Dr. Ransom, I'm afraid it was I who re-opened the predestination vs. free will can of worms.

However, my problem wasn't that I thought predestination and freewill were incompatible, it was that I wasn't understanding the goodness of God in the following passage:

And He said, "Go, and tell this people:

"Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed"

(Isaiah 6:9-10)

God laments Israel's turning away from Him and unwillingness to return to Him, yet... here he seems to not want them to return to Him. It sounds like Israel coming back to God is to be avoided ("Lest they see with their eyes [...] And return and be healed"). I don't like the sounds of these words coming out of my mouth (or my keyboard), but it looks like God is playing games with His people here. He prevents them from returning to Him and then He punishes them for not returning to Him.

Ithilwen, you actually ended up bringing up something I've been discussing a fair amount on Facebook lately. You referenced two different types of 'repentance'. I need to follow that up by asking, which one are you choosing to use for your interpretation and what Scriptural reasons do you have for choosing that interpretation over the other? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but having multiple interpretations possible is not sufficient.

What I have been discussing frequently on Facebook is the OEC/YEC debates. A specific issue is the interpretation of the word "Yom". The YEC side takes the numeric association with the word 'day', as well as the association with 'evening and morning' to interpret it as 24-hours. The OEC side, specifically Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe (I've seen a fair amount of his stuff recently), points out that there are 4 literal interpretations of 'yom', including 12-hour periods (daylight), period of time (an undisclosed time length), and a specific point in time identifying an era (such as 'in the days of Noah' or 'in the days of David'). Hugh Ross is very quick to point out these various interpretations. However, not once in several debates or several of his articles, have I ever heard him say from a Biblical perspective WHY his picks 'periods of time'. Why for OEC is 'period of time' a BETTER interpretation than '24-hours'? I have never heard an argument for this.

What I am getting at (is not to start an OEC/YEC debate) is the issue of Scriptural authority. What I can't stand about Hugh Ross is not his OEC viewpoint but his view of Scripture. He claims to uphold the Bible as the ultimate authority but he also views science/nature as equivalent to a 67th book. And when there is a conflict, he chooses nature to be the arbiter and interprets Scripture in light of science. Though his claims to uphold Scriptural authority, he does not follow through in practice.

With Free will/ predestination I see Scriptural basis for both sides, which is why I tend to take the view that both are compatible and quite possibly, both are true simultaneously. But when we interpret Scripture and there are more than one possible interpretation, it's fine to pick a side. But why? What Scriptural basis do we have for choosing that one? And why is the one we picked a better option than the others? It's will make you think.

The OEC [old-Earth "creation"] side, specifically Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe [...] points out that there are 4 literal interpretations of 'yom', including 12-hour periods (daylight), period of time (an undisclosed time length), and a specific point in time identifying an era (such as 'in the days of Noah' or 'in the days of David').

This is the semantic range fallacy, and Ross ought to know better than to employ it here, especially because he likely doesn't employ it anywhere else even about the word "day" (e.g., was Jesus really in the grave for three days or three "undisclosed time lengths"? We can't know for sure!).

However, not once in several debates or several of his articles, have I ever heard him say from a Biblical perspective WHY his picks 'periods of time'. Why for OEC is 'period of time' a BETTER interpretation than '24-hours'? I have never heard an argument for this.

Because of the false presupposition you point out next, Fencer: that "science" -- or rather, fallible men's religious belief in un-observable origins, which is outside of scientific study proper -- is just as much God's revelation as the Bible. It is a low view of Scripture.

Unfortunately, I believe it does result as an overcorrection for Christians' historic dislikes of real science, or suspicion of any view that holds that God's truths and nature can be reflected in nature. God's Word is very clear that yes, He does in a sense "speak" in creation. However, that same passage that's very clear about that (Romans 1), is also clear that man suppresses that truth and prefers to worship himself, his basest depravities, and images of various animals. It is solely to God's grace and credit that anyone gets out of that and prefers worshiping Him instead.

