Thread: My Mother is Struggling with These Verses

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."
-Ezekiel 18:30-32

My mother is concerned about these verses because it seems to indicate that we are the ones who must take hand in our salvation. It does seem, admittedly to be in the face of Calvinism and I know there are always going to be verses that will mess with our system but how should I respond to this?

The false presumption that i think your mother is making is that "because God commands it we are able to do it."

God also commands all men not to murder....but men do murder.

"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire."

And the "make yourselves" should not be glossed as "make yourself by your own power" or "make FOR yourself".

How will they acquire this new heart anyway? Not by a positive construction, but by turning away from their sins, by stopping something; by making room for God to give life, v32. Ezekiel says later, Thus says the Lord God ... "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you" (Eze. 36:26).

Right. The difficulty with these verses is the same difficulty felt by all Arminians when they come to the requirement to obey the law perfectly. God must not really mean that if no one is perfect, say they.

The comments have hitherto referenced the first bolded phrases, but what about the second?

Originally Posted by davidsuggs

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."
-Ezekiel 18:30-32

My mother is concerned about these verses because it seems to indicate that we are the ones who must take hand in our salvation. It does seem, admittedly to be in the face of Calvinism and I know there are always going to be verses that will mess with our system but how should I respond to this?

This passage is usually thrown at me when I discuss God's Sovereignty over man's will by our non-Calvinist bro's.

What I tell them is that this passage once again shows the non-willing totally depraved heart of Israel to turn to God and live but most importantly the impossibility and inability of Israel to make for themselves a new heart and new spirit therefore conveying to Israel or to the reader the ever so magnificence of God freely granting Israel or the individual the ability to obey the commanding requirement in that God then (as mentioned by Mundum) fulfills this requirement through grace in Ezekiel 36 where God states that He Himself will give a "new heart" and "new spirit" to Israel to His own glory so that they may be ABLE to repent to "turn and live".

Its filled with the glory of the Gospel message.

"why in the world would God command something we can't do" they will reply again I will covey to them that that is the point, that we can't and must rely on God ALONE for our salvation and that it is only by a granted faith that we can do as God commands. Pure Monergism PRAISE GOD FOR HIS MERCY AND GRACE I AM IN TEARS!!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY ME OH LORD???

Originally Posted by Davidius

The comments have hitherto referenced the first bolded phrases, but what about the second?

The second phrase just says that God doesn't take pleasure in death. I don't see why that would be a controversial phrase...could you clarify.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by Davidius

The comments have hitherto referenced the first bolded phrases, but what about the second?

The second phrase just says that God doesn't take pleasure in death. I don't see why that would be a controversial phrase...could you clarify.

Well, the other David in the OP is the one who bolded it, so I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Originally Posted by Davidius

Well, the other David in the OP is the one who bolded it, so I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Good point.
Let me just say that the fact that God doesn't take pleasure in death doesn't in any way mean that He doesn't decree death.

Originally Posted by Davidius

The comments have hitherto referenced the first bolded phrases, but what about the second?

My own answer to this

For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD

is that we have here an anthoropopathic statement respecting the divine disposition. This is accommodated language to our human experience and level of understanding.

In our human experience, we often have to employ a "hierarchy of value" on our choices. I can both WANT to spank my child for disobedience, and I can WANT to REFRAIN from spanking him. If I choose the former, then in a black-and-white sense the latter becomes something I DIDN'T WANT, obviously because I didn't DO it, and we act volitionally according to our strongest desires at all times.

So, did I positively NOT WISH to REFRAIN? No, such a conclusion would run contrary to my own knowledge of my own attitude prior to my decision. Since we don't live in a purely black-and-white world, it is actually more confusing, and less informative and accurate to say that I had NO WILL to REFRAIN from spanking.

In an imperfect world like ours, I cannot always know if I made the "right" decision. I cannot be sure I acted with a proper hierarchy of value, placing the correct decision at the top. However, if we think about God's decisions in these human terms, considering them as subject to a law of non-contradiction (that is, e.g. God cannot both save and not-save the same person--his one "election" precludes the other), we will say that his hierarchy is always ideal, and he never "second-guesses" such an order.

Assuming this passage is speaking in such a way, i.e. that what is being spoken of in an accommodated sense actually reflects one of his "lesser" dispositions, then the passage is not in conflict at all with God's ultimate decree (will) to punish all the wicked who do not repent.

There is nothing objectionable to the idea that God can "pull back the curtain" (so to speak) to give a fuller perspective on his dispositions, or speak of himself in such human terms, any more than it is objectionable for me or you to speak of the "desire" we had to REFRAIN from spanking our child--a desire that we nonetheless ignored, or subordinated to a different desire to exercise justice, in the interest of higher goods.

Originally Posted by Davidius

The comments have hitherto referenced the first bolded phrases, but what about the second?

37O 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!

Men are still responsible before a holy God to be repent and believe the gospel, yet the testimony of scripture is that "they would not"
God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked,nevertheless the righteous judgement of God will come right on time.
Our view of judgement is not always the same as when seen from the heavenly side. It is only the long suffering of God as He seeks out His elect sheep that holds back from more frequent judgement. 2Pet3, Rev.6

Originally Posted by Davidius

The comments have hitherto referenced the first bolded phrases, but what about the second?

Psalm 116:15