The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, criticizes R. C. Sproul and the Bible’s teaching on “God’s Effectual Grace” and calls it “rape”. and "forced love" and says things like "cruel Calvinist Deity".
The very Biblical and Reformed teaching of God’s effectual grace, where He internally calls, draws, and changes the sinner, is anything but rape. God’s effectual calling is sweet love, grace, and joy. Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, “rape” or “spiritual rape”. Every truly born-again person who loves Jesus only loves Jesus because He first loved them, and all true regenerate believers are happy that God saved them and changed their stubborn heart and blind mind and rebellious wills. A rape victim is filled with disgust and shame and bitterness, and many times anger and hatred; but a Christian has a sweet love and gratefulness that God chose to change their hearts and fill them with His love. So the analogy breaks down immediately upon thinking about it a little.
The Grandverbalizer19 does not seem willing to acknowledge that calling God's loving, effectual grace as "rape" is totally wrong and offensive. In Islam, there is also a strong doctrine of Allah’s Sovereignty.
Our Muslim friend should see this, because he writes and prays at the end of many of his posts, "May Allah open the hearts . . . " etc.
Although Muslims deny that Allah does any injustice, it does seem like that Allah in Islam can sin and lie and is at least able to do wrong if he wanted to. There is a tradition where Allah says he has commanded that oppression or injustice is unlawful for himself!
“Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: My servants, I have made oppression unlawful for Me and unlawful for you, so do not commit oppression against one another.” Sahih Al Muslim Book 032, Number 6246
This Sovereignty of Allah, who seems to be able to sin and does deceive, is a much darker kind of Sovereignty than Calvinism. Calvinism is not really dark at all, but it seems that way to people who don’t understand it and refuse to take the time to understand what it actually teaches. Predestination is darker in Islam, because Allah actually does the evil and sins; Allah is deceptive (Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:22) and proud (Al Motakabir – “the proud one” - Surah 59:23) and Al Jabbar (59:23) (“the one who forces”; “a tyrant”, “a dictator”; usually translated “Almighty” or “the irresistible”.)
Muslims have also debated among themselves over Allah’s Sovereignty and human responsibility and the freedom of the will. Islam does not teach that human will is in bondage to sin (as the Bible does – John 8:34; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 8:7, John 8:43); but rather that humans have the moral ability and power to choose good over evil, given the right information and guidance. The different Islamic views of Allah’s sovereignty are seen in the different theologies of the Jabbarites, the Ash’arites, the Qadarites, and the Mu’tazilites, which is too much for this article. Do a google search and see if you can understand the details of these different Islamic views.
In Christianity, God does not have to command Himself to be good or loving or just or forbid Himself from being unjust. He is just and good and loving because it is His nature.
The God of the Bible, the Triune God; His effective grace in drawing and changing the sinner is similar in that sense that just as the Muslim prays for Allah to open hearts; we also pray that the God of the Bible, would open sinful hearts. (Acts 16:14; John 6:44; 65) The human heart is evil and hard until God opens it and changes it and replaces it with a soft, willing, and humble, moldable heart. (Ezekiel 36:26-27) In the Islamic view, the human heart is basically good and can choose to be good (Surah 30:30); in Christianity, the human heart is not able to choose good, until God opens it by changing it. (Acts 16:14; John 6:44, 65; see also Luke 24:45) I am glad God effectually and lovingly changed my stubborn, rebellious will! “to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (I Corinthians 1:24) The atonement at the cross of Christ is foolishness and a stumbling block to the unregenerate. (v. 23)
What is the difference between Allah’s Sovereignty in Islam and God’s Sovereignty in the Bible?
God's grace and love shown in the incarnation and atonement and the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart are the differences in the Christian system so that all the glory goes to Him; whereas in the Islamic system the difference seems to be the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way, so practically, man can boast in the Islamic system. But in the Christian system, man cannot boast. Ephesians 2:1-10; I Corinthians 1:26-31 Another difference is the capricious nature of Allah, “Ensh’allah”, “if Allah wills, even if I do all of the law perfectly, he can still send me to the hellfire.”
But we have the promise of eternal life in the Bible, if we are truly born again, by repentance and faith in Christ. (I John 5:13; John 5:24; Mark 1:15; John 20:30-31; John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31)
However, Muslims are never assured of their salvation (or going to paradise) - it is all "Inshallah", even if one is perfect in following the straight path, only dying in Jihad is the only guarantee of paradise.
Do you see how this belief can cause the Jihadists Muslims to do the things they do, when there are all these commands to obey the law, and yet, there is no assurance of God's love and acceptance? The guilt within them, because deep down they know they are sinners, causes some to go on suicide missions like the 9-11-01 terrorists and other Jihad movements all over the world.
The main point is that you cannot accuse Calvinism of something it does not believe in.
God cannot sin or do anything against His nature; whereas in Islam, the will of Allah is above His nature. In fact, one cannot really speak of Allah as a “He”. Calling Allah, “he”, in a Muslim’s point of view, implies that Allah is male, and that is blasphemy in Islam. In 1994, on a street in Istanbul, I even had a Turkish neighbor tell me one time, “Allah is not “He”, Allah do not have penis; Allah is “it”! (I realize that is street level theology and quite crude, but the guy really said that. It is amazing the concrete and literalistic thinking in the mind of many Muslims.) Many Muslim theologians say that one cannot think about Allah’s nature; just obey His rules. The goal in Islam is not to know God (see John 17:3) or be conformed to holy character on the inside (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Cor. 3:16-18; Romans 12:1-2), but the goal in Islam is just to obey the rules, the law, the Sharia. Islam is “Pelagianism on steroids”; with no internal power or relationship with the Holy Spirit to obey God and be pure. It cannot create a just and holy society because it cannot change hearts.
The Westminister Confession of Faith states:
God's sovereign decrees
1. Do NOT make God the author of sin (because God is holy and pure and without sin always; see Titus 1:2, Romans 9:14; I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; Genesis 18:25; Isaiah 6; I Peter 1:15-16; Heb. 6:18; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; Psalm 85:10; 89:14; 92:15)
2. Do NOT do violence to the will of the creature - that is, there is no force or rape; rather God lovingly changes the will and heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; And God is continuing to change us in progressive sanctification and holiness, conforming us to His image (Romans 8:28-29) and He uses commands and exhortations as means of growing in this grace. Colossians 3:1-17; Romans chapters 6, 7, 8; Galatians 5:13-26) so that a person loves God and embraces Him - a true believer receives Jesus as Lord, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, The doctrine of the Trinitas Unitas, and the doctrines of the cross, the resurrection, etc. "My Sheep hear My voice" John 10:27-30
The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”
"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]" (my emphasis)
See:
The Westminster Confession of Faith on God's Decree
See also, The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
Continued. Part 2 is here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
81 comments:
I'd note that this Mohammedan was all nicey-nice over at Articuli Fidei when Waltz made himself a doormat for this enemy of the faith. But see how he now unfurls his true colors.
Indeed, the Grandverbalizer19 is very aggressive against the Bible and Christianity at his own blog. Sometimes he can be fair; but calling someone a liar and dishonest, when it is a matter of disagreement is not right. Also, he adds lots of ad hominem and judgmental assertions; and lots of "guilt by association" type argumentation.
GV19 has posted two recent posts that are good and much more "fair and balanced" in actually rebuking other Muslims; so I will give him credit where credit is due.
For David Waltz – I do pray for you! Feel free to comment on what I write next:
I sincerely hope and pray that God will give David Waltz grace to fully trust the Lord and His word, the Scriptures over wavering over reading so many books and interpretations in historical theology. (David – “the excessive reading of many books is exhausting” (Ecclesiastes 12:13) I am glad he left the Roman Catholic Church; but I think he still struggles with issues that come from his Jehovah's Witness background and so, as a result, seems to have fresh doubts about the Trinity and Deity of Christ as defined by the 4 ecumenical councils; is open to ongoing revelation and development of doctrine, maybe open to Mormonism (?)(by his positive take on the possibility of Mormonism and us as "little gods" in Irenaeus and other ECFs), and openness to Islam seem to be possible legitimate forms of development of doctrine in his mind; at least that is what it honestly seems like to me.
Someone said, "By always being open to all possibilities, we never come to a decision."
David W. – certainly feel free to comment or correct my analysis of your current struggle.
Ken, I think you are referring in the middle of your comment to the Ecclesiastes 12:12b verse.
NIV translation, "Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body." I only mention it because others may want to look it up.
Did I guess your verse correctly?
Helpfully,
Rob.
Thank you Rob,
You are correct, it is Ecclesiastes 12:12 b.
Thanks for correcting me.
Hi Ken,
I should be in bed, but I just could not get to sleep, so I thought I would surf the internet for a bit…
There were no responses to my recent combox comments at AF, so I thought I would check in on the BA blog, and saw your new thread. Would like to make a few comments now, but will probably add more after a good night’s sleep; you wrote:
>>The very Biblical and Reformed teaching of God’s effectual grace, where He internally calls, draws, and changes the sinner, is anything but rape. God’s effectual calling is sweet love, grace, and joy. Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, “rape” or “spiritual rape”. Every truly born-again person who loves Jesus only loves Jesus because He first loved them, and all true regenerate believers are happy that God saved them and changed their stubborn heart and blind mind and rebellious wills. A rape victim is filled with disgust and shame and bitterness, and many times anger and hatred; but a Christian has a sweet love and gratefulness that God chose to change their hearts and fill them with His love. So the analogy breaks down immediately upon thinking about it a little.>>
Me: I personally do not like the term “rape” for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love”.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
In the combox you wrote:
>>For David Waltz – I do pray for you! Feel free to comment on what I write next:
I sincerely hope and pray that God will give David Waltz grace to fully trust the Lord and His word, the Scriptures over wavering over reading so many books and interpretations in historical theology. (David – “the excessive reading of many books is exhausting” (Ecclesiastes 12:13)>>
Me: Thank you Ken, I sincerely appreciate your prayers and concerns. As for my trusting in “the Lord and His word”, I do trust in Him, and accept fully the same 66 books and epistles that you do.
>>I am glad he left the Roman Catholic Church; but I think he still struggles with issues that come from his Jehovah's Witness background and so, as a result, seems to have fresh doubts about the Trinity and Deity of Christ as defined by the 4 ecumenical councils; is open to ongoing revelation and development of doctrine, maybe open to Mormonism (?)(by his positive take on the possibility of Mormonism and us as "little gods" in Irenaeus and other ECFs), and openness to Islam seem to be possible legitimate forms of development of doctrine in his mind; at least that is what it honestly seems like to me.>>
Me: Much of my current “struggles” stem from the incredible diversity of thought that exists among those Christians who embrace the doctrine of sola scriptura. My recent thread, A “Reformed civil war”, unveils a certain deficiency that sure seems to be inherent in any sola scriptura paradigm.
>>Someone said, "By always being open to all possibilities, we never come to a decision.">>
Me: For the record, I am not “open to all possibilities”.
