Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Matthew 23:37 states: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Could one of the brilliant Calvinists on TOL explain this verse, minus any free
will choice on behalf of the House of Israel?

I assume you understand Our Lord's lament, here following His woes in the preceding verses, is directed specifically to the leaders, scribes and Pharisees. By the use of Jerusalem we are not to understand the city, nor all the inhabitants.

From this is should be quite clear that these scribes and Pharisees are not the same persons whom Our Lord would have gathered, who would not. Nor is the passage saying He would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not. Nor is the passage saying He would have gathered them, thy children, and they would not.

Rather what we are being presented with in the passage is Jesus would have gathered the people of Jerusalem under care of the scribes and Pharisees (thy children), and the scribes and Pharisees (ye) would not. In the passage the persons whom Jesus would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; instead it is their rulers were not willing that they should.

The gathering spoken of in the passage is not a gathering of the Jews to Christ as in salvifically for each and every one. Rather it is a gathering by and under the ministry of the word to hear Our Lord preach such that those gathered might be born again from the hearing of the Good News from the Messiah. Note also that nothing in the passage states each and every one so gathered would have been regenerated. Moreover, despite the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees, those so given to Our Lord from eternity would be regenerated.

Had Our Lord been not prevented to gather by the scribes and Pharisees, it would have preserved everyone from the temporal ruin so noted in the very next verse, Matthew 23:38. The desolation stands in contrast to the preservation (hen gathering her chickens under her wings).

It should also be clear that the will expressed by Jesus to gather these persons is not his divine will as God, for no one can resist the will of God. Rather it was an expression of Jesus' human will of affections for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Our Lord's human will is subordinate to His divine will, yet not contrary to it, yet the human will is not always fulfilled.

AMR

 

[Desert Reign]

I knew this about you, but I think it beyond one man's capability to reinvent every theological wheel, though some theologians get close. They however, spent little time doing much else.

Probably you are away and/or don't want to discuss further but I will say my piece anyway.

I don't think it is a good reason not to search for truth just because you havent got time for much else. It's your choice. I was only thinking that the fact of your participating in a theological debate forum was an indicator that you were interested. With 'reinventing every theological wheel', you make it sound like debating this is tedious. Again, probably you don't want to join in further. It is your choice.

It is a worthy point to contrast here, and an important one as it reflects on society in Christianity, and at large as well. I do understand your OV thinking behind the sentiment.

Judging from your below comments, I am not at all sure that you do. Because you don't seem to see that there is any self-contradiction in these statements.

For me, "as He want's/needs" expresses a limitation.

God is Almighty (scriptural given of omnipotence). This necessarily means He is beyond utilitarian (needs) or volition (He is powerful and thus 'can' do as He wills with no qualification though I don't have as much issue with 'wants,' just that it may allow for whimsy rather than who He is, all the time).

I only conflated wants-needs because in many languages they are the same word, same concept, just as in English they used to be and I am perfectly happy to assume that anyone reading what I write also doesn't make a hard and fast distinction between them. If it was in God's nature to create the world, then he needed to create the world in order to express that nature. So his nature entailed a need. The reason he wanted to do it (what you call volition) was because he had a need to do it. In modern English-speaking society we say that a person can have urges - instincts, habits, whims (as you say) - but that he is responsible for his actions and if those urges, etc. are harmful to others then he has the ability and the responsibility (if he is adult) to suppress them. This is a deep psychological and spiritual issue at the root of culture and I can only say that I am perfectly happy with the view that want and need are one and the same thing. I think that Christian maturity demands it, otherwise we can always excuse ourselves that we were not in control of our actions. I can only assume, as I am sure you also do, that God is in control of his.

But again, this was what I was trying to separate from God being unable to lie. It isn't a comment on His power, but on the fact that He is by nature against it ever happening.

But you failed in trying to separate it. And if you still insist, then surely you must assume that God's nature is in two distinct parts: the 'soft' part that represents characteristics like love, faithfulness, truth, and a 'hard' part that represents things like the substance God is made of, how many fingers and toes has he got, is he made of a substance called 'spirit' that happens to be everywhere, can he make things out of nothing. The IT analogy will I am sure not be missed by you.

But your problem is that you cannot make such a distinction with God. It is both invented and illusory and serves only one purpose: to enable you to maintain that after all God can do anything at the same time as maintain that there are some things that he cannot do.

It is similar to "Can God make a rock He canno lift?" The answer is neither 'yes' nor 'no.' Rather, the answer is "illogical question." Similarly: Can God sin by sure power? Because it separates Him from His nature, you could say "yes, because He is all powerful" or "No, because He can't/will not do it."

I already referred to that question. But as I previously also intimated, I do not give either answer. The answer is that God cannot do this because God is self-consistent (God cannot deny himself). I know the question is illogical but the reason God cannot do it is because he is self-consistent. People can do illogical things (or at least attempt to). Self-consistent beings cannot.

