Did God Orchestrate The Fall For His Glory: Human Freedom Within the Circumference of Sovereingty
Apr 29
This is more of a philosophical wrestling than it is a theological treatise of types. Being a “Calvinist” (of some sorts) for the last 6 plus years was very rewarding. I learned a great deal under that specific theological persuasion. A good deal about myself and others. Especially things such as tolerance, patience and how to debate lovingly. It was also good on how to think philosophically about things especially theology.
One of my greatest struggles with Calvinism and its perspective on Sovereignty were the fall and evil in the world. From a Calvinistic perspective, the belief is that God directly uses evil and preordains such events (while holding the perpetrator responsible) and that God used the fall (preordain) to bring Himself glory.
I no longer believe any of that to be true. Not even remotely true. Now I do believe God used the fall for His glory as we see with the cross, but I can’t fathom the idea of God orchestrating the fall and thus human freedom was one of God’s sovereign acts.
Let me explain a bit more clearly. For love to be love, love has to be a choice. For moral responsibility to be a responsibility the choice and the consequence has to be of the result of the perpetrator, anything less would not be choice nor responsibility. I am not saying that God couldn’t preordain an event and yet hold the person who was involved in the event responsible; however, if that event was sin then God was directly involved in the very thing He hates and sent His Son to neutralize. I can’t believe that anymore.
I do not believe God is involved with the sinful acts of creatures. Satan was not preordained to rebel, he was given a free choice and chose, much like the angels who did not follow in his rebellion chose to surrender. I believe that when God offered the choice to Adam and Eve it was a real choice with real consequences. These consequences lay within the freedom.
I haven’t read any commentary but I am sure that there are different perspecitves on Revelation 13 (I think) which paraphrases as “Christ was slain before the foundation of the world”. I don’t know if this means before the world was formed or in front of. Maybe someone can help with that.
Anyway this does not negate God’s Sovereignty. Sovereignty to me means complete control, not the directing of every affair. Thus the results of anything will always work to God’s favor, He is not limited to human choices however I now believe He responds to such choices, post-choice!
So what do I believe. I believe evil in the world is a direct result of humans giving over the world to Satan which was a choice. Adam was told to rule and subdue and sin forfeited that pure rule and open the door for Satan. Jesus has come and given us the keys and the authority through Him to bring the world back under the rule of God, but this is a choice and until Satan is completely destroyed, this tension/battle will always exist. There is much more to flush out on this issue.
Here’s a good website I just stumbled upon:
http://arminiantoday.blogspot.com/search?q=unlimited+atonement
Seeker,
I am still a limited atonement guy
hot chocolate, the temple that ezekial is shown, is that a pre or post fall construct?
CP,
It is apocolyptic.
That doesn’t matter whether you’re a limited atonement guy, or what. The link that I posted up was a defense of the unlimited atonement position. Too many limited atonement cats, unlike many unlimited atonement cats like me, don’t read the other side of the aisle, to where when they formulate arguments to attack the unlimited atonement side-they only utilize arguments that folks on their side of the aisle (limited atonement) conjure up, as oppose to going to the source.
I dare say that folks who are unlimited atonement, have a better grasp of what your side (limited atonement) believes, more so than what your side of the aisle knows about our side (unlimited atonement).
Regardless of what anyone says, or tries and contorts, configure, or twist into the meaning of scriptures, via their theological presuppositions, Jesus died for everyone, and didn’t foreordain folks to hell, and others to heaven. That is religious snobbery, regardless of how certain folks get blue or red in the face, about the matter-I’m sorry.
When it comes to the view of sovereignty that certain folks hold, then God is the author of every evil act, and every good act, and any act in between. He preordained Jeffrey Dahmer’s actions; the man who threw his 3 month old baby over the bridge last month; Timothy McVeigh’s actions; the rape of that little girl, by those men a coupla months ago in the Carolina states; etc.
That means I should never pray for anything, or request anything from God, because what will be, will be.