>>David W. – certainly feel free to comment or correct my analysis of your current struggle.>>
Me: Thanks much Ken, and I extend the same to you, my dear brother in Christ…
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz wrote:
". . . occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love”.
If left alone, the human will with no power to choose good, chooses evil and rebellion and hatred against God.
It seems Esau is an example who wanted the blessing of repentance, but could not repent - no moral ability - Heb. 12:17 - but he longed for it with tears.
The human will does choose God, after it has been regenerated and opened and freed so that it can choose. So we do choice, but we are won over so that God's effectual grace wins, and it is sweet and love and pure.
did you read the whole article ? both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist confession of Faith 1689 say "no violence is done to the will" -
Would an alcoholic who longs to be free, who is addicted and cannot control himself want God to come in and change him?
Does someone who is addicted to pornography and sees their sin long for God to come inside of them and change them?
Does a so called "ADD" (attention deficit Disorder) person long to get his chemicals and wires cleared up so he can concentrate and focus?
Does a blind person appreciate being healed of their blindness?
Think of many kinds of addictive and destructive tendencies and sinful behaviors that people long to be free of -- gluttony, laziness, homosexuality, etc.
"Forced love" is not right either; it communicates something wrong; effectual grace is not "against the will", but rather changes the will so that the new will chooses God; the will is changed and then the will freely chooses God and loves God because first choose them and freed their will so that they could repent and believe.
A dead person (Ephesians 2:1-3) at the bottom of the ocean is happy that someone dove in and saved them and breathed new life into them and got to live. (Ephesians 2:4-10)
But God, being rich in love and mercy made us alive . . . v. 4ff
Amazing love!
David,
You are right on one thing, I should not have written "open to all possibilities", but rather "open to too many possibilities" like continuing revelation after the canon has been closed, Islam, and Mormonism; and questioning doctrines like the Deity of Christ and Trinity.
Those things are clear within all groups who believe in Sola Scriptura, right?
one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—
No; that was one of my main points, that regeneration is not against the will; but it first frees and opens and changes the will, so that the new person freely and willing chooses the good - chooses to repent and believe and trust Christ - being enthralled and captivated by true joy and happiness and rapture of true love, the love of God.
David Waltz said...
"Me: I personally do not like the term 'rape' for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is 'a forced love'."
Everyday we have patients wheeled into the ER who can't give informed consent. It maybe because they are comatose, or high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain.
So the ER physicians act on their behalf when the patient is unable to act in his own best interests.
Do you think ER physicians should be prosecuted for "rape" when they intervene to save someone who is not in his right mind, who is unable to make decisions for himself in his current diminished condition?
What about a spouse or grown child who has to care for a senile parent or husband or wife. Should the caregiver be prosecuted for rape?
Parents often make decisions for young children, against their will, to protect them from harm. Should caring parents be prosecuted for "rape"?
It's a remarkably revealing and twisted view of saving grace to cast it in such invidious terms.
Thanks Steve, those are even better illustrations than mine.
good job.
"The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, criticizes R. C. Sproul and the Bible’s teaching on “God’s Effectual Grace” and calls it “rape”. and "forced love" and says things like "cruel Calvinist Deity".2
It is indeed amazing that some Muslim would have the nerve to talk about the cruelty of Calvinist theology - as Allah is perhaps the most PROUDLY malevolent deity ever depicted, outside Satanist cults.
When one thinks of it, Muslims really do have the "worst of both worlds" - they have a deity that predestinates in a totally despotic manner, but still NO real certainty of salvation whatsover!
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/abu_bakr_fear.html
However, Abu Bakr knew his god too well and was aware that such a promise was pretty much meaningless since Allah cannot be trusted seeing that he boasts of being the greatest deceiver of them all:
But they (the Jews) schemed/connived/used deceit (Wa-makaroo), and Allah schemed/connived/used deceit, for Allah is the best of deceivers (wa-makara Allahu wa-Allahu khayru al-makireena)! S. 3:54; cf. 8:30
...
This is why Abu Bakr wept over not knowing whether he was truly saved or not:
“Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’” (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99; bold and italic emphasis ours)
Islamic god is really all that Calvinist God has been accused of being:
http://www.archive.org/details/religionofcresce00tisd
p. 66
"A Muhammadan tradition states that when God showed Adam the spirits of his descendants as yet unborn, He divided them into two bands, ranking on Adam's right hand and one on left.
Of those on the right God said, "These are for Paradise, and I care not;" while of the unfortunate shades on the left-hand side the Deity, who is so often in the Qu'ran termed "the Merciful, the Gracious," uttered these fearful words, "These are for hell-fire, and I care not.""
Steve,
The "making a choice for someone who's not in their right mind and can't give informed consent" illustration addresses the "rape" charge very well.
On the other hand, it depends on painting the unregenerate as "unable to make decisions for himself in his current diminished condition". Doesn't your analogy depend on stripping the unregenerate of culpability?
Jugulum said...
Steve,
The "making a choice for someone who's not in their right mind and can't give informed consent" illustration addresses the "rape" charge very well.
On the other hand, it depends on painting the unregenerate as "unable to make decisions for himself in his current diminished condition". Doesn't your analogy depend on stripping the unregenerate of culpability?
****************************
i) Different analogies illustrate different principles, depending on the issue. I was addressing the accusation (a la Waltz) that acting on behalf of a second party who has "no choice in the matter" is equivalent to rape.
ii) As to your question, it's quite possible for somebody in a condition of diminished responsibility to be responsible for his condition. Given his condition, he may not be directly responsible for his subsequent actions, yet he can be fully responsible for the circumstances resulting in that condition, and, by extension, the consequences of those precipitating circumstances.
A drunk driver who kills a pedestrian is a paradigm case.
Keep in mind that "diminished responsibility" is also a term of art.
iii) In addition, it would only strip the agent of culpability if libertarian freedom is a precondition of culpability. But, as you know, that's a hotly contested issue.
iv) Apropos (iii), the unregenerate *do* make choices. They form intentions and act on their intentions.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Wow! Can sure feel the love and grace over here! Steve first off I'm not a Mohammedan. Just so you know that terminology is 100 plus years out dated. So I just needed to bring you up to speed.
Now let's disect your very horrible analogy.
You said,
"Everyday we have patients wheeled into the ER who can't give informed consent. It maybe because they are comatose, or high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain.
So the ER physicians act on their behalf when the patient is unable to act in his own best interests."
There is major flaws with this.
1) It assumes that people who go to the hospital and give consent do so of their own free will and volition outside of the will of God. To admit this is pantheism and shirk-association of partners with God.
2) Your deity set up the whole scenario to begin with! Don't try and play nice. The analogy we are looking at is someone who unleashes a virus upon humanity and than introduces the cure and says to everyone see how great I am that I have stepped in and given vacinations to people so far gone out of their mind that they cannot speak of their own.
3) The nail in the coffin is this. What would you say of Physicians who upon seeing the sick, crippled and dying capraciously upon their own whim chose which ones they would save and which they would not?
Dunno about you but those staff would be fired in a heart beat in my hospital~
Use of terminology 'Mohammedan'-fail.
Horrible analogy- Epic Fail.
thegrandverbalizer19 said...
“Wow! Can sure feel the love and grace over here!”
You set the tone with your incendiary “rape” analogy.
“Steve first off I'm not a Mohammedan. Just so you know that terminology is 100 plus years out dated. So I just needed to bring you up to speed.”
I don’t capitulate to politically correct usage.
“Mohammedan” is accurate. You don’t follow the true God. Rather, you worship the projection of a false prophet.
“There is major flaws with this. 1) It assumes that people who go to the hospital and give consent do so of their own free will and volition outside of the will of God. To admit this is pantheism and shirk-association of partners with God.”
i) It makes no such assumption. I wasn’t contrasting those who give consent with those who don’t. I was simply responding to Waltz’ defamatory comparison between rape and acting on behalf of a second party without his consent.
ii) As a Calvinist, I don’t think any man either can or does act outside the will (i.e. decree) of God.
“2) Your deity set up the whole scenario to begin with! Don't try and play nice.”
i) That’s one of the things which makes him God. The Creator of the world.
ii) Do you think that Allah didn’t set up the whole scenario to begin with?
“The analogy we are looking at is someone who unleashes a virus upon humanity and than introduces the cure and says to everyone see how great I am that I have stepped in and given vacinations to people so far gone out of their mind that they cannot speak of their own.”
i) Unless you think natural and moral evils take place outside the will of Allah, you’re in the same boat.
ii) The Fall was an evil event, considered in isolation. However, the Fall also faciliates various greater, incommensurable, and second-order goods.
Apart from the Fall, you and I wouldn’t be here. If Adam never fell, the genealogy of man would branch off in a very different direction. Different human beings would take our place. So there are tradeoffs. A fallen world comes at a cost, but it also has compensatory benefits which are unobtainable in an unfallen world.
“The nail in the coffin is this. What would you say of Physicians who upon seeing the sick, crippled and dying capraciously upon their own whim chose which ones they would save and which they would not?”
i) Since the God of biblical Calvinism doesn’t act “capriciously” on a “whim,” you’re burning a straw man.
To the contrary, he acts rationally, purposefully, and justly.
If you think otherwise, then you need to present an actual argument. Tendentious adjectives won’t do the trick.
ii) If the patient was a suicide bomber (you know, the kind that your religion multiplies like rabbits), then I’d commend the physician for letting him die of his wounds while tending to the needs of his victims.
thegrandverbalizer19 said...
“Well steve my boy, I set no tone that was not already given by your Christian brethern.”
Well, my boy. Ken, for one, is the very model of the Christian gentleman, so if you were truly calibrating your tone to match the tone of my Christian brethren, then you should take a cue from Ken. It’s his post.
“Steve please do not give such conflicting messages. I am seeing a man desperately trying to flash 'lion' but all I am seeing are feathers?”
And all I’m seeing are bull feathers from the bull verbalizer. But do continue.
“So Adam and Eve sinned with the decree of Allah?”
i) If by “Allah” you mean the Mohammedan deity, then they didn’t sin by his decree since Allah (in that sense) is a nonentity.
ii) But if you’re using “Allah” as simply the Arabic name for God, as Arab Christians do, then, yes, God decreed the Fall.
“If there are 'second-order goods' pray do tell what are the first-order goods?”
The unfallen world.
“*Ahem* How does that help establish your original analogy again? So you capitulate very good!”
It’s irrelevant to my original analogy. I was merely responding to your irrelevant objection.
“Such as? For example would we be aware that one of Allah's attributes is the forgiver?”
One can’t experience the grace of God in a sinless world. So that’s an example of a second-order good.
“Really? Than let's see some Sola Scriptura in action shall we. Textual evidence please?”
Take Rom 9:17,22-23, where God gives an underlying rationale for election and reprobation.
“What you see as tendentious I see is objective, especially in the light of such sloppy analogy.”
You’ve given us your subjective assertion in lieu of any objective argument.