Perhaps (as I was thinking out loud) the problem is in an illogical or not well thought out question. So, that's about the whole gist of my posted interjections. -Lon (and thanks again for participating).

I hope you will see that it is the (theological) concept of omnipotence that is illogical. Your attempt to separate that from certain aspects of his personality (nature) proves that inwardly you think of omnipotence as being qualified, even if outwardly you say the opposite. You said: "For me, "as He want's/needs" expresses a limitation." This implies your belief that God's character (his wants and needs) are not an integral part of his being, that they are incidental. For me, they are certainly not. If you are into 'pedantic' scripture, then 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) would very much support me here. God's character of love (as an example) is an integral part of his being. If God is unable to do something because he is a god of love and not of hate, then he is unable to do it.
You began with omnipotence as a biblical concept. Biblical omnipotence is relational: it is in relation to the world and to man. There is no justification for saying more than 'God is as powerful as he needs to be in expressing his own plans and intentions, his own unchanging character'.

 

[Clete]

I assume you understand Our Lord's lament, here following His woes in the preceding verses, is directed specifically to the leaders, scribes and Pharisees. By the use of Jerusalem we are not to understand the city, nor all the inhabitants.

From this is should be quite clear that these scribes and Pharisees are not the same persons whom Our Lord would have gathered, who would not. Nor is the passage saying He would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not. Nor is the passage saying He would have gathered them, thy children, and they would not.

Rather what we are being presented with in the passage is Jesus would have gathered the people of Jerusalem under care of the scribes and Pharisees (thy children), and the scribes and Pharisees (ye) would not. In the passage the persons whom Jesus would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered; instead it is their rulers were not willing that they should.

The gathering spoken of in the passage is not a gathering of the Jews to Christ as in salvifically for each and every one. Rather it is a gathering by and under the ministry of the word to hear Our Lord preach such that those gathered might be born again from the hearing of the Good News from the Messiah. Note also that nothing in the passage states each and every one so gathered would have been regenerated. Moreover, despite the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees, those so given to Our Lord from eternity would be regenerated.

Had Our Lord been not prevented to gather by the scribes and Pharisees, it would have preserved everyone from the temporal ruin so noted in the very next verse, Matthew 23:38. The desolation stands in contrast to the preservation (hen gathering her chickens under her wings).

It should also be clear that the will expressed by Jesus to gather these persons is not his divine will as God, for no one can resist the will of God. Rather it was an expression of Jesus' human will of affections for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Our Lord's human will is subordinate to His divine will, yet not contrary to it, yet the human will is not always fulfilled.

AMR

Seriously, people!

How can anyone say this stuff with a straight face?!

It is my belief that no one actually believes this stuff. Not Calvin, not AMR and not you either - no one. Its easier to believe in Santa Claus! Oh sure, people jump up and down, insisting that this is really what they believe but I don't buy it. The closest anyone could come to believing this sort of non-nonsensical stupidity is to repeatedly lie to themselves until they've trained their minds to stop seeing the idiotic contradictions. But that isn't the same thing as being a true believer, that's just self-delusion and way down deep inside they know that it is a lie, that its a fairy tale, a made up story, no more real than Jack and the Bean Stock.

I can tell you that I'm so happy that I found a rational alternative to this non-sense, otherwise I'd be an atheist.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Derf]

It should also be clear that the will expressed by Jesus to gather these persons is not his divine will as God, for no one can resist the will of God. Rather it was an expression of Jesus' human will of affections for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Our Lord's human will is subordinate to His divine will, yet not contrary to it, yet the human will is not always fulfilled.

AMR

What if the divine will of God is that only those that want to be gathered under His wings will be the ones gathered? Surely no one could resist that, right--and force those that don't want to love God to love Him?

 

[quip]

When scripture says God cannot lie, it isn't saying it is too difficult for God, but rather that He will not do it as His nature is its opposite. Thus, 'cannot' does not mean inability. It isn't a 'lack' in God that He cannot lie. That by necessity, means we must go beyond the dictionary to rightly discuss the character of God. Same dictionary? Should be, but not a common one, but rather a theological one.

God cannot lie simply because he's set up as the defining and divining arbiter of the very concept. :duh:

Make of that what you will.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What if the divine will of God is that only those that want to be gathered under His wings will be the ones gathered? Surely no one could resist that, right--and force those that don't want to love God to love Him?

This is the sort of trouble one gets into seeking to speculate about that which is not revealed instead of focusing upon what God has actually revealed (Deut. 29:29).

The facts are plain: anyone calling upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. Hence we are admonished to proclaim the Good News promiscuously to any and all persons, for it is by this "foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:21) that His children are ordinarily brought into the Kingdom.