Again, I’ve said this before, so say I now this again, and more emphatically, regardless of what any Calvinist reading my words believe, or wants to believe:
Any God that preordains evil, sin, the existence of the devil and demons, folks being possessed by demons, slavers, murderers, rapists, thieves, liars, etc.; isn’t the God of scripture, but is: THE DEVIL!
Any God that purposely preordain folks to hell, regardless of how you twist the scriptures, and some folks to heaven; isn’t the God of scriptures, but is: THE DEVIL!
Any God that tells you that certain spiritual gifts have ceased, and are no longer in existence; isn’t the God of scriptures, but is: THE DEVIL!
Hmmm…so let’s see here-a God that preordains people to hell; preordains every evil act (but I’m suppose to take comfort in the fact that the thing he preordains, he hates; then why PREORDAIN IT?); don’t want people praying to him, in order to effect certain situations; have ceased all spiritual gift activity; and whose sacrifice and atonement on the cross wasn’t enough to save total humanity, but was only meant for a select few in the “frozen chosen club;” who really don’t want us to evangelize and give folks the good news of the gospel, because if folks are going to be saved, they’re going to be saved, regardless of whether some human vessel of God delivers the word or not-is supposed to be the God of scripture? Man please.
Again, only Satan would want you to believe all of these things about the God of the bible, for such teachings come from the adversary. And I’m not surprised that many folks on that side of the aisle is so steeped in scriptures, and so biblically “sound” in their positions, because in order for Satan to pull a mask over the elect’s eyes, he must come with it STRONG!
Full of the word, but full of dead men’s bones at the same time, but they’re so blinded in their religiosity, and self-deluded by their own spiritual snobbery and elitism (e.g. chosen one complex), as well as fake humility-TO WHERE THEY’RE TOO BLIND TO SEE THE MARKS OF SATAN WRITTEN ALL OVER THEIR THEOLOGY.
I know folks reading my words may not like what I’m saying, how I say it, or just me-but I’m sorry, I had to take the gloves off on this one, and not tip-toe around the bank. If you hate me, or condemn me, then so be it.
I had to speak this truth, which none of your reformed theology scripture twisting will ever refute.
Seeker,
It was tongue and cheek
Oh and another thing-many “hyper” Calvinists have even told me to my face, as well as in cyberspace, that my perception of God’s love is really false. I’ve been told that God really doesn’t love everyone, and they will justify this position by using an out of context interpretation of the scripture: the scripture that deals with Jacob and Esau. So from that one scripture, a hold belief system is held, concerning the fact that God only loves some; which implies the loved ones are the ones he preordained to be saved, while the hated ones, who were created for destruction, are the ones he hates, and have hated.
Wow! That sounds like the devil to me, or what the devil would want folks to believe about God’s love.
Trust me, or not-I’ve heard “hyper” Calvinist tell me to my face, or in cyberspace, that this is how the God of scripture rolls.
Now I’m through, unless…
Lionel, I wasn’t necessarily referring to you. But I hear ya.’
Seekerman,
Not only do I believe he loves everyone, I also believe he desires that all be reconciled and has given us the freedom to do such. How is that for a change of pace.
During the Civil Rights movement, Condoleezza’s father, a Presbyterian (Calvinist) minister, would rail against the actions of King, and other Civil Rights leaders, concerning their push for black equality. And remember, they were living in Birmingham, Alabama at the time.
He claimed that what King was doing in Birmingham was against God’s will and so forth. I thank God, that despite what folks may want to think about King, after all of these years-due to revelations concerning his personal life, and spiritual beliefs-he came from a black religious tradition (arminian like Baptist, with an eternal security belief), along with other black religious leaders who were Methodist (Lowery, and Lawson; arminian), Church of Christ (Andrew Young; arminian), and the like, who believed that God still answered prayers, and can still change the course of history and society, based on his SOVEREIGN will; as opposed to being stagnant to the status quo.
I just had to throw that out there.