“I'll take this tired statement of yours and put it up on my shelf; with all the others made by Caucasian males over the age of 50;whom see a world they once controlled slowly giving way to a world of colour.”
The Mideast was Christian long before it was overrun by the Saracens. Do you classify Arab Christians as “Caucasians”?
And why do Mohammedans enslave and murder Black African Christians if they cherish peoples of colour?
You can also spare me the faux radical chic line about “males.” Islam is the most male chauvinistic religion on earth. A religion by and for men. A religion which celebrates the most brutal forms of misogyny while sanctioning male libertinism to a fare-thee-well.
Steve wrote:
"Islam is the most male chauvinistic religion on earth. A religion by and for men."
This is true.
The Majority of dwellers in hell are women, according to many of the Sahih Hadith traditions of Muhammad:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.028
Hello Steve,
Up to your usual caustic and misrepresenting behavior I see; you wrote:
>>i) Different analogies illustrate different principles, depending on the issue. I was addressing the accusation (a la Waltz) that acting on behalf of a second party who has "no choice in the matter" is equivalent to rape.>>
And a bit later:
>>i) It makes no such assumption. I wasn’t contrasting those who give consent with those who don’t. I was simply responding to Waltz’ defamatory comparison between rape and acting on behalf of a second party without his consent.>>
Me: You have (and I suspect with a dark, dubious and premeditated purpose in mind) implied that I have accused the Reformed position on soteriology as “rape”; I did not do so, and I do not believe such. All I said is that I “understand” the position of those who actually do so—understanding another position is not an endorsement (well, except to those who seem to relish in misrepresenting others for personal pleasure).
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz said...
"Up to your usual caustic and misrepresenting behavior I see...You have (and I suspect with a dark, dubious and premeditated purpose in mind) implied that I have accused the Reformed position on soteriology as 'rape'; I did not do so, and I do not believe such. All I said is that I 'understand' the position of those who actually do so—understanding another position is not an endorsement (well, except to those who seem to relish in misrepresenting others for personal pleasure)."
Thanks for illustrating your capacity for dissimulation. What you've now done is to misrepresent your original statement. But this is what you originally said–this is what I responded to:
"I personally do not like the term 'rape' for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love."
That goes well beyond mere intellectual understanding of the objection. Rather, that expresses sympathy with the objection. "That...despite protestations, when one breaks [it] down...one is left with the fact...as such, there is some truth in the claim it is 'a forced love.'"
So you object to the rhetoric of "rape," but not the underlying charge.
When you left the church of Rome, I kept my silence. I gave you your space.
It was my hope that you might be leaving error for truth, rather than leaving one error for yet another error.
But, no, one of your first moves was to make yourself a doormat for Islam–even though Islam has been the sworn enemy of the Christian faith since its inception.
You’re not a truth-seeker, David. You’re a social butterfly who flits from one pretty flower to another. For you, it’s a noncommittal exercise in comparative religion, like Huston Smith. You’re tolerant of everything except commitment. The consummate syncretist. “Fair” to all and faithful to none.
Steve wrote: (to David Waltz)
You’re tolerant of everything except commitment.
Steve, I commented on this at David's blog and article on Philippians 2.
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/07/philippians-26-11-it-this-passage-clear.html
I think you are right.
I wrote to David Waltz:
Make the commitment; come to Christ fully. Steve Hayes may be blunt and “in your face” in interacting with you, but he seems to be right on this, that you are so open to so many possibilities and religions that you never make the commitment.
A true Christian does not doubt the Deity of Christ. "My Sheep Hear My voice". John 10:27-30 "I and the Father are one"
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
What a beautiful day it was today. The sky was so blue and clear and had a great talk with an Imam today. Al hamdulillah!
I said it before and I'll say it again you people have no shame.
Have you ever happened to notice David say things like I have not slept well tonight?
You people have poor attention to detail and frankly don't show humanity to other people.
Frankly speaking not to insult David but he's much too intelligent for a religion like Christianity.
I mean at the end of the day how many oxymoron's can a guy stomach?
Eternally-begotten....
Pre-existent....
GodMan.....
Oh the New Testament is true in the 'Original copies'. Give it up already people! Hahaha.
I mean don't get me wrong if an English teacher came in here he or she would be impressed with you Reformed Christians. Some of the best English syntax grammar and verbiage this side of the Atlantic.
Yet when it comes to logic and theology. Epic fail.
Any who moving right along...
steve "God decreed the Fall."
ispo facto... God decreed man to sin.
Another great capitulation by you! Keep it up!
Now I can keep giving more insight to your poor analogical reasoning but that's no fun.
You want to pretend to be a different order of cat so let's make this more interesting.
I asked,
“If there are 'second-order goods' pray do tell what are the first-order goods?”
You replied,
The unfallen world.
Now back up and rethink what you said here:
ii) The Fall was an evil event, CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION. However, the Fall also faciliates various greater, incommensurable, and second-order goods.
The unfallen world is a 1st order good in your view.
Since you are using the language of a failed economic model that reminds one of a man riding around in an car; tank on E, but presses on as if there is a full tank of gas. So let me use the language of your cherished and failed economic model.
Economic goods that directly satisfy human wants or desires,
such as food, clothes, pictures, etc.; -- called also
consumption goods, or goods of the first order, and
opposed to producer's goods.
A human desire is curiosity. A need a thirst a desire for knowledge.
Seems that Capitalism wouldn't be an enemy of knowledge and innovation would it?
But for your theology your deity imbues an innocent baby with this trait and than turns around and punishes him when he gets duped by a crafty serpent that your deity was supposedly aware was in the premises?
Capitalism is grateful for the sins of Adam? Sinister indeed.
continued..
With the name of God, continued...
steve please read more carefully the next time.
steve you said, "i) Since the God of biblical Calvinism doesn’t act “capriciously” on a “whim,” you’re burning a straw man."
Really? Than let's see some Sola Scriptura in action shall we. Textual evidence please?
Take Rom 9:17,22-23, where God gives an underlying rationale for election and reprobation.
Maybe this provides an underlying rationale for election that God wishes to be known as powerful and all that great stuff; yet maybe you could enlighten us on how this is not done on a whim or capaciously?
I'll allow you to have one more try using Sola Scriptura.
However, do stay away from philosophical argumentation because obviously that's not your strong point.
Good command of the English language, syntax and a multifarious vocabulary is definitely your strong point without doubt.
steve I understand that looking at the computer can cause problems with the eyes but do read more carefully.
You said,
You can also spare me the faux radical chic line about “males.”
But actually I said, ...."with all the others made by CAUCASIAN males OVER THE AGE OF 50..."
So it was actually Caucasian males over the age of 50. You know the ones who are bothered by all the other peoples out there that are ....what was you that you said...ah yes, "multiplies like rabbits"
A throw back to the 1950s good stuff steve!
Gives us some eye opening insights.
GV19, you're in way over your head. From what little can be made of your ramblings, you appear to be recycling Arminian objections to Calvinism, only much less cogently. And don't take that as a compliment to Arminian arguments. A muslim charging any Christian of having a capricious God is about one of the most preposterous examples of a pot calling the kettle black that anyone has ever made.
Hello again Steve,
I see you are still employing the dark art of ESP (i.e. mind-reading); you wrote:
>> Thanks for illustrating your capacity for dissimulation. What you've now done is to misrepresent your original statement. But this is what you originally said–this is what I responded to:
"I personally do not like the term 'rape' for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love."
That goes well beyond mere intellectual understanding of the objection. Rather, that expresses sympathy with the objection. "That...despite protestations, when one breaks [it] down...one is left with the fact...as such, there is some truth in the claim it is 'a forced love.'">>
Me: No, no, no…you are misrepresenting my “original statement” with your typical sophistry.
>>So you object to the rhetoric of "rape," but not the underlying charge.>>
Me: Are you denying that regeneration precedes saving faith? Are you denying that God regenerates individuals who want nothing to do with God? Does an unregenerate individual have the capacity to reject regeneration? Are you truly Reformed, or semi-Reformed?
>>When you left the church of Rome, I kept my silence. I gave you your space.
It was my hope that you might be leaving error for truth, rather than leaving one error for yet another error.>>
Me: You know nothing about my core beliefs Steve—you should have remained silent.
>>But, no, one of your first moves was to make yourself a doormat for Islam–even though Islam has been the sworn enemy of the Christian faith since its inception.>>
Me: I see your above remark as little more than emotional pettiness.
>>You’re not a truth-seeker, David.>>
Me: A lie.
>>You’re a social butterfly who flits from one pretty flower to another.>>
Me: A lie.
>>For you, it’s a noncommittal exercise in comparative religion, like Huston Smith.>>
Me: A lie.
>>You’re tolerant of everything except commitment.>>
Me: A lie.
>>The consummate syncretist. “Fair” to all and faithful to none.>>
Me: A lie.
Perhaps some day, if I gain your ‘gift’ of infallibility, I can be as bitter and dogmatic as you…
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz said...
“Hello again Steve, I see you are still employing the dark art of ESP (i.e. mind-reading).”
i) Hello again, David. I see that you’re still obfuscating. I simply took you at your word. You made a statement. Words mean something. That doesn’t require telepathy.
ii) Since, however, you choose to frame the issue in those terms, I’d point out that there’s nothing inherently untoward about inferring motives from what people say and do. Juries do that all the time when they infer criminal intent. Otherwise, they could never convict a defendant (unless he confessed to the crime, and even then they’d have to evaluate the sincerity of his confession).
“Me: No, no, no…you are misrepresenting my ‘original statement’ with your typical sophistry.”
To assert that I’m misrepresenting you is an empty denial rather than a demonstration to the contrary. You used the expression “forced love” in the context of a discussion over divine “rape.” And you said there was “some truth” to GV’s analogy.
If that is not what you mean, then no one is stopping you from doing the honorable thing by retracting your scurrilous innuendo and substituting a newer, better statement which avoids that (allegedly unintended) implication.
“Are you denying that regeneration precedes saving faith? Are you denying that God regenerates individuals who want nothing to do with God? Does an unregenerate individual have the capacity to reject regeneration?”
i) Now your trying to change the subject when the issue at hand was whether monergistic grace is analogous to rape or, what, in that invidious context, you euphemistically call “forced love.”
ii) And even if, for the sake of argument, we allow you to change the subject, monergistic grace isn’t coercive. It doesn’t “force” the unregenerate.
To cast the issue in those terms is a malicious, stereotypical caricature of the Reformed position.
“You know nothing about my core beliefs Steve.”
Perhaps because there’s nothing to know. Hollow to the core.
“You should have remained silent.”
I remained silent as long as you remained silent. When, however, you came to the defense of the GV’s defamatory comparison, I spoke up. It’s ou, not me, who ought to remain silent if that’s the best you can do.
“I see your above remark as little more than emotional pettiness.”
That would be imputing motives, David. Are you a mind-reader? I thought you didn’t approve of that sort of thing.
