| Author | Message | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 322 Registered: 7-2004  |
Stan-- I think that you are combining the ideas of God loving unconditionally and God acting the same towards everyone. Is unconditional election different than unconditional love? Romans 9 was, and is, a powerful chapter in causing me to re-think any form of Arminianism and begin my shift towards an emphasis on God's sovereignty. When I read Romans 9 it seems clear that God's choice of Jacob was not based on something about Jacob, but rather on God's choice and mercy. I conclude that this means God's love for (and choice of) His elect is not based on anything about the elect or their actions. If the basis of God's love for His elect is apart from anything that they do, isn't that unconditional love? Romans 9 is also clear that God doesn't act the same towards everyone, and that the reason (once again) is that God acts according to His sovereign will. Verses 21-23 "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory." My understanding of these verese is that the choice of God's mercy (His love) is not conditional upon the men, but on His plans. I don't claim to understand all of the answers on the topic of God's sovereingty, pre-destination, and the role of our actions/choices within that. I struggle with the idea of double-predestination as it just doesn't "feel right". There are verses that I struggle to reconcile with the teachings in Romans 9. But in the end, I guess the question that I really struggle with in regards to concluding that God's love is conditional is trying to define what conditions in man could warrant or result in God's love? And the implications of concluding that we can do something to meet the conditions of His love. I must admit that I surprise myself with just how Calvinist my response sounds. Writing down the thoughts shows just how much my thinking has changed over the last 2 or 3 years. I still wouldn't have defined myself as having largely Calvinist views, but perhaps I need to reconsider how apt that description might be. Although I have serious problems with the Westminster Confession view of the Law and the Sabbath. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 906 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ric, you are right. We were chosen by the Father in eternity past in Christ by a decree of total sovereign grace, and not based on any conditions any of us could fulfill. The Arminian view that God chose us on the basis of something good in us is the basis of all works theology. The Bible also teaches the doctrine of reprobation. As you say Ric, this doctrine just doesn't feel right, and no one rejoices in this doctrine. I would like to quote Wayne Grudem from his systematic theology p. 685 "In spite of the fact that we recoil against this doctrine, we must be careful of our attitude toward God and toward these passages of scripture.(Rom 9 etc.) We must never begin to wish that the Bible was written in another way,or that it did not contain these verses. Moreover, if we are convinced that these verses teach reprobation, then we are obligated both to believe it and accept it as fair and just of God... By the way Ric, a Reformed person doesn't have to accept everything the Westminster confession says. I know you are aware of John Reisinger's ministry at www.soundofgrace.com who is thoroughly Calvinistic but fully New Covenant in his theology, and others are starting to see the merits of this. But in the meantime, I am satisfied with the conservative Presbyterian church I have attended recently even though they do accept the Westminster confession, as their interpretation of Sunday sacredness isn't even close to the Sabbath legalism in SDA. Now back to the question about God's unconditional love. Ric, do you think it is Biblical for an evangelist to tell Larry King that God loves the 9/11 hijackers just as much as he loves the redeemed church that was purchased by Christ's blood? Once God has decreed sovereignly that we will be saved on the basis of grace alone, and others will be passed over by God and not be saved, then is there a difference in the type of love God exhibits? When Jesus said in John 10 that He is the Good Shepherd and lays down His life for the sheep (and not the goats), and multiple passages where it is clear that Christ has a special (agape) love for the church, then does it not follow that God loves us seen through the cross in His Son. It just seems to follow that if a writer tells a public audience that God loves everyone unconditionally, then it could only mean that everyone will be saved. This is a tough issue and as I said before, I don't have all the answers. I need to think about this topic a little more and get back to you. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2698 Registered: 12-2003  |
I think the issue in the question of unconditional love is God's love for man as separate from His love of Jesus. I'm thinking as I write, and I might modify my expression of this as time goes on, but here's how it seems to me: God loves all humanity unconditionally. He doesn't depend upon any goodndess or response in them. They are all His creations. He love them--us--all. Enter the concept of election. I don't understand it--so I won't try to explain it. Because of it, however, many people say "yes" when God reveals Himself and the saving grace of Jesus. Once a person yields to Jesus, his POSITION changes. He is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and he is IN Christ. When a person is IN Christ, he is seated at God's right hand in heavenly places IN CHRIST. Now God has a new relationship with them--they are His adopted sons and daughters, not merely His creations. People become sons of God when they are IN Christ. God's