First of all he was perceived to be from
Second, he made them murderously upset, to the point of trying to throw him off of a cliff, when he said things like:
I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:25-29).
Or when he said:
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 8:11)
But especially when he said things like:
Therefore I tell you, the
This failure to adequately hate the gentiles was also a key reason for the Jews continuing to reject Christ even after his ascension. As Paul found out when he told the Jews that Christ had said to him,
'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'
Luke relates that,
Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live (Acts 22:21-22).
The Pharisees wanted a Messiah, not to save the Gentiles, but to destroy them. And when it appeared that Jesus had other plans, they wanted no part of what he was offering. The idea of Gentiles inheriting right along with, or even in place of any Jews, was anathema, and no one who held such ideas could possible be sane, much less the true Messiah.
24 comments:
Allow me to drop a skunk in the room from your first comment:
So you are saying God created them (the Pharisees) to burn in hell - by pre-ordaining it - essentially making it impossible for them to ever be saved - and then holding them responsible for what they could not do??
Boy, ain't God's love grand?!?!
Btw, Acts 2:23 says absolutely nothing about Pharisees rejecting Christ nor them being preordained to go to hell. It simply states that Jesus being crucified for our sin was God's plan all along.
No, that isn't quite what I mean. I'm only saying, and really just in passing, that the ultimate causes of Christ's rejection shouldn't be looked for in anything the Jews did or didn't do, but rather, as you've said, because it was God's plan for it to happen.
Note too that the Jews delivering up Christ "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God" did not foreclose the possibility of their being saved- thus Peters call for them to repent and be baptized.
But as for your caricature of Calvinsim, yes, that's fairly well what I believe, and yes, God's love is indeed grand. Are we switching topics?
As for topics being switched - I thought you were injecting some Augustinianism in there - so I responded. ;^)
So you think that is a loving God who would create people to go to hell without any chance or ability to be saved - and then God would punish them for something they were unable to do all along?
That is neither just, logical, nor representative of God's love revealed to us.
"That is neither just, logical, nor representative of God's love revealed to us."
Amen to that!
Here a simple logic argument to show how hypocritical God would be if he asked those whom he created to act with Justice and Mercy but he doesnt have to:
Premise one:
We as Christians are to act under God ordained absolute rules of Justice and Mercy
Premise Two:
God does not follow absolute Rules of Justice and Mercy
Conclusion:
God is a Just God.
The Conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises, therefore the argument is an invalid one.
Definition of an invalid argument:
"A deductive argument where the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion."
We're naught but simple pirates here, That Man, and you've used a lot of big words and complicated arguments.
All that I know is that God chooses people before they've done anything good or bad, in order that his purposes of election might stand.
I also know that there is no injustice with God, even though he has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills.
To the question "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" I can only say "Who am I to answer back to God?"
Brad - That God knows something is going to happen - does not cause it to happen. Foreknowledge is not fore-ordination.
Perhaps not, but fore-ordination is fore-ordination. For example:
...for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together to do whatsoever thy hand and thou counsel had foreordained to come to pass (Acts 4:27-28).
The original Greek Word that was used in the cases where there is an argument of whether it was God's Foreknowledge or Fore-ordination is the word: PROGINOSKO.
And PROGINOSKO has a dual meaning. Its primary meaning is Foreknowledge, its secondary meaning is fore-ordination.
Now we know that Christ was fore-ordaiined to the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. Since history was created for Christ and not the other way around.
However in other instances the primary meaning of the word is more fitting.
In the verse I just quoted, however, the word used is PROORIZO, a word for which the primary meaning is "to predestine", the secondary meaning is "to decide beforehand", and the tertiary meaning is "to foreordain".
So Brad - per your views - God actually causes people to sin then. That couldn't be more contradictory to scripture.
I don't recall making that statement (or really any statement of my own yet) but if that is the only inference you can draw from the passages I've been quoting, then perhaps you may need to take issue with them, not with me.
Certainly though, however these passages are interpreted, they must not be made to say that God sins or that he tempts anyone to sin. Nevertheless, somehow,--and I'm certainly not claiming to understand how it all fits together-- God foreordains people by his own hand and his own plan to do really bad things (like crucify Christ) without sinning or tempting them to sin.
If you can show me how these passages say something different, I'd be glad to listen (who really wants to be a Calvinist anyway?). But until then I am not at liberty to second guess God's words about himself, or to judge him by my own feeble standards of what is just or what is loving.
"In the verse I just quoted, however, the word used is PROORIZO"
That is bascially true:
PROORIZO: PRO means "before" and "ORIZO" means to establish boundaries
And as I said Jesus WAS Fore-ordained to be the lamb that takes away the sins of the World, no problem there. However I was speaking of other passages where PROGINOSKO is used.
But Act 4 says not just that Christ was foreordained to be the lamb, but more specifically that Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles and the Jews were foreordained by God's hand and by his plan to do exactly what they did to him. This is what Pastor Eric appeared to be denying in his first comment.
"that Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles and the Jews were foreordained by God's hand and by his plan to do exactly what they did to him."
But I think you are misunderstanding that passage. The way I understand it according to God's own laws of justice is that:
God fore-ordained that Christ would be cruicifed and that there would be "some men" who would crucify Jesus of their own free will (before the event). If it had not been Pilot, If Pilot had refused another would have done it instead of Pilot. If Herod had refused another would have done it in Herod's place. If any Genitle had refused then other gentiles would have done it.
There is a dichotomy: Man does exercses his free will to choose to sin or not to sin. But God also soverignly "wills" that the cirumstances will exist in which those men are still free to choose.