With all of that said, I don’t believe God will allow man to bring the rulership of this world, back into his (God) hands, via man’s actions. In other words, God isn’t waiting on man to set up an atmosphere that is friendly to his return, and his final destruction of the enemy. I do believe that everything will be consummated when he returns, on his own time; when the saints will be resurrected; Satan destroyed; everything brought under his feet; and a new kingdom set up that will last forever (I don’t believe Satan will be held down for a thousand years then released to tempt folks who thought they were secure in Christ’s kingdom).
Simply put, when Christ returns: PARADISE LOST, WILL BE PARADISE RESTORED.
Seekerman,
I agree that we can’t “usher” in the Kingdom; however, through our obedience the Kingdom of God is brought about.
Lionel,
Do you think that God powerful enough or capable of convincing ALL to obey?
Lionel,
Were you not convinced (drawn in) and still being persuaded (drawing closer) by Christ to more obedience?
Wouldn’t you consider that to be God chastising/judging you because He loves you?
Lionel,
In addition to the last comment:
“Wouldn’t you consider that to be God chastising/judging you because He loves you?”
…Resulting in the crucifying (destroying the flesh/carnality/sin) of the flesh daily by God’s baptism of His Holy Spirit by “fire”?
Which physical baptism signifies and is also referred to “spiritually” in Revelation as the “lake of fire”.
Allah akbar!!!! Jon is about to hijack another thread!
Jon,
1. I don’t undestand your comment in #15
2. I don’t agree with comment 16.
Say Jon can give you folks a break with your interrogations that are always centered on universalism. Let someone breathe in, and come to full maturity in their own belief, before throwing out distracting questions. Lionel will have his hands full with those of the reformed bent, potentially coming at him real hard, without someone who all sides will disagree with (universalism) coming at him from the side.
And let’s say that your view is the right view (universalism), wouldn’t it be good to use discretion, and be subtle and wise, in putting forth your intended agenda? You’re similar to a man who will give a newborn babe a steak, just because it has nutritional value.
On that end, you’re not wise at all, because folks see you coming from a mile away with your hobby horse (universalism) and everything that comes along with it.
Granted, I myself am not subtle, to a great extent. I lay what I believe out there, because for too long, I’ve bitten my tongue, and have always tried to be diplomatic, patient, gracious, and ecumenical with my brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle-to where on occasions I would put aside my arminian beliefs, right onto the back burner, only for the other side to constantly harp on why they’re right in regards to their interpretation of sovereignty, and why I’m wrong.
In other words, it’s a debate between two views that are considered within the “pale of orthodoxy.” Your position isn’t within the “pale of orthodoxy.” No one considers your view within the “pale of orthodoxy,” but heretical. So in essence, you’re an outsider always trying to jam your way into the door, by any means necessary.
If you truly want to draw people in, use the hook of commonality, then proceed from there. You’re always leaving your rear exposed, to where folks instantly know your agenda.
Again, I don’t agree with your views. I believe them to be heretical, and I really shouldn’t give you advice on how to stealthily deliver your views, seeing as how I don’t abide by that practice (my thing is to drop what I believe and take it off of the table, and find compromise; if compromise isn’t available, or reciprocated, then I will unleash how I truly feel about a matter, leaving hardly any stone unturned)-but you should, seeing as how you’re an outsider.
I’m being as graciously kind as possible, in delivering this message to you, seeing as how I’m totally against the false universalist message you preach, so hopefully you will take what I’m giving you-as basic advice on how human beings ought to conduct themselves, in regards to discretion, wisdom and understanding, while looking at the bigger picture.
I’m out of here. You guys have this in-house or outhouse debate (depending on how steep you are in your views). If folks want to reach me directly, hereafter, they can reach me at labrynth@aemail4u.com.
Or I may just peruse this thread to see if someone addresses me. Who knows?
Lionel,
What about #14?
Melvin over at pulpit pimps handled Jon a few years ago really good. Here is a bit of what he wrote:
This is Joe Paden. He has visited before. Usually, he asks a question, some one out there gives him an answer and he asks the question again. Because I am SO gracious, I have decided to post his first comment/question on this thread. And though I don’t expect much in the way of meaningful dialog from him, I will not prejudge.