What I am getting at (is not to start an OEC/YEC debate) is the issue of Scriptural authority. What I can't stand about Hugh Ross is not his OEC viewpoint but his view of Scripture. He claims to uphold the Bible as the ultimate authority but he also views science/nature as equivalent to a 67th book. And when there is a conflict, he chooses nature to be the arbiter and interprets Scripture in light of science. Though his claims to uphold Scriptural authority, he does not follow through in practice.

Dr. Ransom, I'm afraid it was I who re-opened the predestination vs. free will can of worms.

Don't mind my teasing! Folks around here know that I do enjoy talking about it, not just as an intellectual exercise, but because it brings such joy to wrestle with these truths and emerge on the other side of it (or closer to the other side!) knowing more about the God we love.

God laments Israel's turning away from Him and unwillingness to return to Him, yet... here he seems to not want them to return to Him.

I think it's fantastic that you're wrestling with this. It's something that many Christians would just turn aside and ignore, or perhaps cover over with "PR" or platitudes about God's Love, and in a sense show a terrible lack of love and regard for the God Who clearly revealed He felt this way.

Whole essays would be written on this, but I think what could seem confusing here can be resolved somewhat by what Ithilwen already mentioned: the "two wills" of God.

In the rest of Scripture these are seen more subtly. For example, did God want Christ to die on the Cross for His people's sins? Absolutely; "it was the will of the Lord to crush him" (Isaiah 53). Yet were the Jewish leaders, Romans, and riotous people (and in a sense we ourselves) also guilty of crucifying Him, meaning they were going against God's will? Indeed they were. So what does God really want? Theologians have said He has a "secret" or hidden will, which will always come to pass, and also a revealed will or "will of command," His Law. Humans can disobey the revealed will, obviously. But no one can defy His secret will, ever.

One difference is that God usually reveals in Scripture His will of command (e.g., telling Adam and Eve they must not sin against Him in the Garden of Eden, while knowing/allowing/decreeing[?] that they would anyway). However, He usually keeps His secret or hidden will to Himself. By contrast, the Isaiah 6 passage is one of the few that shows God's secret will outright. His people, here, have used up their chances, and though He could supernaturally "crack through" to them, He has chosen not to.

This does sound like some scary stuff. Perhaps it will help to realize that not only "Reformed" Christians believe this. As a former Left Behind series fanatic (I'm still a partial fan!), I was surprised to learn that according to coauthor Tim LaHaye's view of one stage of the "end times," God will finally withdraw all His opportunities for salvation to specific people who have used up their chances. Bear in mind that LaHaye is certainly not a "Calvinist"! And yet even he must conclude that God may do this for some people (he likely saw this in the Old Testament).

Of course, in one of the series books (Armageddon), something absurd happens when one character meets one of these people whom God has decided not to allow to convert. The woman is in anguish that she can't get saved, and knows that her chances are gone; she almost regrets that and is resigned to her fate. It's played as a sincere struggle to accept hard truths. But this "Reformed" guy would chastise the Left Behind author(s), despite their good intentions, for portraying an absolutely impossible universe where up is down and there are square circles. Biblically, no person who finishes his or life, and has never wanted to respond to God's Gospel call and prove to have been regenerated and saved by Him, will ever feel anything but dislike for God and His love.

Dr. Ransom, I didn't follow your posts too well. Yes, I did point out problems Hugh Ross makes. But you are talking to a scientist. My degree is in computer science. I've had enough of Civil Engineering to make a minor and I'm certified to teach physics. I know science and I love science. I also believe God's nature and glory is and can be seen through the creation. But to hold our VERY limited understanding of nature on the same par as Scripture is absolutely dangerous and borderline, if not outright, heretical. It boils down to Scripture authority and what do you hold as the ultimate authority. If science and Scripture are in conflict, Scripture is the trump card. All of nature will one day be gone but God's Word will always be there. Nature is finite in duration and time. God's word is not. The two cannot be on the same authoritative level. That is what I am getting at. When we interpret anything in Scripture, what are we interpreting it this way and why is this way better Scripturally than the other ways? It's something to think about.