The fact that you allow your blog to become a soapbox for an implacable enemy of the faith (a Mohammedan apologist) says something about your broken spiritual compass.
“A lie.”
That would be imputing motives, David. A motive to deceive. Do you have ESP?
“Perhaps some day, if I gain your ‘gift’ of infallibility, I can be as bitter and dogmatic as you…”
You seriously entertain the possibility that the Koran is divinely inspired, while you continue to advertise yourself as a Christian. That’s syncretism, David. You can’t get anymore syncretistic than that.
You’re 55 years old, David. It’s time to stop making trips to the buffet. You act as if the way to heaven is a maze. As though God makes us thread our way through a labyrinth to get to heaven. As though the roadmap to heaven is buried somewhere in one of your 15,000 books, and you have to thumb through one dusty volume after another to discover the roadmap.
But you only need to read one book, David. The Bible is the only roadmap you need.
thegrandverbalizer19 said...
“I said it before and I'll say it again you people have no shame.”
Did you do something we should be ashamed of?
“You people have poor attention to detail and frankly don't show humanity to other people.”
That’s rich coming from a Mohammedan. Jihad. Dhimmitude. Child marriage. Honor killings. Honor rapings. Pederasty (e.g. Pashtun). Etcetera.
“I mean at the end of the day how many oxymoron's can a guy stomach? Eternally-begotten....Pre-existent....GodMan.....”
Asserting an oxymoron is just that–an assertion. Where’s the argument?
What Christian theologians have you read, anyway?
“Oh the New Testament is true in the 'Original copies'. Give it up already people! Hahaha.”
You’re long on attitude and short on reason. Your intellectual performance doesn’t match your intellectual pretensions.
“Yet when it comes to logic and theology. Epic fail.”
Using the word “logic” doesn’t make you logical. It just makes you a parakeet who intones the word “logic.” Would you like a cracker?
“Another great capitulation by you! Keep it up!”
Since you lack the intellectual aptitude to keep up with the argument, I’ll walk you through it. The question at issue was not whether God decreed this or that, but whether a decreed outcome is equivalent to “rape.” If you can’t keep that distinction in your little head, you’re not competent to discuss the issue.
“Now I can keep giving more insight to your poor analogical reasoning but that's no fun.”
You’re bluffing with your back to a mirror. It’s a losing hand. Would you like to fold now and cut your losses, or continue your losing streak and wash dishes for the next 10 years?
“Since you are using the language of a failed economic model…”
It’s a philosophical distinction, not an economic distinction. You don’t enough to know what you’re rejecting. A vicious cycle.
“But for your theology your deity imbues an innocent baby with this trait and than turns around and punishes him when he gets duped by a crafty serpent that your deity was supposedly aware was in the premises?”
i) To say the baby is “innocent” begs the question.
ii) In Adam hadn’t fallen, the baby in question wouldn’t even exist. A different baby would exist in its place.
Cont. “Maybe this provides an underlying rationale for election that God wishes to be known as powerful and all that great stuff; yet maybe you could enlighten us on how this is not done on a whim or capaciously?”
To act for rational motives is the opposite of capricious or whimsical actions. If you can’t grasp that elementary distinction, then you’re not competent to discuss the issue.
“I'll allow you to have one more try using Sola Scriptura.”
I scored a touchdown on the first try.
“However, do stay away from philosophical argumentation because obviously that's not your strong point.”
That would be a tad more impressive if the level of your intellectual performance measured up to your conceited rhetoric.
“So it was actually Caucasian males over the age of 50. You know the ones who are bothered by all the other peoples out there that are ....what was you that you said...ah yes, ‘multiplies like rabbits’ A throw back to the 1950s good stuff steve!”
i) Bull verbalizer, I understand that looking at the computer can cause problems with you eyesight, but do read more carefully. Was I referring to “other peoples” in general? No. I said, “If the patient was a suicide bomber (you know, the kind that your religion multiplies like rabbits).”
ii) Since God made Caucasians, just as God made other races and ethnicities, I don’t apologize for my racial identity. Or do you think Allah made a mistake?
iii) The 50s was before my time. I came of age in the 70s. You must have me confused with something else.
iv) Ah, yes, you must be confusing me with the good old days in Saudi Arabia, that beacon of Islamic orthodoxy–which didn’t abolish slavery until 1962. A throwback to the good stuff in a nice Islamic theocracy, back in the nostalgic 50s, during the golden age of slavery. Gives us some eye-opening insights into your adopted religion.
Steve,
You posted:
>>i) Hello again, David. I see that you’re still obfuscating. I simply took you at your word. You made a statement. Words mean something. That doesn’t require telepathy.>>
Me: You did not “simply” take me at my “word”, you twisted my words. In my initial response to Ken (who requested that I should do so) I wrote:
== I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love.”==
The context for the above was Ken’s statement that:
== Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, “rape” or “spiritual rape”. ==
I ignored your first two ‘cheap shots’ directed at me (that I am a “doormat”, and have a “twisted view of saving grace”), but when you attempted to use me as a club to beat GV19 over the head with, I felt compelled to correct your misrepresentations. To say that I think understand why many Arminians use the type of language they do, and that “some truth” is at the root of such language, IS NOT THE SAME AS AN ENDORSEMENT. You have distorted and misrepresented my position Steve. Shame on you!
>>ii) Since, however, you choose to frame the issue in those terms, I’d point out that there’s nothing inherently untoward about inferring motives from what people say and do. Juries do that all the time when they infer criminal intent. Otherwise, they could never convict a defendant (unless he confessed to the crime, and even then they’d have to evaluate the sincerity of his confession).>>
Me: And relying on inference has sent more than a few innocent people to prison.
cont'd...
cont'd...
>>To assert that I’m misrepresenting you is an empty denial rather than a demonstration to the contrary. You used the expression “forced love” in the context of a discussion over divine “rape.”>>
Me: The above is not the misrepresentation.
>>And you said there was “some truth” to GV’s analogy.>>
Me: No I did not. The original context, once again, concerned Ken’s statement about “many Ariminians”, not GV19.
>>If that is not what you mean, then no one is stopping you from doing the honorable thing by retracting your scurrilous innuendo and substituting a newer, better statement which avoids that (allegedly unintended) implication.>>
Me: Feel free to change “forced love” to “violating the will” of another person. Arminians believe that man has a free will and can either choose or reject God’s love. Calvinists do not believe that man has a choice in the matter, and maintain that unregenerate man does not want God’s love.
>>i) Now your trying to change the subject when the issue at hand was whether monergistic grace is analogous to rape or, what, in that invidious context, you euphemistically call “forced love.”>>
Me: I do not believe that “forced love” is the same as rape. An unwanted suitor can bestow loving gifts on a person who does not want those gifts, but love is never the motive behind rape (one more reason why I do not endorse the language of “many Ariminians”).
>>ii) And even if, for the sake of argument, we allow you to change the subject, monergistic grace isn’t coercive. It doesn’t “force” the unregenerate.>>
Me: To give a gift to someone who does not want it is to “force” the gift. If I lost a couple of teeth in a karate match, and my wife wanted to give me the loving gift of teeth implants, but knew that I hated dentists and would never consent, and then drugged me and had a dentist give me the new teeth against my will, that is a “forced” gift.
>>I remained silent as long as you remained silent. When, however, you came to the defense of the GV’s defamatory comparison, I spoke up. It’s ou, not me, who ought to remain silent if that’s the best you can do.>>
Me: No you did not; you lied twice in the above statement. In the very first post of this combox you wrote:
==I'd note that this Mohammedan was all nicey-nice over at Articuli Fidei when Waltz made himself a doormat for this enemy of the faith. But see how he now unfurls his true colors.==
That is not remaining silent—that is the first lie; and the second lie is that I was defending GV19, when the truth is that I was responding to Ken (who asked me to do so).
Amazing…
So grandverbalizer, since you yourself have not hesitated to employ hostile racial stereotypes - may I inquire of your own ethnicity?
Are you a self-hating White "whigger" who thinks that Malcolm X is so kewl and converted for that reason, or are you a non-White Muslim with clear anti-White animus, like Nation of Islam types?
How many real-life traditional Muslims have you actually known? Have you ever lived in a fully Islamic community?
With the name of God, peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Originally this post of Ken's came about as a response to my post here:http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/rc-sproul-drops-ball-cruel-calvinist.html
What Calvinist Christians talk about is actually forced love. Is that real love? Of course they don't like the my choice of wording. They prefer a verbiage this is dressed up so they can package it to sell to others. Why worry about their wording and the packaging if God ultimately does what he pleases?
So they will put it to people like this, "You see God regenerates us, and God creates within us the condition for love". Sure I have no problem with the way they word it I just like straight forward cut to the chase language.... i.e "FORCED LOVE"
or as some Arminian Christians call it "RAPE" see here: http://hereiblog.com/divine-rape-and-forced-love/
I also addressed Mark Driscol's horrible analogy there.
So let's get the record straight from the start.
Now of course rape does have sexual under tones to it but it doesn't necessarily have to follow.
Infact looking at some dictionaries it seems to follow that it is always a man raping a woman sexually. Notice that a woman is not ever thought of as raping a man.
rape is defined as follows:
The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
Middle English, from rapen, to rape, from Old French raper, to abduct, from Latin rapere, to seize; see rep- in Indo-European roots
or to violate.
Now the dispute is over rather the word 'rape' is appropriate or not.
Well according to the Calvinist humanity has absolutely no rights. Therefore if God forces his love upon his subjects there is no rape (violation, seizure, abduction)where there is no 'will' to begin with.
For the Arminian rape is a word that is guaranteed to illicit response from Calvinist and create discussion. It suits their purpose well.
continued..
With the name of God, continued from above...
Now after reading back through the post a post made by Jugulum was also quick to point out a fatal flaw in steve's analogy.
However, steve was quick to say that he only want to speak to those who were unable to 'save themselves'
i.e "comatose, or high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain"
However, steve was quick to back peddle and distance himself from total inability.
ii) As to your question, it's quite POSSIBLE for somebody in a condition of diminished responsibility to be responsible for his condition. Given his condition, he MAY NOT be directly responsible for his subsequent actions, yet he can be fully responsible for the circumstances resulting in that condition, and, by extension, the consequences of those precipitating circumstances.
His answer is also inadequate and at this juncture I offer that steve drink another Gatorade to stay in the race or realize there is no shame in accepting 3rd place ranking.
So let's see if your analogy follows through logically.
In this case people who do not have comatose, or are high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain are they than able to sign in themselves of their own free will and volition and receive the medical treatment they want?
steve said,
"Using the word “logic” doesn’t make you logical. It just makes you a parakeet who intones the word “logic.” Would you like a cracker?"
1) Using the word logic doesn't make you logical. That is true.
2) It just makes you a parakeet who intones the word logic. This does not necessarily follow.
You also may wish to be a little more descriptive than to choose a word such as intone especially in relationship to parakeets. It not only shows your ignorance of harmonics but of the zoology of the family Psittacidae as well.