love for those people, I think, is not more or less unconditional than His love for any human, but His love for Christ is absolute. When we are in Christ, God loves us because of Jesus. I still believe that God's hatred of sinners is positional, not emotional. They are separated from Him; they are not able to experience communion with Him or receive His inheritance. He cannot be in the presence of sin. Yet all of us were once those sinners--without hope and without God in the world, as Paul says in Ephesians 2. But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive in Christ when we were dead in our trnasgressions (Ephesians 2:5). I believe God's love for His people is because of Jesus. We are in Christ, and He is in us. God is now one with us, and we are loved in a new way--as family--because of God's love for Jesus. It is only IN CHRIST that we experience God's "family love". That family love is His love for Christ--not for us--but we receive it as ours when we are IN CHRIST. The riches of His mercy is this bringing us to life with Christ, raising us up in Christ and seating us in heavenly places in Christóall of this expressed in His kindness to us IN CHRIST (Ephesians 2:6-7). It's interesting that all of this is "IN" Christ, not "through" Christ. Never is our salvation, new birth, or position in heavenly places accomplished IN us THROUGH Christ. All of this occurs IN CHRIST, and we are the recipients of this mystery of grace when we are IN CHRIST. Somehow I believe that God's love for His church is different from His love for others only because we are positionally in Christ and therefore receive God's love for Christ. It's about God loving Jesus, not about God loving us differently. I believe the Bible means it when it says God so "loved the wordl" that He gave His Son. He loves all humans equallyóbut when we are in Christ, we receive His love for Christ. Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1108 Registered: 7-2003  |
Okay, Richard...I managed to keep it "off" for a day and a half!  Stan, I'm not saying I can explain God's statement that he hated Esau. But I can't imagine anything more hopeless than someone telling someone else God might not love them. Or that they had to some how have some characteristic that they didn't have to be acceptable to God. Whatever confusion exists because God told Israel to wipe out whole nations of people, including women, children and animals is set aside to focus on the blatant and obvious love God had in sending his son. As I've pondered this topic "intellectually" since my last post, I can only return to the conclusion of how absolutely empty and worthless life would be if God couldn't or wouldn't love me. If he really hates some, how can I really know he loves me...just cuz I want him to? If God doesn't love some people, how can I be so bold or even arrogant as to say he loves me? Cuz, I'm not really that special on my own. I only think I'm special because God says so...or maybe that's just false information someone told me once. To the point of the hijackers, is their sin worse than mine? If they had survived, and repented, wouldn't that be evidence of God's love for them? Are there people we've heard of doing horrible crimes who've turned their lives around by the grace of God? At what point do we have the right to write people off and say they are unlovable because of some acts that may be unquestionably horrible...say an abortionist who has killed more babies than those terrorists did. WHAT IF Saddam Hussein had a damascus road experience...with all the evil he has done, could God redeem even him? It is not my goal in life to ever tell someone God couldn't, wouldn't, might not love them. What kind of empty, hopeless existence would that be? I would much rather say I don't understand the statement in Romans 9 than to rob someone of the assurance that God would love them. That may be more philosophical than theological, but without hope, what do you do? | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1109 Registered: 7-2003 |
I should also mention in case it's not clear, just cuz God loves someone doesn't mean they're saved. That is a separate deal altogether, as defined through the gospel. And, one more side note, Stan...that hymn you mentioned about hurting a soul, is that a real hymn outside adventism? I ask because B was singing it to our 2 year old the other day, and I've never heard it. I presumed he was singing SDA stuff...but maybe not. Just curious if you know more of the words ... the few words you quoted sure seemed like what he was saying... (Message edited by melissa on October 12, 2005) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 908 Registered: 3-2005 |
Melissa, Thanks for asking about that beautiful hymn. One of the best renditions I have heard of that song was sung by Elvis Presley on one of his hymns collections--Boy did I love Elvis' rousing rock version of "How great thou art-- but the words to that hymn, "If I have wounded any soul today, if I have caused one foot to go astray...Then I forget one line, but it ends "Dear Lord forgive" So, no it is not uniquely Adventist. Melissa, It is very clear that I have done a poor job of articulating my position, and it unfortunately is due to time constraints of trying to take care of sich hospital patients. When ministering to the sick and the lost world, there is never a time when God's love should not be emphasized. I hope that my life is dedicated to showing Christ's love. There are some theological realities where you have to take the whole Bible, and try to reconcile it. I can not leave Romans 9 out of the equation, because it is in Romans 9 where the clear statement is made--God did create some people as objects of wrath, and vessels prepared for destruction. Please look at my quote above from Wayne Grudem and see if you agree with that quote of his or not. Grudem is very fair in his systematic theology, and like him I see no way to rationalize away the doctrine of reprobation. But I have found life is so much easier by just letting the Bible speak, and trust what I know to be a wonderful and merciful God. Melissa, I can't read the Psalms without coming up with the idea that God's wrath dwells on evil doers. There is no way that it is Biblical to say that God has the same love for those murderous hijackers or for Hitler, that God has for those He chose to redeem in Christ before the foundation of the world, but thru nothing good in ourselves, but because of His grace toward rotten sinners like me. Soli Deo Gloria, Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1111 Registered: 7-2003 |