Brother Mel went on to give Jon a very small platform where he could discuss his views. After people began reducing Jon’s arguments to upsurdity, Melvin just stop posting his comments. I read this blog from off and on for thought provoking discussion and topics and am tired of the Jihad style hijackings every single post. Lionel, why do you continue to post his “questions?” Especially after Hutch posted this:
Hutch { 04.23.10 at 2:26 pm }
WARNING: Jon Paden teaches a doctrine that some call Universalism. Jon adheres to and teaches the idea that nobody will endure a literal eternal conscious torment away from the presence of God and that ultimately everyone will be saved in direct contradiction to the clear teaching contained in the Word of God… He arrives at his position by isolating certain scriptures outside of their proper context and by ignoring numerous scriptures that contradict his position. Jon would have you believe that Lionel and I and others here on Lionel’s blog have failed to answers his questions or deal with the scriptures he throws out, this is far from the truth. Over the past three years Jon’s arguments have been answered and refuted from the scriptures by numerous individuals here and on Lionel’s previous blog. Many including I have concluded that going round and round with Jon regarding the same arguments and scriptures is no longer a good use of time. Jon also makes the accusation that those who believe in the plain teaching of scripture and the very words of Christ Himself regarding the fact that those who die outside of Christ will be eternally seperated from God somehow derive some type of joy from that truth. Nothing could be further from the truth; I derive no joy from knowing that the majority of humanity including members of my family will face a Christless eternity. The truth is that teaching that everyone will eventually be saved and that no one will experience an eternal separation from God is another gospel that gives false hope to those outside of Christ. Instead of debating with Jon, I have decided to save my time by simply posting this warning each time Jon attempts to persuade other to embrace his false teaching. I hold no animus towards Jon and pray that God will grant him repentance unto salvation and that he will turn from propagating his false gospel.
UPDATE: Jon has recently indicated on Lionel’s blog that he also denies the Trinity existence of God, The Eternality of Christ as well as the deity of Christ.
Jon, PLEASE stop.
Again, Melvin from pulpit pimps as he discussed with Jon about Carlton Pearson:
Let’s not play with words. You likely aren’t going to have that many to play with in this thread. Carlton adheres to a form of Universalism and so do you. What ever differences there may be are like differences between a high priced call girl and a street walker. The bottom line: They both distort the purpose, dignity, and sanctity of sex. Likewise, you both cheapen the death of our Lord Jesus Christ and trivialize salvation. But as usual, you begin attempting to fuzz up the discussion.
He then went on to show how Jon plagiarized a comment from another post (he included the link), Jon just cut and pasted it.
Here is the link I’m referring to:
http://www.pulpit-pimps.org/?p=644
All this simply to show that Mr. Paden has a history of this stuff and apparently if one site shuts him down he finds another to spread his poison.
Lionel,
You’re on quite an intellectual/spiritual journey. I pray the Lord guide you safely home. By the grace of God, I’ve never had an intellectual struggle with the doctrines of election, predestination, the sovereignty of God–you know, all these things you’re writing about here! I have struggled deeply with other issues, just not with these. In fact, my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God has helped me immensely through those things which I have struggled (and still do struggle).
I know you are still thinking through these issues, but where you seem to be at right now, in regards to humanity’s “freedom of choice”, really leaves the eternal outcome up-in-the-air. You see, as you describe man’s freedom, it really is anybody’s guess as to who will win in the end–God or Satan–because the outcome depends upon human choice. Theoretically, according to your current belief, all people now living could chosse to reject Christ and, ultimately, be lost. In other words, there exists, in theory, the potential that Christ could have died in vain. There’s no guarantee that any will be saved.
I don’t believe the Bible teaches that at all. The eternal outcome is predicted in Scripture because the outcome is already settled. There’s not a person, not a creature, not a being, not a molecule in all the universe over which ALL-mighty God doesn’t exercise absolute control. I don’t mean that God’s creatures make no choices–they most certainly do–but even those choices come under the parameters of God’s sovereign control (and God, most certainly, knows what we will choose before we make a choice).