Would I like a cracker? Sure! I'm willing to take a poor white man such as yourself from rural America and educate you on a great many things!
continued..
With the name of God, continued..
Steve you said,
Was I referring to “other peoples” in general? No. I said, “If the patient was a suicide bomber (you know, the kind that your religion multiplies like rabbits).”
Well considering that religions don't actually 'multiply people' but people multiply people I was really concerned that your statement was an frustrated innuendo directed at people of colour.
I'm glad you cleared that up for us big guy!
steve you state
i) To say the baby is “innocent” begs the question.
Begs the question! *Ahem* does sinless ring a bell? Naive ring a bell? Does not have the knowledge of right and wrong ring a bell?
I must say you are are an adept when it comes to the game of dodge ball my boy.
I said,
“MAYBE this provides an underlying rationale for election that God wishes to be known as powerful and all that great stuff; yet maybe you could enlighten us on how this is not done on a whim or capaciously?”
steve replied,
"To act for rational motives is the opposite of capricious or whimsical actions. If you can’t grasp that elementary distinction, then you’re not competent to discuss the issue."
“I'll allow you to have one more try using Sola Scriptura.”
I scored a touchdown on the first try.
I don't know what your smoking steve but no touchdown was scored.
If that's the case why am I towering over you while your lying on the ground with a bloody nose?
All you have shown is that the rationale is one word 'God'.
God can choose whom he wants to elect and whom he wants to damn. Why? Because he is God. Sure steve that is God's prerogative, but please stop flapping your gums about some deity that is loving and kind when you have not addressed the issue.
All you have done is demonstrate your love for circular reasoning.
If you can’t grasp that elementary distinction, then you’re not competent to discuss the issue.
continued...
With the name of God. continued from above.
Take Rom 9:17,22-23, where God gives an underlying rationale for election and reprobation.
Romans 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, THAT I MIGHT SHOW MY POWER IN THEE, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Sure a rationale is given 'so that I might show my power in thee'. Yet on what basis does God want to show his power in some and not in others?
Romans 9:22-23 (King James Version)
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
O.K more good stuff. So the Calvinist deity wants to show that he is capable of showing wrath upon some inanimate object (pottery) in this case.
Than God wants to show his mercy to some inanimate object (pottery) that's quite weird but o.k i'll bite.
However, it does not give us even the slightest clue on why it is not a capricious or whimsical decision.
Sure he's powerful and he can create pottery to embrace it and put it upon on the shelf to love it up and he can create pottery to smash into oblivion over and over.
And.....?
So once again using Sola Scriptura steve how does God come to choose which of those pots gets loved up and which ones get smashed into oblivion?
How is it not capricious and whimsical?
and please steve no dodge ball today.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Addressing Neal
"A muslim charging any Christian of having a capricious God is about one of the most preposterous examples of a pot calling the kettle black that anyone has ever made.
So the pot is calling the kettle black.
1) Do you mean by this that my assertion is true?
If that is the case than why is it o.k for you people to write your tired articles about Allah being a capricious god but the Calvinist deity is not?
Double standards anyone?
2) Do you mean by this that my assertion is some what true yet your view comes out all the more shining.
If no. 2 than please do explain. I assume you know all about the Maturdi, and Ashari creeds of Sunni Islam.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Viisaus said...
So grandverbalizer, since you yourself have not hesitated to employ hostile racial stereotypes - may I inquire of your own ethnicity?
Gosh that is indeed rich coming from a person who than ask,
"Are you a self-hating White "whigger" who thinks" .
So we are going to throw around terminology like 'white nigger' and than you inquire about my ethnicity.
I think I'll pass. Viisaus you are dismissed.
"I think I'll pass. Viisaus you are dismissed."
Whatever, you passive-aggressive sanctimonious-PC weasel. You can dish it out but not take it.
Well, I did not expect you to have much worth saying anyways.
GV19: Do you mean by this that my assertion is true?
Apparently its a figure of speech that you are unaware of. You should take it as nothing more than a charge of hypocrisy. It doesn't imply that your false assertions are true.
thegrandverbalizer19 said...
“What Calvinist Christians talk about is actually forced love. Is that real love?”
If a friend performs CPR on another friend who is unconscious due to a swimming accident, is that “real love.” After all, the drowning victim can’t give consent to his resuscitation. So is the friend who performs CPR “really loving”?
“Why worry about their wording and the packaging if God ultimately does what he pleases?”
Thanks for illustrating the duplicity of Mohammedans. Don’t pretend that the choice of wording is indifferent when you deliberately chose a loaded word with pejorative connotations.
“Sure I have no problem with the way they word it I just like straight forward cut to the chase language.... i.e ‘FORCED LOVE’”
To be “forced,” it would have to be coercive. Where’s the argument?
“So let's get the record straight from the start.”
Since you twisted the record from the start, it’s incumbent on you to get it straight.
“Well according to the Calvinist humanity has absolutely no rights.”
An ignorant misstatement of Calvinism. Humanity has the right to be justly punished.
“Therefore if God forces his love upon his subjects there is no rape (violation, seizure, abduction)where there is no 'will' to begin with.”
The unregenerate do have a will–ill-will.
“Now after reading back through the post a post made by Tim was also quick to point out a fatal flaw in steve's analogy.”
In his opening sentence, Tim agreed with me that my “illustration addresses the ‘rape charge very well.”
I then responded to his follow-up question, and he hasn’t indicated disagreement with my response.
“However, steve was quick to say that he only want to speak to those who were unable to 'save themselves'”
Are you illiterate? Is that your problem? Did I say I only want to speak of those who are unable to save themselves? No.
As I explained at the time, I used some examples to illustrate the fact that there’s nothing inherently wrong with helping someone who can’t give consent.
Cont. “However, steve was quick to back peddle and distance himself from total inability.”
I said nothing of the kind, and you haven’t shown otherwise. I merely addressed a follow-up question raised by Tim, on a different issue than the original issue.
And my examples were never intended to illustrate either total inability or partial inability. They were only intended to illustrate the fact that there’s nothing inherently wrong with helping someone who can’t give consent.
That isn’t hard to follow. The fact that you can’t keep track of a straightforward argument disqualifies you from having anything intelligent to say in objection to Christianity.
“His answer is also inadequate…”
You say it but you don’t show it.
“In this case people who do not have comatose, or are high on drugs, or poisoned, or psychotic, or suffering from head trauma, or some infection in the brain are they than able to sign in themselves of their own free will and volition and receive the medical treatment they want?”
i) That’s irrelevant to the topic of the post. You asserted moral equivalence between rape and monergistic grace. That’s the issue.
ii) As for lucid patients, they can have freewill in the compatibilist sense.
“I'm willing to take a poor white man such as yourself from rural America and educate you on a great many things!”
The fact that you’re a race-baiter doesn’t advance your cause. To the contrary, it discredits your cause.
“Well considering that religions don't actually 'multiply people' but people multiply people I was really concerned that your statement was an frustrated innuendo directed at people of colour.”
i) It’s revealing that you correlate Islamic identity with racial identity. What’s the Muslim race, exactly? Does Allah select for folks with brown eyes rather than blue eyes?
ii) It’s also revealing to see your pattern of racial associations. When I mention suicide bombers, the first thing you think of is “people of colour.” I wonder how many “people of colour” would appreciate your free association.
Do you think suicide bombing is a racial characteristic? Are certain races genetically predisposed to strap a suicide vest to themselves?
Cont. “Begs the question! *Ahem* does sinless ring a bell?”
i) Which continues to beg the question.
ii) BTW, if you think babies are innocent, then why do jihadis blow up so many babies?
“All you have shown is that the rationale is one word 'God'.”
Are you a Mohammedan because you can’t think straight, or is your inability to think straight the reason you’re a Mohammedan?
To say an agent has a rationale doesn’t make the agent himself the rationale.
“God can choose whom he wants to elect and whom he wants to damn. Why? Because he is God.”
That’s not what the verses I cited say. Are you illiterate?
“But please stop flapping your gums about some deity that is loving and kind when you have not addressed the issue.”
The question of whether God is loving and kind is not the issue. The issue, as you yourself put it, is whether God is capricious and whimsical. The fact that you can’t even follow your own argument disqualifies you from having an intelligent discussion of the issues.
“Sure a rationale is given 'so that I might show my power in thee'. Yet on what basis does God want to show his power in some and not in others?”
Now you’re demanding a rationale for a rationale, which is viciously regressive.
“O.K more good stuff. So the Calvinist deity wants to show that he is capable of showing wrath upon some inanimate object (pottery) in this case.”
The fact that you can’t grasp the significance of a metaphor once more confirms your lack of intellectual aptitude.
“So once again using Sola Scriptura steve how does God come to choose which of those pots gets loved up and which ones get smashed into oblivion?”
i) You fallaciously infer that if an agent doesn’t give a reason for why he chooses one thing over another, that he doesn’t have a reason.
ii) It’s easy to come up with reasons for why God rationally chooses one person rather than another. In Scripture, St. Paul (elect) serves one purpose while Caiaphas (reprobate) serves another. One could multiply examples.
David Waltz said...
“You did not ‘simply’ take me at my ‘word’, you twisted my words.”
To allege that I “twisted” your words doesn’t make it so.
“The context for the above was Ken’s statement that: == Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, ‘rape’ or ‘spiritual rape’. ==”
And when you use the phrase “forced love” in the context of “rape,” that’s a euphemism for rape.
“To say that I think understand why many Arminians use the type of language they do, and that “some truth” is at the root of such language, IS NOT THE SAME AS AN ENDORSEMENT. You have distorted and misrepresented my position Steve. Shame on you!”
Naturally that’s an endorsement. To the extent that you find “some truth” in the allegation, it is, to that extent, an endorsement. Not to mention the supporting arguments you deployed to arrive at that conclusion, along with your use of the phrase “forced love” in the context of “rape.”
“And relying on inference has sent more than a few innocent people to prison.”
So you think juries should never infer criminal intention, in which case juries should never convict the accused. Is that your position?
“Me: No I did not. The original context, once again, concerned Ken’s statement about 'many Ariminians', not GV19.”
Here’s the original context of his post:
“The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, criticizes R. C. Sproul and the Bible’s teaching on “God’s Effectual Grace” and calls it ‘rape’. and ‘forced love’”
That’s the topic sentence which introduces his post. And you lifted that usage (“rape, “forced love”) from Ken’s summary of GV.
“Feel free to change ‘forced love’ to ‘violating the will’ of another person.”
Why would I substitute one deceptive expression for another? You might as well say that a psychiatrist “violates the will” of a psychotic patient by administering a psychotropic drug which restores the patient to sanity.
cont. “Arminians believe that man has a free will and can either choose or reject God’s love. Calvinists do not believe that man has a choice in the matter, and maintain that unregenerate man does not want God’s love.”
Which doesn’t justify the invidious and inaccurate terminology (“rape,” “forced love,” “violating the will”).