That's the song, Stan. I had never heard it before. How bizarre you should mention it since he just sang it Sunday. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 909 Registered: 3-2005 |
And some how that song which I had not even thought of for a long time just came to me at the time I felt I really needed it when I posted it. God is sovereign in everything--He is amazing, and sometimes we all need to just step back from our disagreements, and celebrate the glories of Christ's love and mercy. Thanks again Melissa for mentioning it. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 910 Registered: 3-2005 |
OK, so I had a chance to do a search on John Piper's website today, and of course he expresses much better what I thought I was trying to say about the different kinds of love that God manifests. According to him, there is a special love that God has for the redeemed, and a general love that He has for the whole world. This is a short sermon, and I wonder if you agree with what he wrote. www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/98/052498.html Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 911 Registered: 3-2005 |
And here is one more link from D.A.Carson, who wrothe the book "Sabbath to Lord's Day" which was a breakthru book for me in understanding the Sabbath issue. In this essay he tackles this very difficult problem on the love of God. Wow, this article really summarizes why this topic is so difficult, and why Christians for centuries have argued these issues. Carson is a true scholar, yet is reasonably easy to read except for the small print. www.wccc.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=243 Stan | ||
| Bmorgan Registered user Username: Bmorgan Post Number: 62 Registered: 7-2000 |
Stan/Melissa, Are these the words to the song? "If I have wounded any soul today, If I have caused one foot to go astray, If I have walked in my own willful way Dear Lord, forgive. Forgive the sins I have confessed to Thee Forgive the secret sins I do not see Guide me, love me, and my keeper be Dear Lord, Forgive." Hey Stan, how could you forget a good ole vesper or Youth meeting hymn?. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 914 Registered: 3-2005 |
Bmorgan, Thanks for filling in for my faulty memory! It has been a long time. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1112 Registered: 7-2003 |
When I searched on the internet yesterday, I think there are actually 4 or 5 verses. I only caught the phrase about a foot to go astray and dear Lord forgive, but once I had the first line, I put that in a search field and it came up in several spots. It's not in the Baptist, AOG or Christian Church's top 50 (at least none I've been to). I'd never heard of it. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 916 Registered: 3-2005 |
No, it is not what you call one of the great hymns of the faith and it won't be found on any of those lists, Melissa. However, there are a lot of songs that speak to peoples hearts, and are written for specific purposes. I remember when my brother played Elvis' version of that song one Sabbath afternoon after church, and my dad said that was a beautiful song; except when my brother told him that it was Elvis singing, then he couldn't believe it, because he did not believe that Elvis was capable of singing sacred song. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1113 Registered: 7-2003 |
Yes, that's true. There's nothing like a good old "victory in Jesus" to get me going. I remember the first time I heard it jazzed up in the 70s. I knew that was the way to do it! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 917 Registered: 3-2005 |
Why is the gospel of self esteem and seeker-sensitivity opposed to the heart of the message of the Reformation? Here is an article from Michael Horton's magazine "Modern Reformation" written by Don Matzat a Lutheran pastor and teacher www.the-highway.com/seekersensitive.html Stan | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 148 Registered: 3-2005 |
This sort of article (in the linjk above) makes me want to scream! The misrepresentation of psychology, and the black and white criticism of seeker-style churches is nothing but extremism. My background is in Applied Behavioral Science and so this blatent put-down of self-esteem is one of the things that make me distrustful of many so-called Christian Leaders. While they may have some, or even many valid points, it is not at all an unbiased, fair critisim. When one has an unhealthy self-esteem, there is an inability to truely admit to any failings. When the Holy Spirit fills our hearts we begin to understand what healthy self-esteem really is. We can begin to understand and admit how sinful we really are, and then accept forgivness and have Faith in Jesus' gift of Grace. True self-esteem can only come through understanding Grace and how unworthy one is to recieve it. To say that a seeker-style service only panders