AMR

 

[intojoy]

please answer the question



does it matter what you do?

No

 

[intojoy]

What if the divine will of God is that only those that want to be gathered under His wings will be the ones gathered? Surely no one could resist that, right--and force those that don't want to love God to love Him?

There are none that seek after Him not even one

 

[Derf]

What if the divine will of God is that only those that want to be gathered under His wings will be the ones gathered? Surely no one could resist that, right--and force those that don't want to love God to love Him?

This is the sort of trouble one gets into seeking to speculate about that which is not revealed instead of focusing upon what God has actually revealed (Deut. 29:29).

The facts are plain: anyone calling upon the name of the Lord will be saved and not lost to Him. Hence we are admonished to proclaim the Good News promiscuously to any and all persons, for it is by this "foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:21) that His children are ordinarily brought into the Kingdom.

AMR

I'm flattered that you would go so quickly to the "secret things of God" passage, thus admitting that your theology has no answer to the question.

I appreciate that you point out that all those that call on the name of the Lord will be saved, but if it presupposes that only those that are called irresistibly and irrevocably first, then the passage in question--that Jesus wanted to gather those that would not be gathered--suggests that there are people that God wants to gather that He cannot, because they refuse to be gathered. For what purpose (see your previous post) is immaterial--God's divine will (for Jesus did nothing of Himself: John 5:19) was apparently thwarted because He wanted to do something and they would not allow it.

That is, His divine will was thwarted unless we caveat it in one of two ways.
1. That it wasn't really God's will (and then Jesus wanted/willed something different from His Father), or
2. That God's divine will includes the desire for people to come to him freely and not by divine coercion.

This also harkens forward to Jesus' plea in the garden that the cup be taken from Him. The same dichotomy exists: that either Jesus was willing something that was not from God, or that Jesus was submitting His will to the Father in order to remain one with him. God was not willing to coerce even His own Son, the co-creator of the universe, the one that could call down legions of angels to stop the arrest in the garden. But Jesus did it all willingly--the thing the first Adam would not do. Jesus obeyed His Father's "will" despite the ability--in His divinity--to choose differently.

 

[paparex89]

I am a Calvinist. I prefer the term "doctrine of Amazing Grace" as it stresses what God HAS, IS, and WILL do for the Elect. Many people take our TULIP acrostic as offense. To which I will paraphrase Charles Spurgeon on limited atonement. Do you want to be Holy? If yes, then you're of the elect because you respond to the gospel. (MY INPUT: don't worry about the mechanics, you understand God's work gradually). If no, then what are you complaining about?

 

[TulipBee]

All unregenerates hate Calvinism. It's self explanatory.

 

[patrick jane]

All unregenerates hate Calvinism. It's self explanatory.

Please explain. :rapture:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God's divine will (for Jesus did nothing of Himself: John 5:19) was apparently thwarted because He wanted to do something and they would not allow it.

You confuse the human and divine natures. Our Lord's human will is subordinate to His divine will, yet not contrary to it, yet the human will is not always fulfilled. You import more to John 5:19 than it teaches. The verse is about the economy of the Trinity, not about the two natures of the hypostatic union. The principal thrust of v. 19 is that whatever ‘making himself equal with God’ (see previous verse) might mean, for Our Lord it does not mean complete or even partial independence from his Father.

There is no thwarting of the will of God afoot here, for God's will cannot be thwarted.

I'm flattered that you would go so quickly to the "secret things of God" passage, thus admitting that your theology has no answer to the question.

Your unprovoked and dripping sarcasm aside, it seems to me given your confusion, that it is not my theology that is in need of answers.

AMR

 

[Derf]

You confuse the human and divine natures. Our Lord's human will is subordinate to His divine will, yet not contrary to it, yet the human will is not always fulfilled. You import more to John 5:19 than it teaches. The verse is about the economy of the Trinity, not about the two natures of the hypostatic union. The principal thrust of v. 19 is that whatever ‘making himself equal with God’ (see previous verse) might mean, for Our Lord it does not mean complete or even partial independence from his Father.

There is no thwarting of the will of God afoot here, for God's will cannot be thwarted.



Your unprovoked and dripping sarcasm aside, it seems to me given your confusion, that it is not my theology that is in need of answers.

AMR

Of course there is no thwarting of that which cannot be thwarted. So if God's will is somehow thwarted, then it must be because He let it be--making the thing that thwarted something He was in favor of, thus not thwarted.

So, if God wanted His people to remain His people, but they didn't want to follow His commands, then He punishes, cajoles, entreats, etc. for them to do what He desires, but won't force, thus they still can reject His lesser desire for them and thus achieve His greater desire for them that they be able to decide for themselves.

No sarcasm, dripping or otherwise, was intended, but apparently the point hit home.

