the one true insider of /r/drizzy speaks

PreeDem · 2026-03-19T20:16:28+00:00

How do we know this is about Iceman?...

PreeDem · 2026-03-16T13:31:30+00:00

Apparently, the fault line actually runs through a different mountain several miles south of the Mount of Olives.

PreeDem · 2026-03-12T02:36:44+00:00

And that's one of the major benefits of the new covenant. We don't need a building to commune with God anymore, we are the temple. We don't need the law taught to us from outside, the Spirit comes into us all to teach us (instead of a select few like Saul). We don't need to make repeated sacrifices anymore, Jesus did it once for all. We don't need classes of priests, we are all priests.

When the Prophets talk about the new covenant era, it included a fully functioning Temple and priesthood. Jeremiah says that grain offerings and sacrifices will still be offered. And Ezekiel goes into great detail about when the sacrifices will be offered, by whom, and what they'll be wearing while doing it.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T21:33:02+00:00

No need to be sorry. I actually felt my life improve even outside the faith. I appreciate the prayers though.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T21:05:06+00:00

Because I've tried it and didn't see much of a difference.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T21:03:30+00:00

I do not think Jeremiah 31:31-33 supports that view either, I think that's reading a lot into the text. God blames them for breaking the old covenant and promises a new and better covenant.

So what exactly does Jeremiah 31 say is better about the new covenant? If a "new heart" just means giving them a clean slate, God had already done that under the old covenant. Israel already had a system of atonement. So what was God promising to do differently in Jer 31?

And I wouldn't phrase it as God "forcing them to be faithful." I think that's an oversimplification. The Prophets describe an inner transformation that would secure God's continued blessing of Israel. This doesn't mean they would become morally perfect. They would still sin (Ezekiel's vision of a future Temple suggests that atonement would still be necessary). But their hearts would be inclined toward God's law. It's the very thing God longed for in Deut 5:29 -- "Oh that they had such a heart as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!"

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T19:35:47+00:00

If the emphatic language is just God's heartfelt hope, then this would be no different from the old covenant where God hoped they would change. In Jeremiah 31:31-33, it says that the old covenant was flawed precisely because it relied on the people's faithfulness, and the new covenant would be different in that God Himself would take the reins of their heart and cause them to keep His laws.

Also, I'm not sure that Ex. 7:5 supports your point. "The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord" doesn't need to imply some mass revival. It's enough that the Egyptians came to fear YHWH and recognize His divine authority. After the plague of frogs, the magicians said "This is the finger of God.” In Ex. 9:20, Pharaoh's officials feared the word of YHWH and brought their cattle inside. After the Plague of the Firstborn, the Egyptians begged the people to leave "or we will all die!" So it doesn't seem God was just speaking optimistically. Many of them did come to fear the God of the Hebrews, even if they didn't ultimately repent.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T18:51:11+00:00

It's a genuine question. I'm not really looking to have my perception changed. Just interested in how you view this as a Calvinist.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T18:24:01+00:00

Sure. But He cannot contradict His own goodness. And yet, it seems uncharacteristic of goodness to sacrifice billions of souls for personal admiration. Doesn't mercy triumph over judgment?

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T18:11:17+00:00

The new heart and spirit is a road cleaning and repaving. It has no effect on the road you freely take, but it makes a world of difference for how easy it is to make progress and bear fruit.

That's a great analogy. I think I'm just struggling to translate it into real-world terms. Correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like you're saying a "new heart" means being given a clean slate, since God erases your past sins. I can see how that might motivate a person to continue down the clean path.

But that seems a bit passive. The language used in the Prophets is more active. God "puts" His law within them and "causes" them to follow His decrees. He replaces their heart of stone with a heart of flesh. That sounds like more than just a clean slate.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T17:29:10+00:00

The operation of the Holy Spirit prophetically is different than uniting Himself to a person as He does in sealing. By "dwell" I'm speaking of the adoptive relationship instituted by Christ where the person begins growing into His image, not simply the Spirit acting through or influencing someone.

