More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
December 27, 2020 - January 29, 2021
My reputation, my friends, my ministry connections -- all gone if I recant my views on this!
Thus, I had been led to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.”
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man.
some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of those ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death…
Regarding the lost: it was His good pleasure to doom to destruction… Since the disposition of all things is in the hands of God and He can give life or death at His pleasure, He dispenses and ordains by His judgment that some, from their mother’s womb, are destined irrevocably to eternal death in order to glorify His name in their perdition… All are not created on equal terms, but some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal damnation…”
The very thought of a creator making human beings, with real conscious feelings and emotions, for the sole purpose of pouring out His everlasting wrath so as to manifest His glory leaves even Calvinists pondering.
By predestination we mean the predetermined redemptive plan of God to justify, sanctify and glorify whosoever freely[8] believes (Rom. 10:11; Jn. 3:16; Eph. 1:1-14). All people are created with equal value as image bearers of God (Jms. 3:9; Gen. 1:27). Because God desires mercy over justice and self-sacrificially loves everyone (Jms. 2:13; Mt. 9:13; 1 Jn. 2:2), He has graciously provided the means of salvation to every man, woman, boy and girl. No person is created for damnation, or predetermined by God to that end (2 Pt. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; Ezek. 18:30-32). Those who perish only do so because
...more
Calvinists teach that Christ self-sacrificially loves a preselected number of individuals.
Traditionalists teach that Christ loves every single person so much that He died for them all.
The Bible uses many analogies to help us better relate to our infinite and mysterious Creator. He is a Father (Mt. 5:48), a faithful Friend (Jn. 15:15), a Shepherd (Ps. 80:1), a Rock (Ps. 18:2), a Bridegroom (Mt. 25:6), and so much more. Believers tend to favor one analogy or another depending on their own needs, experiences and perspective of the world. It is almost as if God knew we would need Him to be our Shepherd at times and our Rock at others. Though He never changes, the way we understand and relate to Him as our God most certainly does.
Good thoughts
I now believe the Scriptures reveal a Potter who manifests His glory by sacrificing Himself for the undeserving vessels, not by making vessels undeserving from birth so as to condemn them to display His glory. I came to realize that God is most glorified not at the expense of His creation, but at the expense of Himself for the sake of His creation.
have come to believe, through Christ’s example, that His glory is much more evident in His mercy over everything all vessels do (Jn. 12:47, 2 Cor. 5:19).
Jesus corrected misperceptions of God’s character that some still hold onto today (Mt. 5; Jms. 1:13-15).
Calvinists believe God’s glory is best displayed through the attribute of control (typically referred to as “sovereignty”), whereas Traditionalists are convinced, by Christ’s revelation, that God’s glory is best displayed through the attribute of mercy motivated by His genuine self-sacrificial love for all.
Is the Potter merely remolding the vessel that He Himself marred from the beginning by divine decree?
has our Sovereign Potter molded vessels with the responsibility of choice and graciously provided
the means of redemption for the...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
While attempting to maintain some semblance of divine love for those unconditionally rejected by God in eternity past, many Calvinists will appeal to God’s common provisions such as rain and sunshine.
Omnipotence without love is impotent. Omniscience apart from love is worthless. And even benevolent gifts, like the provisions of rain and sunlight, apart from love are nothing.
Calvinists feel the need to offer a rebuttal in defense of God’s common love for all people from the obvious implications of the Calvinistic worldview.
can one objectively conclude that God’s treatment of the reprobate within the Calvinistic system is truly “loving” according to God’s own definition above?
some holding to “higher” forms of Calvinism do not even attempt to defend the idea that God sincerely loves everyone.
He further argued that the word “world” in John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world…“) “refers to the world of believers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from ‘the world of the ungodly.’”[19]
pcrbc says World means God's elect from every nation
unless it reaches the level of self-sacrifice it does not seem to meet the biblical definition of true love.
to deny Jesus’ self-sacrificial love for everyone is to deny that He fulfilled the demands of the law. This would disqualify Him as the perfect atoning sacrifice.
One must understand that the term “hatred” is sometimes a reflection of “Divine wrath” expressed against those who continue in rebellion, which would not preclude God’s longing to see those under wrath come to faith and repentance.
Traditionalists teach that all people are by nature under wrath and thus “hated enemies of God” (Eph. 2:3), but we also can affirm together that God does not desire everyone to remain in that condition.
how does one go from being under God’s wrath (hatred) to being under His provision of grace (love). Is that transition effectually caused by God for a select few, or in light of God’s gracious revelation, do all individuals have real responsibility to freely humble themselves in faith?
the term “hate” is sometimes an expression of choosing one over another for a more honorable purpose, and does not literally mean “hatred” (despise, reject).
In Romans 9, for instance, Paul may simply be reflecting on God’s choice of Jacob (and his posterity) for the honorable purpose of carrying His blessing over his elder brother.
our case against Calvinism is that it doesn’t do justice to the character of God revealed in Scripture.
It’s not a question of whether or not God chooses to love, it is WHO HE IS… HE IS LOVE!” This is not a weakness of God, Walls insists, but His greatest and most self-glorifying strength.
To declare God’s universal self-sacrificial love to the entire world reveals God for what makes Him so abundantly glorious! His love.
Therefore, according to Walls, the question Calvinists are asking is backwards. Instead of asking, as John Piper does, “How does a sovereign God express His love?”[22] We should be asking, “How does a loving God express His sovereignty?”
The kingly choice to save whosoever believes and responds to the divine invitation is seen in the “few” who are “chosen” portion of Christ’s parable (Divine Choice #3): Matt.
The choice of those who were allowed to eat at the banquet was clearly conditioned upon the individual showing up in the proper clothing. The wedding garments obviously represent being clothed in the righteousness of Christ through faith.
The “few” who are “chosen” represent those who responded freely to the invitation sent by the king through his unconditionally chosen servants from his unconditionally chosen nation.
By inviting them, He is “granting” them the ability to willingly respond. The
A simple definition of the terms reveals that God’s enabling mankind to repent is not the same as irresistibly causing repentance.
The church must come to understand God’s purpose in electing the nation of Israel to send out His invitation is distinct from His choice to save whosoever willingly responds to that invitation, otherwise this doctrine will continue to be a point of confusion and contention.
Some seem to believe that for God to be considered “sovereign” then individuals cannot have a libertarian free will.[28] But this view presumes that God, the infinite and omnipotent One, is somehow incapable of maintaining sovereignty over libertarianly free creatures; thus this view, while attempting to defend those very attributes of God, seem to actually undermine them.
Or should it be understood as God’s infinite and mysterious ways of accomplishing His purposes and ensuring His victory in, through and despite the libertarianly free choices of creation?
One must understand that the attribute of God’s sovereignty, if defined as His providence over creation, is not an eternal attribute.
An eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else existing.
Sovereignty, therefore, should be described as the expression of God's power, not the source of it.
If the all-powerful One chooses to refrain from meticulously ruling over every aspect of that which He creates, that in no way denies His eternal attribute of omnipotence, but indeed affirms it. It
In short, the Calvinist denies God's eternal attribute (omnipotence) in his effort to protect the temporal one (sovereignty).
Arguing that God’s nature demands that He remains in meticulous deterministic control over every dust particle and all our moral sinful desires is not an argument in defense of His sovereign freedom, but a repudiation of it.
God, in His freedom, has chosen to give dominion to His creation and He has not yet taken full control over everything on earth as it is in heaven (Mt. 6:10; Ps. 115:16).
Passages throughout the bible teach that there are “authorities” and “powers” which are yet to be destroyed, but have been given limited control. Isaiah
