thinks himself wise. Go back and read carefully the people, including myself, who you have chosen to slander without cause.
"Grace means favor and the mercy that comes with it, meaning grace essentially means mercy. But not to Calvinists, for whom it means a power of enabling, or really just predestination itself."
What? Grace means favor, not an enabling power. I'm sorry, but you're confusing Calvinism with Roman Catholicism and Wesleyian Arminianism (you know, those semi-Pelagian sects that agree more with you). God gives us favor and by doing that decides to gift us with faith and salvation, but it isn't an enabling power. The Spirit we are given empowers us. You're wrong yet again.
"The world means, well, the world and the people in it. Except to a Calvinist when reading John 3:16, for whom "the world" must now mean "the elect" because they can't allow God to love the nonelect. WHO'S LIMITING GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY NOW?????"
LOL. God can love anyone He wants. And He does love the nonelect, just not in the same way as He does the elect. That's His sovereign decision. How is that Calvinists limiting His sovereignty when they are acknowledging His right to love whomever He wishes. It is you who do not allow God to restrict love and its levels to a particular people because God HAS TO LOVE EVERYONE THE SAME.
"And sovereignty means kingship. A sovereign is a king who is not under tribute to another king, who is not a vassal of an emperor. But not to the Calvinist who make sovereignty mean micromanagement and a sovereign a petty micromanager."
So sovereignty means another does not dictate what you do, right? Otherwise, that would be under another ruler. Yet, you then say that micro-details are not ruled by God, so that they must rule and He must then go with the flow that they create. So small details, and I presume the will of man, is king over your god, no?
"God need not prevent us from having freewill in order to be King. Nor does he need to personally control the weather to be King of the Universe: he can establish laws of nature and let nature handle that for him."
So all of these laws are doing exactly what He wants, or no? If not, they aren't handling nature for Him. They're ruling nature instead of Him. That means He's not really king over nature. These laws are. You can't have it both ways.
"Even above when you claim to believe in infused righteousness, you probably are playing a trick of redefining infused as meaning imputed!"
James, I don't believe your real. I think this is just a trick. No one is this dense. So I'm going to sign off from this conversation, as it is either a case of me throwing pearls before swine or being bamboozled. Your arguments, either way, are ridiculous and purposely ignorant.
"It is you who do not allow God to restrict love and its levels to a particular people because God HAS TO LOVE EVERYONE THE SAME."
ReplyDeleteYou are pulling a Calvinist trick of calling "hate" "love" when you speak of God "loving" the non-elect. I'm not going to play your game. God loves everyone in the sense that he wants everyone to repent because he takes no delight in the death of the sinner as he says in Ezekiel. However, he certainly loves the righteous more in the long term in the sense that the righteous will abide forever and the wicked will not per Psalm 37. He loves everyone the same, in the here and now, and hereafter it changes. Like a legislator/judge who loves everyone in the now by making just laws that give everyone the opportunity to succeed, but who loves the righteous more and the wicked less when they enter his courtroom. And this illustration is essentially perfect since as King God occupies both roles or legislator and judge. No good judge wants people to disobey the law and have to be punished; he wants all to obey and good order to flourish; in that sense he loves all; but once a criminal has committed murder and finds himself before him in court, his love wanes. (Don't pretend you agree, because the difference here is you say God makes the sinner sin, its called predestination; whereas I affirm freewill.)
"So sovereignty means another does not dictate what you do, right? Otherwise, that would be under another ruler. Yet, you then say that micro-details are not ruled by God, so that they must rule and He must then go with the flow that they create. So small details, and I presume the will of man, is king over your god, no?"
In other words, because I say God did not create mere puppets, that means I'm dictating to God. I suppose if God wanted to put on a childish puppet show world for himself he could. But I think its apparent both from experience and Scripture, especially the Old Testament, that he isn't doing that.
"So all of these laws are doing exactly what He wants, or no?"
By "exactly what he wants them to" you are thinking in terms of the cosmic puppetshow view of the world. The laws of nature do what he designed them to do, certainly; they don't disobey like we do. But that doesn't mean he designed them like some kind of FMV sequence in a video game as you would have it.
"If not, they aren't handling nature for Him. They're ruling nature instead of Him. That means He's not really king over nature."
As in he's the Emperor and they are his robotic vassals? The king who doesn't handle every case in every nook and cranny of his realm but allows a governor or duke to hear a few of the small cases, is he no longer king? Or if the Emperor allows a king whom he has conquered to continue as governor so long as he is loyal and pays tribute, is the Emperor no longer emperor?
Most people know nothing about how ancient monarchies worked, or how empires worked. They've not read the parts of the Old Testament that deal with that. They started in Genesis and never finished all the way through Deuteronomy and gave up. So they are easily manipulated by Calvinists with this rhetoric about "sovereignty." But anyone who has read through the whole Old Testament, maybe also Josephus, maybe the books of Maccabees, will be knowledgeable in how an Empire works and not fall for your childish oversimplification of a rather complex form of government.