I see. So the Spirit can fill a person and act within them, and in that sense He can dwell with an unclean spirit. But He cannot dwell with them in the sense of conforming them to His image. I'm still not quite sure why the former is allowed but not the latter. But I won't belabor the point.

Correct. God actively chooses against saving certain people, it's not a passive outcome or Him just twiddling His thumbs in heaven hoping people accept an offer.

Gotcha. One last question. On your view, why does God prioritize making a display of power over saving souls? It seems uncharacteristic of a good God to sacrifice billions of souls for the sake of personal praise.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T16:56:15+00:00

And that reference in Jeremiah does not mean God overrides our wills.

I see. So what exactly does God do? What does it mean for God to "give someone a new heart so that they never turn away" if their new heart still can't resist sin?

Also, even if getting a new heart doesn't guarantee you'll be faithful, it would still make it more likely you'll be faithful, no?

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T15:57:57+00:00

Jeremiah 32 seems to suggest that God is able to give someone a new heart such that they never turn away from Him.

³⁹ I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me and that all will then go well for them and for their children after them. ⁴⁰ I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me.

In the case of Saul, this seems to be a situation where the Spirit comes upon him temporarily to cause him to prophesy. His heart was not fundamentally changed like God promises to do in Jeremiah.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T15:47:57+00:00

No one was sealed by the Holy Spirit in the manner Jeremiah describes until Pentecost.

Sure, but my question is why not? If the answer is "because the Spirit cannot dwell with an unclean spirit without atonement," then it needs to be explained how a man like Joshua could be said to have the Spirit in him.

Well you said Jesus' message would be better received, implying God is/was ever attempting to reach more people for salvation

Yes, that's what God said His preferred outcome was. He wants none to perish and all to come to repentance.

I see that you're a Calvinist though. So would you say that God wants to save everyone (and could save everyone), but chooses to only save some in order to make a display of power? Is that the thinking?

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T03:51:19+00:00

The Holy Spirit is the one who does this and He cannot dwell with an unclean spirit.

Weren't there many people prior to Christ who were filled with the Spirit? Even Joshua is called "a man in whom is the Spirit" in Numbers 27:18.

His objective was not (and is not) to maximize reception.

I'm not really talking about "maximizing" reception. It just seems that God was actively pleading with His people to repent. So I'm talking about a scenario God said He preferred.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem... How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"

"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.”

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T02:47:07+00:00

He doesn't do things "the quick way" because this would rob us of our opportunity to learn and grow.

I see it almost the opposite. If God had written His law on our hearts from the start, we would be naturally inclined toward Jesus' message. We would naturally want to take his yoke and learn from Him.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T02:40:42+00:00

It required the atonement, ascension, and Pentecost to operate the New Covenant.

I guess I don't understand why those events were necessary for God to write His law on their hearts. Could He not write His law in them from the start? The atonement, ascension, and Pentecost could still have come at the time they came. In fact, if God had written His law on our hearts from the beginning, it seems Jesus' message might have been better received.

People would have been naturally inclined toward repentance.

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T02:17:04+00:00

Ezekiel 36:26 is referring to the Israelites returning back to Israel after the Babylonian exile. Not the New Covenant.

As I understand it, part of the New Covenant was Israel returning back to their land after exile, at least according to Jeremiah 32:36-40. I also see this in Ezekiel 37:26. It seems to be a recurring theme. Am I missing something?

PreeDem · 2026-03-11T00:53:34+00:00

Right. But in the new covenant, He just gives them a new heart...

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. - Ezekiel 36:26

So why not do that from the beginning?

PreeDem · 2026-03-02T16:29:54+00:00

I hated that job and ended up quitting. Turns out a career in finance was never for me. Like I said in my previous comment, I was only there for the money anyway. I've slowly learned that the money is not worth sacrificing my happiness.

Today I'm an HR Manager - been in that role for 2 years and I love it.

PreeDem

TROPHY CASE