We do not know until after the fact and the reading of those circumstances who has stepped into the role of those who chose to sin in the circumtances that God had control over thus giving names to those people.
Again we do not know all the mechanisms, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:12: "For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known"
But Brad if God fore-ordains everything - the He fore-ordains sin - and that cannot be. It can't be both ways. Again, foreknowledge is not fore-ordination. Yes, it was God's plan to send Jesus from the beginning, sure He knew that the Jews would reject Him - but did he make them do that - well if you believe He fore-ordains everything I guess you do. I believe while God knew it - they still had free will to make the choice to choose or reject.
Brad, just curious with the verse from Acts 4 that you are citing - I thought you used the ESV - why KJV?
John,
I'm not sure how comfortable I am pressing your, my own, or anyone else's preconceived understanding of God's justice into an interpretation of any passage.
This passage doesn't say that "someone" was gathered together to do whatever God's hand and plan had predestined to take place. It says that these specific people were gathered together to do so.
In the same way, Pharaoh was specifically chosen to oppose Israel, and Judas was specifically chosen to betray Christ.
Anyway, how would it be any less of a problem for you that God would foreordain "someone" to crucify Christ rather than particular persons? Wouldn't the buck eventually have to stop somewhere? Could it be possible that no one would do it?
Eric,
But even if God merely foreordained that "someone" would crucify Christ, God would have foreordained a sin, and that must be, because that's what God has said he did.
I switched to the from the ESV to the ASV because of your immediately preceding choice of the word "foreordain" I prefer the translation "predestine" but I wanted to keep continuity in the conversation. (Really, I'm know that the scriptures are so strongly against me in this discussion that I can only prevail by being sneaky.)
Brad - God cannot be the cause of sin - that is clearly unbiblical - 1 John 3:9; 1 John 4:18; James 1:13; 2Cor. 5:21 - just to name a few...
You would be asserting that God created the forest, set the forest on fire on purpose, then rushed in to be our hero - but chose some to burn to death in the fire simply because it pleased Him to do that.
Again, definitely not consistent with the God whom the Word tells us desires that none would perish.
Was crucifying Christ a sin, or was it not?
Did God foreordain someone to crucify Christ, or did he not?
Give me the name of the person that had no choice in the story, whom God made sin?
You are getting sleeeeepy...... ;^)
Each and every person who participated in Christ's crucifixion did so by his own choice, by his own free will, and without any external compulsion by God.
Was it a sin or was it not? Did God foreordain it did he or not?
(Unfortunately for both of us, I'm headed into my second sick day in a row, and I'm not very likely anytime soon to get sleepy enough to stop pestering.)
Oh, then that settles it - they did it by their own free will - then God didn't make them. It was God's plan for Christ to be crucified, definitely, from the foundations of the world - my point was God didn't "make anyone" do anything, which you just agreed with. So then whether crucifying Jesus was a sin or not is now a moot point.
(I'm getting sleeeeeepy.... ;^)
Brad Said:
"Was crucifying Christ a sin, or was it not?"
"Did God foreordain someone to crucify Christ, or did he not?"
I say:
Brad you are being Disingenuous in this argument because of your own words you do not believe what you just said above!
So what point are you trying to make here? You are stating what you do not even believe in yourself!
What is your purpose?
To win an argument based on something you do not even believe.
And in regards to what I said about who it was that Crucified Christ and whether they exercised their free will or not. We know that an oveal theme of the totality of God's word is that:
1. God is in control of all circumstances and nothing happens outside his allowing it to happen
2. God does not cause people to sin
3. People have a choice to exercise their free will to sin or not to sin.
4. God would prefer that ALL men are saved.
Therefore you cannot stand rigid on specific passages and say that:
1. God causes people to sin
2. God pre-ordains some for hell and then holds them accountable for sinning that he pre-ordained them to do.
3.People have no choice in what they do.
When you encounter what seem to be contradictions you have to go back to the main theme of God's Word to put specific passages into context. And to understand what meaning do you lean to in order to reconcile that passage to the overall theme of God's Word.
The Calvanist theme you are arguing for yet do not believe in violates the very nature that God describes about himself. A God of mercy. When you read the four Gospels about Jesus there is NO indication that God (Jesus) has the nature that Calvanism applies to him.
The "god" of Calvanism is not a God of Mercy, Love and Justice.
John,
I'm not sure what you mean about my being disingenuous. I do believe everything I've said. I think it's fully biblical and (though this matters much less) I don't think it's in anyway inconsistent with real Calvinism (perhaps you've only met the demonized strawman version?)
The point I'm trying to make is that somehow (we don't, as you've said, understand all the mechanisms) God has foreordained everything that comes to pass, but in such as a way as to avoid doing any violence to the free will of man. I believe that Scripture teaches both of these truths with equal clarity.
I like winning an argument as much as the next guy, but I can honestly say that, even better than that, I enjoy losing them. That's when I know I've learned. So far in this discussion, however, I haven't seen any biblical reason to back away from my present views.
I understand what you're saying about overall themes, the problem is that these overall themes are themselves products of our interpretations of specific passages. I fear the two of us are coming to too many different passages with too many different presuppositions.
Perhaps I'm just more comfortable with certain paradoxes than are you, but as of yet, I have not seen enough biblical evidence to overthrow what seems to me to be the plain sense of the dozens of predestinarian passages.
I'd be more than willing to work through some of these with you in detail if you thought there would be any chance of such being profitable?
Post a Comment