The New and Improved No-Straw-Man Challenge

[BNR32FAN]

It doesn’t say that He leads them to repentance.

So what does it mean that His kindness is leading them to repentance?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Once again, can God intervene to stop any evil act at any given time?

Of course He can. I think one example would be 2 Chronicles 20:14-19 where God stopped the Moabites, the Amorites, and the inhabitants of Mt Seir from attacking the Israelites by causing them to slaughter each other instead. David & Goliath is probably another example, I’m sure there are several more.

 

[Hammster]

So what does it mean that His kindness is leading them to repentance?

Exactly that. How He provides shouod lead to repentance.

 

[Hammster]

Of course He can. I think one example would be 2 Chronicles 20:14-19 where God stopped the Moabites, the Amorites, and the inhabitants of Mt Seir from attacking the Israelites by causing them to slaughter each other instead. David & Goliath is probably another example, I’m sure there are several more.

Do you think if He chooses to not intervene that He had a reason?

 

[bling]

For God’s glory.

Job failed showing a huge need for God's help, so did that bring "glory" to God, better than Him succeeding.

 

[bling]

So no sanctification?

you asked us not to set up some straw man argument. I did not say humans could not control their own thoughts with the help of the Holy Spirit and Godly type Love.

Sinful acts. Things we do that are sinful.

Again, "things we do", does not have to include things we think.

But He can.

God can stop people from thinking stuff, but sin is not the problem.

You mean God’s objectives.

No man's objective. God's totally unselfish objective is doing or allowing anything that will help humans fulfill their objective.

But He can intervene.

Sin can help someone in fulfilling their earthly objective and God does only the very best thing.

 

[Hammster]

you asked us not to set up some straw man argument. I did not say humans could not control their own thoughts with the help of the Holy Spirit and Godly type Love.

Again, "things we do", does not have to include things we think.

God can stop people from thinking stuff, but sin is not the problem.

No man's objective. God's totally unselfish objective is doing or allowing anything that will help humans fulfill their objective.

Sin can help someone in fulfilling their earthly objective and God does only the very best thing.

The point is that He can either intervene or not intervene. Either one will go towards fulfilling His plan without making us puppets.

 

[Hammster]

Job failed showing a huge need for God's help, so did that bring "glory" to God, better than Him succeeding.

God was glorified. That was the purpose.

 

[bling]

God was glorified. That was the purpose.

Do you feel an individual can do stuff which does not bring glory to God? An if so, could Job have done something which did not bring God glory?

 

[bling]

The point is that He can either intervene or not intervene. Either one will go towards fulfilling His plan without making us puppets.

If God can only do the very best thing for the individual, then the free will thoughts and actions of the individual will determine what God does for that individual. The individual is pulling his own strings up to the point the individual will never accept God's help.

 

[Hammster]

Do you feel an individual can do stuff which does not bring glory to God? An if so, could Job have done something which did not bring God glory?

Yes. But I don’t see the relevance in this discussion.

 

[Hammster]

If God can only do the very best thing for the individual, then the free will thoughts and actions of the individual will determine what God does for that individual. The individual is pulling his own strings up to the point the individual will never accept God's help.

God is not subordinate to our thoughts.

 

[bling]

Yes. But I don’t see the relevance in this discussion.

If man can do stuff which does not bring Glory to God than man is making this God provided free will choice to bring or not bring glory to God.

 

[bling]

God is not subordinate to our thoughts.

Again, you are putting up some strawman argument, since our thoughts are not "controlling" God, but God's Love is controlling God's behavior.

 

[Hammster]

If man can do stuff which does not bring Glory to God than man is making this God provided free will choice to bring or not bring glory to God.

That doesn’t mean God won’t ultimately be glorified by every action man does, though.

 

[Hammster]

Again, you are putting up some strawman argument, since our thoughts are not "controlling" God, but God's Love is controlling God's behavior.

That’s a nonsense statement.

 

[Hammster]

From Calvin’s Commentary on 1 John 4:8

He also sets in opposition to this, according to his usual manner, the contrary clause, that there is no knowledge of God where there is no love. And he takes as granted a general principle or truth, that God is love, that is, that his nature is to love men. I know that many reason more refinedly, and that the ancients especially have perverted this passage in order to prove the divinity of the Spirit. But the meaning of the Apostle is simply this, - that as God is the fountain of love, this effect flows from him, and is diffused wherever the knowledge of him comes, as he had at the beginning called him light, because there is nothing dark in him, but on the contrary he illuminates all things by his own brightness. Here then he does not speak of the essence of God, but only shews what he is found to be by us.
But two things in the Apostle's words ought to be noticed, - that the true knowledge of God is that which regenerates and renews us, so that we become new creatures; and that hence it cannot be but that it must conform us to the image of God. Away, then, with that foolish gloss respecting unformed faith. For when any one separates faith from love, it is the same as though he attempted to take away heat from the sun.