“I do not believe that ‘forced love’ is the same as rape.”
Then you shouldn’t use that phrase in a context where “forced love” is synonymous with “rape.”
“To give a gift to someone who does not want it is to ‘force’ the gift. If I lost a couple of teeth in a karate match, and my wife wanted to give me the loving gift of teeth implants, but knew that I hated dentists and would never consent, and then drugged me and had a dentist give me the new teeth against my will, that is a ‘forced’ gift.”
That’s obviously disanalogous to monergistic regeneration. The regenerate don’t hate God.
“That is not remaining silent—that is the first lie; and the second lie is that I was defending GV19, when the truth is that I was responding to Ken (who asked me to do so).”
And what was Ken responding to?
Steve,
You wrote:
>>To allege that I “twisted” your words doesn’t make it so.>>
Me: Agreed, but my later comments demonstrated that you did “twist” my words (and you continue to do so—see below for evidence/s).
>>“The context for the above was Ken’s statement that: == Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, ‘rape’ or ‘spiritual rape’. ==”
And when you use the phrase “forced love” in the context of “rape,” that’s a euphemism for rape.>>
Me: I reject your allegation, for you are assuming that I equate “forced love” with rape; as I said in my previous post, I DO NOT EQUATE THE TWO. But I am pretty sure you will continue to allege that I did…that seems to be ‘how-you-roll’.
>>Naturally that’s an endorsement. To the extent that you find “some truth” in the allegation, it is, to that extent, an endorsement. Not to mention the supporting arguments you deployed to arrive at that conclusion, along with your use of the phrase “forced love” in the context of “rape.”>>
Me: Natural to one who by nature takes delight in twisting the words of one who deos not share his/her narrow paradigm.
>>“Me: No I did not. The original context, once again, concerned Ken’s statement about 'many Ariminians', not GV19.”
Here’s the original context of his post:
“The Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, criticizes R. C. Sproul and the Bible’s teaching on “God’s Effectual Grace” and calls it ‘rape’. and ‘forced love’”
That’s the topic sentence which introduces his post. And you lifted that usage (“rape, “forced love”) from Ken’s summary of GV.>>
Me: You are making a false allegation—I DID NOT use “Ken’s summary of GV” as the basis for my response (please stop misrepresenting me)—the original context of MY RESONSE to Ken (not the original context of Ken’s post) concerned a specific statement that Ken had made in his post; here, yet once again (pay attention), is Ken’s statement that I was responding to:
==Many Christians from an Arminian theological perspective also call it, “rape” or “spiritual rape”.== (Ken Temple, statement in his July 12th, 2010 opening post.)
>>“Feel free to change ‘forced love’ to ‘violating the will’ of another person.”
Why would I substitute one deceptive expression for another? You might as well say that a psychiatrist “violates the will” of a psychotic patient by administering a psychotropic drug which restores the patient to sanity.>>
Me: Very poor analogy—you think that an unregenerate person is ‘dead” (cannot cooperate at all), not merely ill. Your analogy fits synergism and prevenient grace, not your monergism.
More from Steve,
>> cont. “Arminians believe that man has a free will and can either choose or reject God’s love. Calvinists do not believe that man has a choice in the matter, and maintain that unregenerate man does not want God’s love.”
Which doesn’t justify the invidious and inaccurate terminology (“rape,” “forced love,” “violating the will”).>>
Me: It does not “justify” the use of the term “rape” (which, yet once again, I DO NOT ENDORSE), but the phrases “forced love”, “violating the will” are accurate and to the point.
>>“I do not believe that ‘forced love’ is the same as rape.”
Then you shouldn’t use that phrase in a context where “forced love” is synonymous with “rape.”>>
Me: You think they are “synonymous”, I do not—you may want me to rely on the “Steve Hays Thesaurus”, but reasonableness demands that I reject the offer.
>> “To give a gift to someone who does not want it is to ‘force’ the gift. If I lost a couple of teeth in a karate match, and my wife wanted to give me the loving gift of teeth implants, but knew that I hated dentists and would never consent, and then drugged me and had a dentist give me the new teeth against my will, that is a ‘forced’ gift.”
That’s obviously disanalogous to monergistic regeneration. The regenerate don’t hate God.>>
Me: My-oh-my—I did not say that the regenerate hate God—I said the unregenerate hate God (‘nice’ try though)…
David: It does not “justify” the use of the term “rape” (which, yet once again, I DO NOT ENDORSE), but the phrases “forced love”, “violating the will” are accurate and to the point.
David, in the context of this thread, it is difficult to disassociate the terms "rape" and "forced love". Clearly in the context that they were being used, they are taken to be synonymous. As to "violating the will", this assumes that the will is in the same state after conversion as before, as if a regenerate person would have preferred not to have had their will changed from hating God to loving God. It makes little sense to say regeneration violates the will, because it is the will itself that is being repaired in regeneration. One might call that "violating the will", but it is very misleading, especially in the context of the accusation that God is spiritually "raping" the elect.
If you read all of the GV19 orginal post, which I linked to, it includes the accusations of "rape" and "forced love"; and also GV19 links to an article by Mark at "hereiblog"
http://hereiblog.com/divine-rape-and-forced-love/
(Mark is one of the contributors to this site; although he is now busy with his own site now.)
Mark shows that some Arminians bring up this charge and Mark does a good job of showing how that is false.
The GV19 was coming against the idea of God's effectual grace, by using both of those ideas and other attacks.
The Basis for God's Election of some from all nations (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 21:3) is His real love expressed in the incarnation and atonement; and the basis for God's reprobation of the other sinners is His justice, holiness, and wrath against sin/sinners. Romans 9:14-24
In the cross, God demonstrates both His love for sinners, and His justice and wrath against sin. In Islam, there is no real love and the holiness of God is denigrated and trampled upon, because their is no eternal punishment against the sinful thoughts and sinful nature.
For all who don't know Christ yet; repent and believe before it is too late!
Neal wrote:
As to "violating the will", this assumes that the will is in the same state after conversion as before, as if a regenerate person would have preferred not to have had their will changed from hating God to loving God. It makes little sense to say regeneration violates the will, because it is the will itself that is being repaired in regeneration.
Excellent! That is exactly what I was trying to say; especially the sentence,
"It makes little sense to say regeneration violates the will, because it is the will itself that is being repaired in regeneration."
Thank you Neal! Hopefully, David Waltz and the GV19 will read that and think about it, in addition to what I have written.
David,
Both Ken and Neal have already corrected some of your mistakes. Now I’ll focus on one in particular:
“Very poor analogy—you think that an unregenerate person is ‘dead’ (cannot cooperate at all), not merely ill. Your analogy fits synergism and prevenient grace, not your monergism.”
That’s just sad–both on biblical terms and on its own terms.
i) The Bible uses a variety of metaphors to describe the condition of the unregenerate. That includes medical metaphors involving mental illness or insanity (e.g. spiritual blindness, a hard heart).
How could you not know that, David? Perhaps if you spent less time reading the Koran, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad-Gita, Dianetics, Celestine Prophecy, I Ching, &c., and more time reading the Bible, you’d be more conversant with the range of spiritual metaphors in Scripture concerning the state of the lost.
ii) If you’re going to press the “dead” metaphor, then you can’t also say that monergistic regeneration “violates the will,” since a corpse has no will to violate. Hence your objection is incoherent.
iii) Somebody who’s insane may well be incompetent to cooperate with the psychiatrist. Indeed, that’s why some mental patients are involuntarily committed.
It may be necessary for the psychiatrist to unilaterally administer psychotropic drugs which restore the chemical imbalance in the patient’s brain. Same thing for a patient with curable brain cancer. All he can do is lie on the operating table while the neurosurgeon removes the tumor.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
“I'm willing to take a poor white man such as yourself from rural America and educate you on a great many things!”
The fact that you’re a race-baiter doesn’t advance your cause. To the contrary, it discredits your cause.
Actually I did well to explain what I meant. In my own personal life when I have met those who say 'breed like rabbits' has always been frustrated Caucasian males over the age of 50 who are discomforted by the fact that they are quickly getting out numbered by people of colour (non whites this could even include Hispanic whites just for clarification purposes)
I was quick to point out that if you are not one of those than you have nothing to worry about steve.
However, what follows and your obsession with this point makes me reconsider that you are indeed one of those people who reminisce to the 'good ol days' when your ancestors used to flay the flesh of Africans, or put Jews in kilns, or harry the heathen as your forefathers set forth for Indonesia.
“Well considering that religions don't actually 'multiply people' but people multiply people I was really concerned that your statement was an frustrated innuendo directed at people of colour.”
i) It’s revealing that you correlate Islamic identity with racial identity. What’s the Muslim race, exactly? Does Allah select for folks with brown eyes rather than blue eyes?
I find it interesting that you would ask 'Does Allah select for folks with brown eyes rather than BLUE EYES? Maybe you need to slow down a bit and chew before your swallow. Out of all the races and ethnic groups of man that you could only manage to whimper out 'blue eyes' is telling indeed!
ii) It’s also revealing to see your pattern of racial associations. When I mention suicide bombers, the first thing you think of is “people of colour.” I wonder how many “people of colour” would appreciate your free association.
see above for explanation: You could have simply said that you were not one of those people and I simply misunderstood your idiom. However, the fact you wished to pursue it shows your ilk.
Do you think suicide bombing is a racial characteristic? Are certain races genetically predisposed to strap a suicide vest to themselves?
I dunno it wasn't my race that got all tickled over eugenics.
But you asking me that question would be like looking at this list here: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/monsters.htm and saying why is that most of the people on this list are Caucasians?
By the way we Mo hammed dens did get your ancestors out of the dark ages and yes your welcome
thegrandverbalizer19 said...
“Actually I did well to explain what I meant. In my own personal life when I have met those who say 'breed like rabbits' has always been frustrated Caucasian males over the age of 50 who are discomforted by the fact that they are quickly getting out numbered by people of colour (non whites this could even include Hispanic whites just for clarification purposes)”
Since I specified suicide-bombers, the fact that “people of colour” is the first thing that comes to mind why you hear the word “suicide-bomber” says everything about your racial attitudes, not mine.
“I was quick to point out that if you are not one of those than you have nothing to worry about steve.”
You were quick to backpeddle when your insinuation blew up in your face.
“However, what follows and your obsession with this point makes me reconsider that you are indeed one of those people who reminisce to the 'good ol days' when your ancestors used to flay the flesh of Africans, or put Jews in kilns, or harry the heathen as your forefathers set forth for Indonesia.”
i) Mohammedans have a long history of committing atrocities, and scarcely a day passes when a Muslim doesn’t commit mass murder, so if you want to keeping wielding that double-edged sword of yours, be my guest.
ii) Islam has a long record of enslaving Black Africans, so it’s foolhardy of you to throw stones.
iii) Islam is a fundamentally ethnic religion, by and for Arabs. It’s only a historical accident, due to trade and conquest, that it became a world religion.