to one's self-esteem misses the point all together. When one can be brought to awareness of a need, then there is an opening of the senses where the calling of the Holy Spirit can be heard. While I love "old time religion" and traditional style of worship (whatever that means!), I believe it can come across as pious or confusing to someone not familiar with "church". What does "here I raise my ebanezer" mean to an unchurched person? When put in common language that people are familiar with, there is a better chance that someone will understand and accept what is being taught. Christianity doesn't only come in dated language or culture. It is alive and well in this generation with all it's technology and youthful exuberance. I still think we confine ourselves to much too small a box when we catagorically rule out any way to present the Gospel. While I allow for the traditional style of impressing one with their worthlessness and need for Christ, I also see a place for a "feel-good" message of Christ's Grace. I came out of the SDA Church where I was constantly told "oh, what a worm am I", and was never sure of my Salvation. Now I know the "feel-good" message that I am a horrible sinner who has Salvation only because of the Gift of Grace. I don't think haveing that kind of healthy self-esteem is unBiblical. I think it is just how Christ went about His business, teaching and drawing people to Him. I would rather see some healthy dialogue around this issue rather than diatribes against anything that might sound like psychology. Psychology doesn't have to be anti-Christian. But there seems to be such fear in the Christian Community around this topic. Let's try to come together with all our diversity rather that choosing sides and pointing fingers. Every style of worship, every brand of Christianity has the ability to be used by God or corrupted for Evil. We should be looking only at the motives and results, and Who the focus is on in any type of service/message/Church. If Jesus is presented in a way that makes people want to know more, and want the kind of self-esteem only giving one's life over to Jesus Christ can bring, then that is the type of worship that glorifies God. My prayer is that the leaders of all these various Churches will stay true to the heart of the Gospel message - Jesus Christ Resurrected! -tisha p.s. - I'm leaving for the weekend, so I'm not "hitting and running"! I'll be back on Monday and I'll catch up again! Have a great weekend everyone. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 323 Registered: 7-2004 |
Tisha--Please don't take this as being argumentative, but I am interested in what Psychological teaching you consider to be Christian. My undergraduate degree is behavioral sciences and my graduate degree is psychology so I think I have some basis for this discussion. I know that there are plenty of Christian Psychologists, but from what I have seen most of them just use a re-hash of a non-Christian psychology system. Are any of the psychology schools of thought pro-Christian? Freud? Jung? Skinner? Maslow? Adler? Does putting Christian window dressing on a secular approach make it somehow Christian? Of course constantly hearing about what a worm you were in SDAism was hopeless. The Law was being preached without the true Gospel. You saw that you could never be good enough to merit salvation, but it never took you the next step to show you that you didn't have to be good enough, that salvation was a gift from the One who was good. A proper presentation of the Gospel includes BOTH our awful condition and His free gift. Some of the seeker friendly approaches appear to bypass, or minimize, the part about our condition. But this just shrinks the understanding of how much the Gift truly was. Diversity is great in the non-essentials. But not if the Gospel of Scripture has been modified to make it more appealing. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 918 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tisha, I'm sorry. I don't think the article above puts down any of your concerns you expressed. Notice that the article never mentioned Rick Warren. It was mostly aimed at Robert Schuller. There was nothing about music styles or worship styles. It was about whether the gospel of self-esteem as commonly taught was compatible with the Bible's emphasis on law and gospel, sin and the perfect remedy Jesus Christ. Since you are trained in applied psychology, did you notice that the article quoted Paul Tornier, the author of guilt and grace, and he is a well known Christian psychologist. There was nothing in the article that necessarily condemned all legitimate Christian psychology. Michael Horton is a well recognized leader who has been very fair with Rick Warren. Also, what specifically in the article was not Biblical? If someone can point that out to me, I will gladly apologize for posting the article. And since it did offend you, I will personally apologize to you, Tisha. I don't mean to offend, but obviously these articles are challenging, but that is why we have a forum, and I always value your input. You have many valid points. Stan | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1114 Registered: 7-2003 |
James Dobson is a psychologist...so, how does he rate to the gentlemen responders... On the lighter side, my older son left for a retreat this afternoon with the middle school kids from church. One of our student ministers had on a shirt that said Calvinism on the top line, then said "This shirt chose me". I thought haha, Stan would like that. It was probably 30 minutes later before I saw him from the back. On the back it said Arminianism on the top line and then "I chose this shirt" on the second line. And I decided the shirt wasn't probably one for Stan afterall. |