And 1 John 4:16

And we have known and believed It is the same as though he had said, «We have known by believing;» for such knowledge is not attained but by faith. But we hence learn how different, is an uncertain or doubtful opinion from faith. Besides, though he meant here, as I have already said, to accommodate the last sentence to his readers, yet he defines faith in various ways. He had said before, that it is to confess that Jesus is the Son of God; but, he now says, We know by faith God's love towards us. It hence appears, that the paternal love of God is found in Christ, and that nothing certain is known of Christ, except by those who know themselves to be the children of God by his grace. For the Father sets his own Son daily before us for this end, that he may adopt us in him.
God is love This is as it were the minor proposition in an argument; for from faith to love he reasons in this way: By faith God dwells in us, and God is love; then, wherever God abides, love ought to be there. Hence it follows that love is necessarily connected with faith.

 

[Grip Docility]

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (Calvin's Commentary)

14. For the love of Christ. The term love may be taken either in a passive signification, or in an active. I prefer the latter. For if we be not harder than iron, we cannot refrain from devoting ourselves entirely to Christ, when we consider what great love he exercised towards us, when he endured death in our stead. Paul, too, explains himself when he adds, that it is reasonable that we should live to him, being dead to ourselves. Hence, as he had previously stated: (2 Corinthians 5:11,) that he was stirred up to duty by fear, inasmuch as an account was one day to be rendered by him, so he now brings forward another motive -- that measureless love of Christ towards us, of which he had furnished us with an evidence in his death. "The knowledge," I say, "of this love, ought to constrain our affections, that they may go in no other direction than that of loving him in return.

Again, you are putting up some strawman argument, since our thoughts are not "controlling" God, but God's Love is controlling God's behavior.

There is a metaphor [544] implied in the word constrain, denoting that it is impossible but that every one that truly considers and ponders that wonderful love, which Christ has manifested towards us by his death, becomes, as it were, bound to him, and constrained by the closest tie, and devotes himself wholly to his service.

If one died for all. This design is to be carefully kept in view -- that Christ died for us, that we might die to ourselves. The exposition is also to be carefully noticed -- that to die to ourselves is to live to Christ; or if you would have it at greater length, it is to renounce ourselves, that we may live to Christ; for Christ. redeemed us with this view -- that he might have us under his authority, as his peculiar possession. Hence it follows that we are no longer our own masters. There is a similar passage in Romans 14:7-9. At the same time, there are two things that are here brought forward separately -- that we are dead in Christ, in order that all ambition and eagerness for distinction may be laid aside, and that it may be felt by us no hardship to be made as nothing; and farther,

 

[Hammster]

Again, you are putting up some strawman argument, since our thoughts are not "controlling" God, but God's Love is controlling God's behavior.

That’s a nonsense statement.

What I mean by this is that God doesn’t have parts. He’s singular. He’s simple. All of His attributes are equal, no one greater than the other.

 

[Grip Docility]

From Calvin’s Commentary on 1 John 4:8

He also sets in opposition to this, according to his usual manner, the contrary clause, that there is no knowledge of God where there is no love. And he takes as granted a general principle or truth, that God is love, that is, that his nature is to love men.

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

I know that many reason more refinedly, and that the ancients especially have perverted this passage in order to prove the divinity of the Spirit. But the meaning of the Apostle is simply this, - that as God is the fountain of love, this effect flows from him, and is diffused wherever the knowledge of him comes, as he had at the beginning called him light, because there is nothing dark in him, but on the contrary he illuminates all things by his own brightness. Here then he does not speak of the essence of God, but only shews what he is found to be by us.

1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease;

But two things in the Apostle's words ought to be noticed, - that the true knowledge of God is that which regenerates and renews us, so that we become new creatures; and that hence it cannot be but that it must conform us to the image of God. Away, then, with that foolish gloss respecting unformed faith. For when any one separates faith from love, it is the same as though he attempted to take away heat from the sun.

And 1 John 4:16

And we have known and believed It is the same as though he had said, «We have known by believing;» for such knowledge is not attained but by faith. But we hence learn how different, is an uncertain or doubtful opinion from faith. Besides, though he meant here, as I have already said, to accommodate the last sentence to his readers, yet he defines faith in various ways. He had said before, that it is to confess that Jesus is the Son of God; but, he now says, We know by faith God's love towards us. It hence appears, that the paternal love of God is found in Christ, and that nothing certain is known of Christ, except by those who know themselves to be the children of God by his grace. For the Father sets his own Son daily before us for this end, that he may adopt us in him.
God is love This is as it were the minor proposition in an argument; for from faith to love he reasons in this way: By faith God dwells in us, and God is love; then, wherever God abides, love ought to be there. Hence it follows that love is necessarily connected with faith.

"

To all: Jesus said: Luke 6 - 27. But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,”

This should end the discussion, but somehow it doesn’t

God’s love is not in or upon those who are in unbelief but his love is toward them as scripture teaches

Why should it end the discussion?