“I find it interesting that you would ask 'Does Allah select for folks with brown eyes rather than BLUE EYES? Maybe you need to slow down a bit and chew before your swallow. Out of all the races and ethnic groups of man that you could only manage to whimper out 'blue eyes' is telling indeed!”
To the contrary, you’re the one who defined religious identity in terms of racial identity, so I’m merely answering you on your own terms. According to your hate-honky rhetoric, Islam is only for “people of color,” not for Caucasians.
“see above for explanation: You could have simply said that you were not one of those people and I simply misunderstood your idiom. However, the fact you wished to pursue it shows your ilk.”
You’re the one, not me, who played the race card. And you continue to resort to race-baiting because you have no argument.
“I dunno it wasn't my race that got all tickled over eugenics.”
Do you think whites have a monopoly on evil? What about Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe?
You’ve made it clear that you converted to Islam out of racial grievances rather than concern for truth.
“By the way we Mo hammed dens did get your ancestors out of the dark ages and yes your welcome”
What the Mohammedans did was to conquer more advanced civilizations, which jump-started their own culture.
And, no, you didn’t get us out of the dark ages. When the Saracens invaded Constantinople, Byzantine scholars fled to the west.
Hello Neal,
Forgive my somewhat tardy response, but in my ‘defense’, I spent yesterday painting my guest house, and by the end of the day had no energy left for the internet.
It is certainly good to see that another charitable Reformed brother in Christ, besides Ken, has taken the time to engage in this ongoing dialogue with me. You wrote:
>> David, in the context of this thread, it is difficult to disassociate the terms "rape" and "forced love". Clearly in the context that they were being used, they are taken to be synonymous.>>
Me: It seems that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this; as I said earlier, rape never has the motive of love behind the act, however I can think of countless acts that are “forced” on others which are motivated by love. IMO, this is a very important distinction that cannot be overlooked.
>> As to "violating the will", this assumes that the will is in the same state after conversion as before, as if a regenerate person would have preferred not to have had their will changed from hating God to loving God.>>
Me: With all due respect, I must disagree Neal—the phrase “violating the will” assumes just the opposite; it demands two distinct wills: the will of an unregenerate moral agent prior to regeneration, and the will after regeneration. The former does not want anything to do with God and rejects ANY and ALL the salvific offers of God’s love; the unregenerate does not want God’s assistance (i.e. grace)—but God chooses to ignore the will of the unregenerate moral agent and regenerates some (i.e. the “elect”). In all sincerity, the phrase “violating the will” sure seems to be a very accurate statement; and from a Reformed respective, I cannot help but think that those who have been regenerated are overjoyed God did in fact “violate” the wishes of their former unregenerate will.
Sincerely hope I have contributed a bit more clarity to our discussion…
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken,
You posted:
>> If you read all of the GV19 orginal post, which I linked to, it includes the accusations of "rape" and "forced love"; and also GV19 links to an article by Mark at "hereiblog".>>
Me: I have not yet read any of the thread that you linked to (and probably will not have the time to do so until Monday).
Have a bunch of emails I need to respond to, as well as some new comments over at my blog (including a couple by you).
My lower back is not fairing too well after yesterday’s painting project—I need to get up and walk, and then stretch out my back after sitting at the computer for a few minutes…
Anyway, thanks for the link; I will get to it eventually—the Lord willing.
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz said...
"In all sincerity, the phrase 'violating the will' sure seems to be a very accurate statement..."
Perhaps English is Waltz' second language, but for those of us with an idiomatic command of English, the word "violate" has invidious connotations, viz. breaking the law, invading one's privacy, an unwarranted infringement of someone's prerogatives, an unjustifiable transgression of someone's rights.
It's like a juvenile delinquent who complains that his parents are "violating" his privacy when they monitor his electronic communications because they suspect that he's embroiled in some criminal enterprise.
To say the Creator is "violating" the will of the creature is hardly an accurate way to describe the relationship between God and man. But maybe Waltz is a deist. Who knows.
The God of the Bible rebukes racial hatred and prejudice and demonstrates that God's love is extended to all nations, languages, ethnicities, tribes, cultures.
Revelation 5:9 (New American Standard Bible)
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
Revelation 7:9 -12
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,
12 saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever Amen."
David,
The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of 1689 clearly state, "no violence is done to the will of the creature", which I linked to.
This means God does not force something on something that they do not want; rather He first changes the heart (desires, will, mind) by taking out the old stubborn, hateful, rebellious heart and will (I will take out your heart of stone) and then God gives us a new heart that is soft and willing and open and so the choice is made by the human by the new, repaired, healed, regenerated will. (I will give you are heart of flesh)
Ezekiel 36:26-27
Ezekiel 36:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)
26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the (B)heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
God takes away the inability to choose good over evil and gives the regenerate the ability to choose the good and they choose the good, namely, God; because the heart and will has been healed and repaired and loved and so then the born again person freely chooses God; because God first chose them and healed their will, which was unable to choose good or God over their evil desires.
GV19: "But you asking me that question would be like looking at this list here: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/monsters.htm and saying why is that most of the people on this list are Caucasians?"
In addition to being a race baiter and thinking caucasians are more disposed to evil than any other race, GV19 demonstrates that he can't count either.
GV19 your racist comments are despicable. Your buddy King Shamir Shabazz would be proud.
DW: "It seems that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this; as I said earlier, rape never has the motive of love behind the act, however I can think of countless acts that are “forced” on others which are motivated by love. IMO, this is a very important distinction that cannot be overlooked."
Perhaps in other contexts, but in the context of GV19 criticizing Sproul, which is the topic of this thread, did he make that distinction? I would respectfully ask that you go back and read your first comment in this thread where you tried to give cover to his usage of the term rape. You said you personally did not like the term, but you didn't condemn its usage either. In fact, you stated that you understood it and gave your rationale, which included the phrase "despite protestations", which I take to mean that you think Reformed people protest too much at the accusation that God spiritually rapes his elect. In that comment you yourself used the terms "rape" and "forced love" as interchangeable. At the very least you are equivocating on the meaning of "forced love". What GV19 meant by it was the same thing as "rape", but now you are making a distinction which he didn't make, and which you also failed to do in your initial comment.
The bull verbalizer evidently thinks that Allah hates caucasians. But in that event, why is he talking to caucasians to promote his religion? If God hates caucasians, then caucasians have no reason to give Islam the time of day. It has nothing to offer, even if it were true.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/03/about-me.html
Here, the GV19 tells of his journey to Islam. He seems to be white; but he was wrongly taught that Jesus was white, so that was embarrassing when an African American confronted him on this.
see my response in the combox.
He admitted he was a nominal Christian growing up in some pretty deficient churches; and it is obvious now that he was a never a true believer in Christ.
I John 2:19
Matthew 7:21-23 (warning while you are still alive)
GV19's testimony:
"He (being an African American) asked me what colour is Jesus? I replied, "Jesus is white like me." He than inquired, "How come he's not black like me?" This made me retort, "Well than, what colour is your Allah?" He gave the response that forever changed my life. "Allah is not black or white, in fact Allah does not have parents or children"
This seems to me to be very contrived, like a caricature of what "white Christians" would believe. Or else his knowledge of Christian doctrine was very impoverished. He admits in the comments that follow that he was very nominal when Ken corrected him on this error. But if his account is true then he has no business imputing his own racial attitudes to Steve or anyone else.
I just find it very implausible that a white person would say to a black muslim that Jesus was white "like me" even if he actually believed it. He may be telling the truth, but this testimony sure smells fishy.
Good point, Neal; I had not noticed that - I think you are showing some good discernment here and good questioning of his statement. I agree that it smells kind of fishy.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
>>David,
The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession of 1689 clearly state, "no violence is done to the will of the creature", which I linked to.
This means God does not force something on something that they do not want; rather He first changes the heart (desires, will, mind) by taking out the old stubborn, hateful, rebellious heart and will (I will take out your heart of stone) and then God gives us a new heart that is soft and willing and open and so the choice is made by the human by the new, repaired, healed, regenerated will. (I will give you are heart of flesh)>>
Me: Forgive me Ken, I sincerely see some inconsistency in the above. You state that “God does not force something on something they do not want”; to which I ask: do the unregenerate want God’s grace? Do the unregenerate want to be irresistably called? We can quibble over terms, but what actually occurs remains the same: the unregenerate who want nothing to do with God are changed to want God; and the unregenerate who are changed, not only have NO CHOICE in the matter, it is does against their desire.
The following discussion at a Reformed message board, which does not allow any Reformed folk to post, sheds considerable light on the flexibility of the terms that are being used:
THE PURITAN BOARD
The entire thread is worth reading (IMO), with the following especially revealing:
==God does not violate our wills?
Moral Necessity writes: Remember that God does not violate our wills, and force them to go in a direction opposite to them, hence we are responsible for our choices. Our wills are governed by our nature. But, he has now imparted his Spirit within our nature or persons, and he does both impose and withdraw his Spirit, in varying degrees of activity, within ourselves.
Yea, the part about God does not violate our wills. Dr James White says that God ordains the means and well as the ends. Or, he works in us to change our wills (as I understand it). Isn't that almost the same as violating our wills?
"Jonathan Edwards has sometimes been quoted—notably by R. C. Sproul—as referring to the irresistible call of God as the "holy rape of the soul," but the phrase does not appear in Edwards' Works. Instead, the phrase seems to have been coined by Puritan scholar Perry Miller, and most Calvinists distance themselves from it."
Would not we say that the "holy rape of the soul" violates our will?
Or maybe you do not agree with that statement.
I am not dogmatically making a statement here, but would like to discuss it.==
I do not endorse R.C. Sproul’s or Perry Miller’s use of the phrase “holy rape of the soul”, anyone more than those Arminians who do so (the primary reason, once again, is that the term rape, as defined in modern clinical and legal thought, never has the motive of love behind it); however, despite certain protestations, I cannot divorce the act of “irresistible grace” from the term “force”.
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz wrote:
The following discussion at a Reformed message board, which does not allow any Reformed folk to post, sheds considerable light on the flexibility of the terms that are being used:
Did you mean "does not allow any NON-Reformed folk to post" ?
(Quoting a Reformed Puritan Board)
"Jonathan Edwards has sometimes been quoted—notably by R. C. Sproul—as referring to the irresistible call of God as the "holy rape of the soul," but the phrase does not appear in Edwards' Works. Instead, the phrase seems to have been coined by Puritan scholar Perry Miller, and most Calvinists distance themselves from it."
Can they document that R. C. Sproul said this or wrote this? If it is not in Edwards, then both Perry and Sproul should have never used that language.
Would not we say that the "holy rape of the soul" violates our will?
Or maybe you do not agree with that statement.
I would never agree to that kind of statement or language.
If Sproul did say that, I would respectfully disagree with that. But I am not convinced that he said it or wrote it; I would like to see the evidence.
Me: Forgive me Ken, I sincerely see some inconsistency in the above. . . .
