Reply To: New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

Forums Fiction General Writing Discussions New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate Reply To: New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

R.M. Archer

If God is not under the moral law and can sin, then why would it say that He is holy and sanctified?

It’s not sin outside of the moral law. That’s the point. Moral law is what defines sin as sin. If God is outside of that moral law, then His behavior—in line with His character, as it must be—is not sin even if it is sin under the moral law outlined for man. Because God has authority over the moral law and all creation. It is not sin for God to destroy something He created, nor to change the ownership of something He created, nor to alter the purpose of something He created, because they are all His creation. The same is not true of mankind, who does not have authority over creation. That is why it is sin for us to kill someone, but not sin for God to cause someone to be killed.

When fate doctrine such as this is taught, it can take away the will of people to even try to do good (not always, but sometimes). I mean, if I believe everything I did today was already predetermined by God, then I would do whatever I thought would make me happiest, because it’s going to happen anyway right? This is a side note that is not needed to prove my point, but it’s something to consider.

This is where the whole two tiers of reality thing comes in, which I think I alluded to in my initial summary of my beliefs on predestination. (If not, apologies.) God is in ultimate control from the heavenly perspective, but we still have agency and responsibility from the human perspective. To use the book analogy again, a character, while directed by the author, still has agency—or else it’s a boring story—and still bears responsibility (or should) for the consequences of their behavior. While God is not confined to moral law, we are. Our sin has consequences. Consequences known and pre-ordained by God, but unknown to us. Which I guess is the thing. We can’t know what God has or hasn’t planned, short of prophecy, and thus we still have a responsibility to live according to His will and grace as best as we know it (as it is described in the Bible). To behave against His will because “Oh well, it’s all planned anyway” is to presume to know His thoughts and to presume that they go against His prescribed will for us. It would be sin in and of itself, because it tries to place us in the mind of God and usurp His authority.

But if he were to cause me to murder my neighbor because I hated the fellow, that would be wicked evilness, and God would not longer be Holy or Sanctified.

How is this no more “giving and taking away”? God created you and created that other fellow and gave both of you life. If He chooses to use you to take away that life He created, is that any less His life to take?

1 Kings 18:37 (and possibly Rev. 17:17 as well, the context in Rev. is very important and I didn’t read the surrounding voices) and many of the other OT verses are talking about God supernaturally intervening and using humans as he pleases (like the verse where it says he hardens pharaohs heart), this does not even slightly infer that fate and absolutism exists.

There’s an ongoing pattern throughout the Old Testament of God shaping the behavior of men to fulfill His plan. He orchestrated all of that through the actions of men. If God can and does “supernaturally intervene” and shape men’s actions to His pleasure, why would we take a pattern of this and still assume it’s only a “sometimes” thing? Or, another question, how do you think men alone, so many men with sinful hearts and no intimate knowledge of God’s plan, would be able to form with their actions such a flawlessly direct narrative that constantly points to God’s character and coming salvation? Only a master Author could possibly arrange so many moving pieces to achieve the ending He had in mind in exactly the way intended.

Also, known of these verses even use the verse predestination

I wasn’t aware there was a requirement for them to use the explicit term.

Matt. 10:29 means that God is with his children, and He knows everything that happens (see the context of persecution and hairs on the head in verses 28&30).

You’re correct. But it says that even “small” things like the death of a sparrow are not “apart from His will.” Will is a direct, influencing action. Will makes things happen, it doesn’t just watch as they occur.

Romans 9 is talking about the predestination of the elect to heaven.

And God’s will as the authority over our own, which enables this. (vs. 16-19, particularly).

Philippians 2:13 is clearly talking about the spirit of God convicting us to do good works and serve him (I really can’t see where you got absolutism from this one xD)

“For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” Yes, that refers to the Spirit in us. But again with His “willing” and “doing”? I can see two different angles for reading this one, though, one with God as the only active party and one with “you” as an additional active party, and they do color the verse slightly differently. If God is the one “willing” and “doing” exclusively, then the verse can be limited to the movement of the Holy Spirit within us. If we are the ones “willing” and “doing” but God is the one “working,” then it much more clearly supports God’s influence over our will.

Born again elect, and born again elect believers are two different things (unless of course you are saying the spirit/new man in them believes, but I’m assuming you mean they believers are people who believe in the bible and God outwardly). Born again elect are anyone that God has born again, and these people are often ignorant or stubborn unbelievers. Born again outward believers are people that have had access to the gospel and now believe in what God has done for them, and what He will do for them. Christian outward believers are those who believe in the the gospel, and try to follow God’s statutes. I bring this up because just the fact that someone believes doesn’t mean they are trying to do good and follow God’s moral law. This is obvious everywhere in the so called “christian” world today.

I’m gonna be honest… this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

God has elected those to be born again. We’re on the same page there. His Spirit is placed inside them when this election comes to effect with their salvation when they believe. I think this might be where we’re disagreeing? The Holy Spirit then sparks a desire in them to follow after Christ and live according to His commands, and equips them to do so.

Being born again is part of salvation, not something separate. If someone stubbornly doesn’t believe, they’re not born again. They’re still dead in sin. The Spirit hasn’t opened their eyes to the truth or made them alive to receive it.

I’m also not sure where the difference is between your “born again outward believers” and “Christian outward believers”? If they truly believe the gospel then they must be born again, because we cannot believe without the Spirit enabling us and giving us a desire to do so, and only the elect are called through the Spirit.

Romans 8:29-30 lays it out pretty plainly, I think. He not only called us according to His purpose, but “predestined [us] to be conformed to the image of His Son,” and those whom He predestined He called and justified. And we know that justification comes with salvation and repentance.

Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

Pin It on Pinterest