One thing, however, that we absolutely canNOT choose: We cannot choose to believe in Christ. Those who are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-2), cannot choose (Dead folk don’t choose!). Unless the Father draws us to Christ (John 6:44), we cannot come to Christ. But, one thing’s for sure: Once God comes after you, He’s going to get you!
BLOG COPS (Top Flight Security)
It’s amazing how so many people other than the blog’s owner try to regulate what comments are posted. I’m glad that the blog’s owner thinks for himself.
Wyeth,
Good discussion my man. Let me tell you also that I am thoroughly enjoying the charity with the discussion. I thought about this in my long commute in this morning. You dudes (no disrespect to my elders) are good brothers and sisters. But with that
……..
1. I revist this doctrine at least a few times a year to see if it stands the litmus test of my own experience, heart and mind. I actually agree that Jesus could have died in vain, well sort of. If there is an allowance that God sent His Son for those whom He know would believe (thus still limited/particular atonement) then I don’t see a problem with my poisition. I know this is what some of the great free will thinkers have come to. But it secures Christ’s sacrifice while also embracing human freedom. I like it, don’t know if it is right, but I do like their perspective.
2. Yeah the Ephesians 2 text along with Titus 3 along with almost every epistle that Paul writes directly or indirectly implies the spiritual death and the awakening of the Spirit as the first work (what you and I would called the Ordo Salutis). That could mean two things though. 1. That all are Spiritually dead but through Christ all get a shot. Or in other words, the Spirit is constantly breathing life but we refuse to respond to such life. An analogy would be like a life guard in a speed boat. The person is dead for sure with no intervention yet the speed boat comes out throughs a lifesaver and the person instead of responding to the lifesaver nose dives to the bottom of the water. Others respond by grabbing on. The life saver is still the source of one’s “salvation” yet it is still human freedom to respond. I can argue that we are all in the middle of the ocean and through Christ’s work there is a boat and a lifesaver that we must respond to.
3. I also don’t believe in pure human freedom. I can say that by scripture. There are times when God directly intervenes (Egypt and Israel) but other times when it is human freedom purely (the Golden Calf). This two are mutually exclusive and one does not negate the other. Also because God “knows” something doesn’t mean God “caused” something. This is where human freedom is a circle within a circle (the cicumference analogy). We do know the end of the story, we can read it, Jesus spoke of it, the problem is the in between is unknown. I do not believe God is directly involved in the rape and mutilation of women in Congo. Does He know? Sure, but because of human freedom, He has given such authority over to man. Can He interrupt? Sure! This is why He is Sovereign. But Sovereignty to me doesn’t mean direct interaction with all events. God can use events for His own glory (Sovereingty) and many time does, especially for His children, but I don’t believe He does all the time.
Lets keep it going man. Thanks for interacting.
“I do not believe God is directly involved in the rape and mutilation of women in Congo. Does He know? Sure, but because of human freedom, He has given such authority over to man. Can He interrupt? Sure! This is why He is Sovereign. But Sovereignty to me doesn’t mean direct interaction with all events. God can use events for His own glory (Sovereingty) and many time does, especially for His children, but I don’t believe He does all the time.”
Great points. Again, folks who don’t want God to be viewed as a failure, will become lazy in their grasp of God’s mysterious ways, and will try to help God out by saying that he preordains everything- SO THERE!
Yeah, yeah, a little girl was raped in the Congo, but that doesn’t mean God is weak, and can’t impart his sovereign will into the situation for he has: WHY DO YOU THINK THE LITTLE GIRL IN THE CONGO WAS RAPED? It was God’s WILL, people.
Oh sure, in our eyes, that was a brutal act, and how can a merciful God allow such an act; let alone PREORDAIN such an act, but you see, you will be viewing God from man’s eyes, as oppose to God’s. Remember, God loves some folks, and hates some folks. This little girl from the Congo was raped and killed, because it displays just how sovereign and powerful God is. I mean, he takes no prisoners. And you have to believe that good will come of it, even though it may not come, or be there, simply because, well-GOD IS GOD, AND HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO.