 

[TulipBee]

Please explain. :rapture:

Cause they don't like the bible alone when they read that it is God who:

- draws people to Himself (John 6:44,65).- creates a clean heart (Psalm 51:10).- appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48).- works faith in the believer (John 6:28-29).- chooses who is to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4).- chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).- grants the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).- grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).- calls according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).- causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).- predestines us to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).- predestines us to adoption (Eph. 1:5).- predestines us according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).- makes us born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13).

It is man who:

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9).- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19).- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12).- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6).- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3).- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14).- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

 

[Desert Reign]

That is, His divine will was thwarted unless we caveat it in one of two ways.
1. That it wasn't really God's will (and then Jesus wanted/willed something different from His Father), or
2. That God's divine will includes the desire for people to come to him freely and not by divine coercion.

You must add: 3. That God's will includes the desire for some people freely not to come to him - and you must modify 2 to 'some people'.
This is only for God's greater glory.
John Calvin of course related 1 Tim 2:4 to classes of people rather than individuals. Perhaps he forgot to mention the class of those who were not elected before the foundation of the world? Obviously, later reformed theologians corrected him; it must have just been a slip of the pen. Anyone can call on God but only those who are elect. It's a bit like Henry Ford, who said 'You can have a model T car in any colour you like - so long as it's black.'

 

[Clete]

I am a Calvinist. I prefer the term "doctrine of Amazing Grace" as it stresses what God HAS, IS, and WILL do for the Elect. Many people take our TULIP acrostic as offense. To which I will paraphrase Charles Spurgeon on limited atonement. Do you want to be Holy? If yes, then you're of the elect because you respond to the gospel. (MY INPUT: don't worry about the mechanics, you understand God's work gradually). If no, then what are you complaining about?

It is the mechanics of your doctrine which would render the god of Calvinism unjust, if such a god actually existed.

Besides, what exactly is the point of telling someone who was predestined to worry about the mechanics not to do so?

 

[Derf]

You must add: 3. That God's will includes the desire for some people freely not to come to him - and you must modify 2 to 'some people'.

I don't think so. Think of it this way: If God's will is that man not murder, but He gives them the choice whether to murder or not, then is it God's will that some murder and some don't? No, murder is wickedness, and God does not desire wickedness. So when someone is wicked (murders, for instance) God says they must be dealt with accordingly--by execution.

This is only for God's greater glory.
John Calvin of course related 1 Tim 2:4 to classes of people rather than individuals. Perhaps he forgot to mention the class of those who were not elected before the foundation of the world? Obviously, later reformed theologians corrected him; it must have just been a slip of the pen. Anyone can call on God but only those who are elect. It's a bit like Henry Ford, who said 'You can have a model T car in any colour you like - so long as it's black.'

I think this is where Calvinists overemphasize some scripture and underemphasize this one, in order to preserve their theology. But it fits with the murder illustration above. God desires all to be saved, but is not micromanaging the minds of men to the extent that nobody can't be saved (sorry for the double negative).

This gets into the realm of what Calvinists call the decreed vs the revealed will of God. In a sense they are correct: that if God doesn't stop something from happening, then He must be "ok" with it. Including murder, rape, torture, child molestation, etc. But it makes more sense that He doesn't stop it because He gave us the ability to do wrong when He gave us the ability to do right. The wrong won out in the beginning and we've gone downhill ever since.

So God must have been "ok" with murder, rape, torture, child molestation, etc. when He made man a free moral agent, because He knew that could be a result. But He still calls those things wicked. Therefore, He's not really ok with them--He punishes those who do those things.

And that punishment is glorifying to Him--"His greater glory", as you said. And I agree: it is a reflection on God's goodness that when someone does evil, he is punished for it. But it's not God's will that they do the wicked thing, even if they do it of their own free will, otherwise they wouldn't be/shouldn't be punished for it. Calling it God's will is, in my mind, blasphemous.

 

[musterion]

This is the sort of trouble one gets into seeking to speculate about that which is not revealed instead of focusing upon what God has actually revealed (Deut. 29:29).

Wow, that's some megaton range irony right there.

 

[Derf]

You confuse the human and divine natures. Our Lord's human will is subordinate to His divine will, yet not contrary to it, yet the human will is not always fulfilled. You import more to John 5:19 than it teaches. The verse is about the economy of the Trinity, not about the two natures of the hypostatic union. The principal thrust of v. 19 is that whatever ‘making himself equal with God’ (see previous verse) might mean, for Our Lord it does not mean complete or even partial independence from his Father.

If you will allow me to go back to this--
The other thing I mentioned in my previous post was that Jesus said He could call down legions of angels to prevent His arrest. I think you are saying that is not true--that He could NOT call down legions of angels to prevent the arrest, because that would be in opposition to the divine nature in Jesus, but only the divine would have the ability to call down the legions of angels.

Of course, if you say that, you will be calling Jesus a liar.