Interesting thoughts, Dr. Ransom. Thanks for the reply.

Ithilwen, you actually ended up bringing up something I've been discussing a fair amount on Facebook lately. You referenced two different types of 'repentance'. I need to follow that up by asking, which one are you choosing to use for your interpretation and what Scriptural reasons do you have for choosing that interpretation over the other? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but having multiple interpretations possible is not sufficient.

...But when we interpret Scripture and there are more than one possible interpretation, it's fine to pick a side. But why? What Scriptural basis do we have for choosing that one? And why is the one we picked a better option than the others? It's will make you think.

I take "repentance", in that particular scripture we were discussing, to mean the kind that people do after they are already saved. That's why I brought it up, because MagicApple was interpreting it the other way.

As for how we interpret scriptures, I find it best to use the Bible to interpret the Bible - to not just look at a single scripture and use outside sources to decide what it means; but rather to put it within the whole of the Biblical message and see which interpretation best matches the Bible as a whole idea, instead of a hodgepodge of different ideas all stuck together. If an interpretation contradicts another part of the Bible, then you know something in your interpretation went wrong.

~Riella

Fencer, no worries. I'm talking about other Christians who follow atheistic activists blindly into suspecting "science" because bad folks abuse it for un-Godly means. Alas, they do exist, though I don't see them here!

Sorry to get back to this so late.

So, why would he be telling people that are already Christians, that he desires them to repent when they already have?

Because they are still sinners who need a saviour. Simply because one has been born again through the sovereign action of the Holy Spirit and raised with Christ unto a new life of faith does not mean that sin ceases to be active in the lives of believers. The Christian life is one of continual repentance.

In the beginning of 1 Timothy it actually states that he is talking to the disciples and Christian Jews, telling them to offer up prayer for all people. "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."

Ok, so it's clear that God takes no delight in the death of those who do not believe. But saying that God desires all to come to repentance is not the same as saying that He brings all to repentance or that those who repent and believe are not sovereignly chosen by God.

It is also, as Ithilwen says, that the "all" here does not necessarily mean "every person."

When you want something would say it’s your will for it to happen..?

No. There are plenty of things that I want that I don't will. I want to buy a seersucker suit---however, I will not to because it's impractical.

Just to answer your question The Black Glove. I am not a Universalist, because even though Jesus died for all people, this only makes people able to accept Christ it does not save them from Hell automatically. To become a Christian you have to “declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.”

Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If atonement (the Divine "yes") is universal, then salvation is universal. If you are God's, then He will track you down. If God wants you in the sheepfold, then He will track you down. The poet Francis Thompson used the image of God as the "hound of heaven." If the atonement covers all, then it is effectual for all, for the "no" of God to sin is turned upon His Son at the cross, and all that is left is the Divine "yes" to humanity. All who are elect are elect in Christ.

This is our great hope and our great source of joy: that we have been called from darkness to light not because of anything we had done or anything good in us, but because God, in Christ, has called us, His people, unto Himself in union with Christ. As the Heidelberg Catechism puts it:

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

All of those who are under the blood of Christ Jesus are elect and will be saved, just as all those who were under the blood of the lamb on the doorposts at Passover were spared. If Christ died for you, then you will be saved. If Christ died for all, then all will be saved. If you don't want to affirm universalism, you must affirm that God has chosen a people unto Himself effectually, just as God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees.

TBG

God is a God of love, but he is also a God of justice, a jealous God, the Potter, and a good many other things too.

That's the problem. God terrifies me. I can't believe he loves me and I can't believe he wants me in his Kingdom. And because of that, I find it impossible to love him. But if I don't love him, then he won't save me. Catch 22.

That's the problem. God terrifies me. I can't believe he loves me and I can't believe he wants me in his Kingdom. And because of that, I find it impossible to love him. But if I don't love him, then he won't save me. Catch 22.

But why can't you believe that God loves you?

But why can't you believe that God loves you?

Rather reluctant to answer this question as people will think, "You self-pitying !&%@", but most likely because, I've become accustomed to being dismissed, or despised.