Haven’t you heard-HE’S SOVEREIGN, THEREFORE HE PREORDAINED MASS KILLINGS, RAPES, MURDERS, DEVIL AND DEMONS, THE EXISTENCE OF SIN, PEDOPHILIA, NECROMANCY, WITCHCRAFT, VOODOO, SATANISM, HITLER’S ACTIONS, POL POT’S ACTIONS, IDI AMIN’S ACTIONS, 9/11, THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING, TEMPTATIONS (the only reason why humans are blamed for their own temptations, is because the book says so), FOLKS GOING TO HEAVEN AND HELL, AND LASTLY (drumroll): me being saved…
So you see, God is in control, ya’ dig? I am saved, because he came to me, making me one of the frozen chosen, Jesus Love You members, and that’s all that really matters to me, to hades with everyone else-when all boils down to it.
What a mighty dev…I mean god we serve…
Seeker,
I don’t believe that is God’s will, the reason being is that God HATES such acts of ruthlesness, it goes against His nature for it to be His will. So I disagree.
Lionel, hopefully you caught the sarcasm…
Lionel and Seekerman,
Will God’s “will” be done?
Or are there some “wills” that He cannot accomplish?
There are some wills He forfeited, for example His will was that Adam and Eve replinish the earth, that was not accomplished with thos orignially designated to the task.
Seeker,
I did not but thank you for the chuckle and I agree. Elaborate a bit please.
Jon, step off, and distract other folks please. Remember the swine analogy?
Lionel, how can I elaborate more?
Lionel,
But Adam and Eve were fruitful and caused multiplication as God willed. Am I wrong in this understanding?
What about His will to reconcile all things through Christ?
Do you believe that man through free will can overcome God’s power to reconcile?
Seekerman,
Thought you may have some good insight into the questions I asked. I have heard people explain that God has two types of wills. Wanted to get your opinion on it. But based on your response to me I will probably no longer address you in the future.
Seekerman,
How do you think this fits into the sovereignty and God’s will discussion?
Jon,
1. Actually they did not. They were to work in the garden and take it eastward, they were banished from that garden. They did become successful in populating but not replinishing.
2. This will be accomplished, so no man can not interrupt this, though we define this radically different.
3. See number 2.
Lionel,
Thanks for your sincere response.
Predestination – Free Will – Hmmm?
A topic that has caused problems and divisions for many believers.
Can’t we find scriptures that point to both?
Hmmm? Just wondering…
Do Calvinists and Armenians really believe what they teach?
Because, it seems that those who believe it’s “either – or,”
and only see one option, have some questions to overcome.
1 – If “Predestination” is the only correct option
and an adversary/brother believes in,
defends and teaches “Free Will:”
Then; Wasn’t it God who “Predestined” them
to believe in “Free Will?”
For how could they believe in “Free Will” unless
our sovereign God “Predestined” them to believe in “Free Will?”
2 – If “Free Will” is the only correct option
and an adversary/brother believes in,
defends and teaches “Predestination:”
Then, Wasn’t it God who gave them a “Free Will”
and liberty to choose “Predestination?”
For how could they believe in “Predestination”
unless God gave them a “Free Will”
and liberty to choose “Predestination?”
So where is the argument?
Now I can agree with my adversary quickly.
When I repeat scriptures that talk about
“Free Will” and choosing, (there are quite a few)
and I get corrected by a Calvinist, I just agree an admit…
Gee, I must have been “predestined” to believe in “Free Will.”
When Arminius preached, people realized,
they could choose to follow Christ.
When Calvin preached, people realized,
they were chosen to follow Christ.
And why do folks want to identify with any man or doctrine?
Why do they lift up and defend Calvin and HIS doctrine?
Why do they lift up and defend Arminius and HIS doctrine?
Why doesn’t Jesus and HIS doctrine have the preeminence?
Why isn’t Jesus being lifted up?
Why isn’t Jesus enough?
Peace…
In other words Lionel, the logical conclusion of Calvinism-which is its seamiest and ugliest side-is the sort of fatalism I’ve outlined, when it comes to their view of God’s sovereignty. In other words, the deeds and actions I’ve listed, are the net effect of a God who administers his sovereignty, based on how John Calvin saw it.