Bottom line, your argument with me and saying I am being inconsistent is wrong, because I am basing my understanding on both Ezekiel 36:26-27 (and all that goes with it, John 3:3-8; John 6:44, 65; Acts 16:14, Romans 8:28-30, I Corinthians 1:18-26, etc.); AND the 2 Reformed confessions that explicitly say, "no violence is done to the will of the creature".
It seems like "force" to you in what you are asking, and yet, that is not what the Scriptures, nor the confessions say. Since the Reformed theologians chose to explain their believes that way; that is the way it is; because they also believe God is all wise and all good and all love and all sovereign at the same time. As D. A. Carson says, "we have to believe multiple theological truths at the same time" in order to grasp the difficult issues of the love of God and the soveriegnty of God; but only God the Spirit Himself can give teh peace and love and confidence to accept these truths all at the same time.
Like I wrote in my original post, "I am glad God chose me and changed my deadness in sin and rebellion and blindness and hardness so that I could then freely choose God." (something like that.) I am happy with that; joyful. It is like the fact that we are all going to die physically; you can keep being bitter and shaking your fist at that reality, but it does no good; it is truth and reality that no one can argue against. So, I am happy and joyful that I have eternal life also and that I am not going to hell and I was not left in my un-able to choose will that hated God.
Samuel Storms, to me, had the best explanations of this in his book, Chosen for Life. (that I have read) I recommend it for understanding Reformed theology.
God, in His perfect love and wisdom and grace and sovereignty, knew of a way to change the will/heart/soul/mind so that He would be both Soveriegn and love and all wise and avoid the charge of "violating the will" or "rape", because He bypassed any force by first changing and healing the will so that it then could freely and willing choose. Again, no true Christian, even Arminians are angry that God saved them and they are on their way to heaven. They disagree with us with how it happened; but they are glad and joyful. If they are bitter that God saved them; then they are not regenerate; I don't see how they could be.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for responding; you posted:
>> The following discussion at a Reformed message board, which does not allow any Reformed folk to post, sheds considerable light on the flexibility of the terms that are being used:
Did you mean "does not allow any NON-Reformed folk to post" ? >>
Me: Yes, a typo—thanks for catching it for me.
>>(Quoting a Reformed Puritan Board)
"Jonathan Edwards has sometimes been quoted—notably by R. C. Sproul—as referring to the irresistible call of God as the "holy rape of the soul," but the phrase does not appear in Edwards' Works. Instead, the phrase seems to have been coined by Puritan scholar Perry Miller, and most Calvinists distance themselves from it."
Can they document that R. C. Sproul said this or wrote this? If it is not in Edwards, then both Perry and Sproul should have never used that language.>>
Me: Dr. Sproul himself did use the phrase “"holy rape of the soul” in a positive sense (see my NEW THREAD for the documentation), however I could not find where he [Sproul] stated that Jonathan Edwards did so.
Grace and peace,
David
Now I see the documentation; wow; I would disagree respectfully with Dr. Sproul on his choice of words there. It is in a novel, and a rather unknown one - I did not know about this one that he wrote.
I appreciate the fact that you have communicated that he meant it in a positive sense; but I personally do not agree and would not use it that way; and I would continue to hold to my view and I like the way Neal expressed it - that the unable soul is first repaired/changed/healed/made able and then chooses freely; so that all the objections are dealt with and God is still both Sovereign, Loving, and Wise all at the same time.
Hello again Ken,
Because this seems to be a very sensitive issue with you (and others), I really wish that you and I could sit down together, face-to-face, and discuss this over a cup of coffee or glass of orange juice—comboxes and message boards are just not the best of forums to carry on discussions that can be emotional. With that in mind, I think I should probably refrain from further discussion of this matter here, that is, after I make one last comment concerning the following you wrote:
>>God, in His perfect love and wisdom and grace and sovereignty, knew of a way to change the will/heart/soul/mind so that He would be both Soveriegn and love and all wise and avoid the charge of "violating the will" or "rape", because He bypassed any force by first changing and healing the will so that it then could freely and willing choose. Again, no true Christian, even Arminians are angry that God saved them and they are on their way to heaven. They disagree with us with how it happened; but they are glad and joyful. If they are bitter that God saved them; then they are not regenerate; I don't see how they could be.>>
Me: I must be dense, for you acknowledge that God has in fact changed “the will/heart/soul/mind” of those who have been regenerated—however, in their unregenerate state, they did not want to be changed, and according to Reformed thought, had no choice concerning their “irresistible call”. Now, if one does not want something to occur, and another, despite this, “changes” his/her “the will/heart/soul/mind” such that that individual now wants what he/she did not want prior to the change, I honestly cannot help but think that in some sense the original state of the “the will/heart/soul/mind” has been “violated”.
As I said earlier, this should probably be the last of my comments here on this topic…
Take care and God bless,
David
We are using "violated" in different ways.
I prefer not to use it all; as the Reformed Confessions help me.
You seem to keep wanting to be able to find a way to but a negative light on it, it seems to me.
The confessions that say, "the will of the creature is not violated" means no one is forced against their will (because they don't want it, as you said) to become a Christian in the sense of a parent that spanks and forces and has to hold down a child, etc. while they are disciplined and the child is angry and hurt and steaming and keeps an an angry bitter heart against their parents for forcing them.
That the soul/win is changed first, there is no "violation" in the sense that is usually associated with that terminology.
The Westminister Divines and Reformed Baptist 1689 theologians were very wise, it seems to me, to have this insight in language and explaining it.
In the end, God has to open the heart to change us. John 6:44
I think one of the problems with this thread is that we live in an age where "libertarian free will" is assumed from the outset, so discussion of regeneration is a completely bewildering concept to many people. That God effects regeneration by resuscitating the will doesn't make sense because most people don't think that their wills are dead in the first place. But the scripture tells us that we were dead in trespasses and sins and God made us alive with Christ (Eph. 2:1-5) So resuscitating the will is not an act of violence, but an act of mercy in that it is a resurrection of our will. We have to get away from the unbiblical concept of LFW and embrace a biblical concept of man's will. A will that is dead is not done violence when it is made alive.
Thanks Neal! I agree; you have an excellent way of expressing these difficult truths; I great appreciate your contribution to this discussion.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Allah alone knows who are the race baiter's here.
Any how on my 'About Me' page you let us look in context about my decision to ultimately leave Christianity. Which of course is a non-issue for you people since you claim to believe in Preservation of the Saints.
Any how this is what was said,
When I started to engage this man he simply asked me if I believed if Jesus was God. I replied to him, "Yes Jesus is God!" He (being an African American) asked me what colour is Jesus? I replied, "Jesus is white like me." He than inquired, "How come he's not black like me?" This made me retort, "Well than, what colour is your Allah?" He gave the response that forever changed my life. "Allah is not black or white, in fact Allah does not have parents or children".
At this juncture a light clicked on. That's God! That makes absolute sense! We as human beings need children to carry on our species but God is ever living and never dies.
Notice that in the greater context it was the issue of God having a son or daughter that ultimately did not appeal to me.
continued...
also no one called me out on anything. Notice also in my 'About Me' I have stated:
I'm not going to do like so many people do and say that I was some devout Christian who was on his way to become the next Jerry Falwell or going to be elected to the college of cardinals. This is simply not true. I don't want to cheapen the religion that is Christianity.....
and so on.
Of course people are welcome to critique my decisions....what I gave on my 'About Me' was a brief summary.
Those who actually want to move beyond the race issue will see that there was a whole series of things that ultimately led to God's choice for me.
However, my knowledge of the issues has grown and I am thankful that Allah has chosen me to bow down to him in Islam!
Of course I expect no charity from you people it would be foolhardy.
After all I see how charitable you are to one another on issues like federal vision, the two wills of God, baby baptism and a host of other issues.
So of course I wouldn't expect some genteel tea drinking folks like you to be kind and courteous to a Saracen like me ;)
GV19, the race issue was first raised by you, so your kvetching about the "race baiters" rings hollow. And you confuse sharp disagreement with un-charitableness. It is usually those on the losing side of an argument that start complaining about the un-charitableness of their opponents. I've seen it over and over again, and this thread is no different.
Grandverb19 – I thought you said you were “white” in your post about your journey into Islam?
Now, in your post about Andrew Jackson and his shameful and unjust action against the Cherokee Indians, you say you are Cherokee Indian. What’s the scoop?
Grandverb19 did not allow the comment function on his piece about Andrew Jackson, and seems to paint all Calvinists and Scots that way.
The fact that Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme court declared what Jackson did was un-constitutional is another fact that Grandverb19 left out - that gives more balance to his piece.
Grandverbalizer19 -
The comment function was not allowed on his blog about Andrew Jackson.
I also wrote to GV19 -
In fact I agree with you that what President Andrew Jackson was wrong and evil; and that is a shameful past of US history that we all admit and confess.
So, I don't understand why you removed it,[in another blog comment box] when I made it clear that I agree with you that is was wrong.
What I don't appreciate is that you seem to paint all Calvinists/Presbyterians/Scots (by the emphasis of your piece) as like Andrew Jackson.
I don't think any of the information below is out of bounds and I don't support what Andrew Jackson did.
I think it is helpful and fair and balanced for people to know that there were others, with Scottish blood in them who suffered with the Cherokee and loved them and ministered to them.
Also, Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling of Justice John Marshall of this. That is something that you should include, so that it would be more fair and balanced.
Yes, Andrew Jackson was wrong to do what he did. Did you realize Chief Justice Marshall declared Jackson’s “removal law” unconstitutional. Jackson later manipulated the Cherokees to submit. Chief Jesse Bushyhead, (because of his bushy red hair), opposed the removal, but later traveled with his people and suffered with them to Oklahoma, weeping with them. Jesse Bushyhead was part Scot and Cherokee; the grandson of a Scotsman and a Cherokee wife. Other missionaries and ministers lived out the Christian life among the Indians. So, just because Andrew Jackson was from a Scottish / Calvinist background and went to a Presbyterian church, does not mean he followed true Christianity consistently. [or that Jackson was truly a born again man.]
Rev. Robert Schuler is a Presbyterian minister, but he is a heretic. (Postitive thinking; doesn’t believe in sin; thinks a “poor self-image” is the greatest sin.) So are the PCUSA folks who are trying to say homosexuality is not a sin and ok for "same-sex marriage" - they are heretics also.
Schuler is actually RCA, but the point stands that he's a heretic. Of course PCUSA and RCA are pretty much interchangeable as apostasy goes...
Thanks Neal, I didn't know details of RCA, (does that stand for Reformed Church of America or Reformed Christian of American ?) but thanks for the info on specifically what kind of church that Schuler comes from.
Reformed Church in America. They are one of the the Dutch Reformed branches, much like the Christian Reformed Church. Three Forms of Unity vs. Westminster Standards. My denomination is the URC which broke from the CRC over the same kinds of issues as the PCUSA and RCA.
Post a Comment