But why can't you believe that God loves you?

Rather reluctant to answer this question as people will think, "You self-pitying !&%@", but most likely because, I've become accustomed to being dismissed, or despised.

I understand. When you are so aware of your own failings, your own sin, your own unloveliness; when the world tells you that you're worthless, strips you of your dignity, shames you, and tries to break you; when you are condemned by the law, it's hard to believe that anyone could love you.

But here's the truth of the Gospel: that if you trust Christ, then God loves you. If you have been saved, it is by grace, not your own doing. No, you and I are not lovely, not deserving of God's grace, not lovable. Yet God loves us and has chosen us from before the foundation of the world, as Paul writes in Ephesians. When you believe in Christ, trust Him for salvation, and stop relying on your own efforts to gain favour with God, then God, by the Spirit, unites you to Christ. That is, you have now died with Christ: your sin is covered by His blood and because you are now in Christ and with Christ, because Jesus is now God with you and for you, when God looks at you, He sees Jesus, and He loves you. You are now a Son of the King through adoption in Christ and therefore have the right to call God "Father."

This is grace and it is truly amazing. You see yourself as a wretch and you are right---yet remember that your sin is paid for, that you are free from it in Christ, and that you are now the Son of the King of Kings.

TBG

King_Erlian, I highly recommend not only paying attention to The Black Glove's proclamation of the Gospel, but reading, say, Ephesians 1-2. Pay attention to the texts that readily acknowledge how horrible humans are. For example, notice it does not simply say "you were weak" or "you were sick" but "you were dead" — which as Miracle Max might remind us, is not "mostly dead [which] means slightly alive," but "all dead"!

But even better, notice the phrase that starts with "but God." That's the turn of the Story, the surprising twist. The crisis, the impossible problem, has been set up: the victims (and the Hero's enemies at the same time!). And now the perfect, loving, holy Hero Himself flies to the rescue.

I definitely do not want to break the Spirit, but I must highly disagree with the "if you trust Christ, then God loves you" statement. I think I know what you are trying to say but the wording is definitely not what the Gospel teaches. If we trust Christ, then God loves us is a conditional on our part. The truth is "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." God loves us no matter what we do, no matter where our trust is. But salvation must be 'received'. Only Christ can offer it. We can do nothing to earn it or lose it. But the Greek verb usage here means we have to reach out and take it for it to be applied to us. I truly believe God gives every single person an opportunity to accept this gift and it's their choice to receive it or not.

King_Erlian, I've talked with several people that have the kind of responses you posted here. "How can God love me considering what I've done?" "I'm not worthy to be considered for redemption." "I am an evil person and God can't use me." Every one of us has come to this at one point in our lives. From our understanding, there is no reason why God should love us. There is no reason why God should stick his neck out for us. We are unworthy. We are all sinners and all have fallen short of the Glory of God. Not one of us can make the standard God set. A good analogy I have heard is this.
"We are like a worm on a branch in the middle of a ring of fire that is closing in on us. God is like a hand reaching into the middle of that ring and pulling us out."
God has no reason or obligation to save us. But he does it out of his will and his love for us. He knows we messed up and he did what he could to save us from the Justice he must uphold. That is why Jesus died. The price for our shortcommings HAD to be paid. And God loves us so much, in spite of our sin, that he sent Jesus to pay that price. And all we have to do it take it and receive it.

King Erlian, I'm so sorry that you feel the way you do. But you must remember that, no matter how sinful or worthless you feel yourself to be, and no matter what people in your life tell you, it is still no reason to assume God doesn't want you or that you are predestined for Hell. Because the truth is, we are all that bad.

Also keep in mind, some of the Christians in the Bible. If I remember right, Paul the apostle, before he came to Christ, took great joy in the killing of God's people. David in the Old Testament committed murder. There are many more examples. There are examples in real life too - Christians who, in their past, have committed murder, rape, adultery, have minds and hearts filled with black thoughts and hatred. Yet, God still wanted them in His kingdom.

~Riella