Of course, only the good things are highlighted and promoted, as it relates to God loving you, and not those other folks; God dying for you, and not those other folks; because they were dead in their trespasses and sins, therefore they deserve to die and go to hell. But the hardcore reality and flip side is, that God didn’t provide these people a way out, or a solid chance, or fair shot, because he didn’t die or provide atonement for them, anyway-just you, and not those folks down there, somewhere over there.
Why? Because it was pre-ordained that way, and if it was preordained that way, and if God preordains everything, because that’s what “sovereignty” means, in relations to who God is-then every foul and sinful action that has taken place on this earth, from the beginning of the Fall, until now, God has not only allowed it, BUT PREORDAINED IT. Again this is the logical conclusion of this interpretation of “sovereignty.”
Oh, but I’m told, that even though God preordained Sharon Tate’s butchering at the hands of the Manson followers, he nevertheless hates the act, because it goes against his “nature,” for he is a righteous and holy God. Which begs the question then, if your God is so righteous and holy-WHY PRAY TELL, DID HE ORDAIN THE BUTCHERING OF SHARON TATE AT THE HANDS OF THE MANSON FOLLOWERS, OR MANSON FOLLOWER?
I see, I see, I’m suppose to think of God as being righteous and holy-just because he says it, and so does the book, right?
I’m sorry, but I smell SATAN’s hands all over this concept. This isn’t to say that folks who hold to this belief are devil worshippers, and satanists, for I believe there are true believers who hold this view, genuinely, but yet are righteously redeemed.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that God (and yes Jesus is God, despite what some folks on here want to believe to the contrary) is sovereign, but this sovereignty is an ATTRIBUTE of God, not his essence: which is LOVE.
I have no more to say on the matter.
Lionel,
How do you then define “reconciliation”?
I would agree with the following definition:
reconcile – to make friendly, to settle a quarrel
Jon, I tried not to be rude and come off mean, but again, your ultimate goal is to insert that unbiblical “universalism” into the discussion, whereas I’m focusing in on something else. You ought to have used discretion and respected that reality, as opposed to trying to find avenues of proselytization-at least with me. If Lionel starts a thread dealing with such an issue, in another thread, I will oblige then, but until then, at least with me, back off, and step off, for I’m entangled with another issue at hand.
At times, you can be similiar to a pesky fly, buzzing over the heads of players at a poker game.
Seekerman,
The more you comment the more you seem to expose your immaturity.
No Jon, it’s not immaturity, but a mature man who has your number. Again, discretion is the key, and just because you have a right to say, or do something, doesn’t make it the right thing to do, at that moment. I discern that you’re much older than I am, and for you not to have realized this, at your age, not only displays a serious character flaw, but a lack of maturity on your part.
I’ve already set the parameters in a previous post, as it relates to my dealings with you, but obviously it just went right over your head. Again, this highlights a serious character flaw, as well as lack of maturity.
Remember, you and I wouldn’t have this present discussion, if you wouldn’t have addressed me first. So just chill, be mature, and move on.
Jon,
It was an accounting term. It can also mean to set things straight or bring into agreement. For example in accounting we reconcile our accounts. Sometimes this means that things we thought we had we don’t and thus it must be written off. This is not unsual in Roman thought as “settling” an account means taking a loss at times.
God will reconcile which means some things (though He would wish so) will be lost.
And no Jon, the more I comment, will not expose this supposed immaturity on my part, for your own saying this, because I admonished you, and you didn’t like it. So please, step off with your auto suggestion, to where you’re trying to convince me, others, and lastly yourself, about this immaturity thing, and begin looking in the mirror at yourself.
I meant to say in the first sentence of the above paragraph:
“And no Jon, the more I comment, will not expose this supposed immaturity on my part, for your ONLY saying this, because I admonished you, and you didn’t like it.”
I am simply reading this time and will not comment. Good post!
This is a good link that provides information on unlimited atonement:
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Atonement.html