Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    5. Election is personal determining what particular individuals shall be saved.
    AMR, did you make a decision to receive Jesus as your savior? If so why?

    "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

    Comment


    • #32
      God has chosen the destiny of all men. It is God's will that all be saved. It pleased the Father to bruise the Son that whosoever believes in Him should receive everlasting life. It is God's choice that all believe but man has the authority to choose not to believe. Those who perish have of their own free will chosen not to believe. Those who have chosen to believe the Son have entered into the election of God. It is not that the election was withheld by God. What did Jesus say, "If you believe thou mayest."

      It was God's choice to give man sovereignty over creation thereby giving man the will and the ability to choose. It is God's choice that He and man have fellowship with each other but Adam chose not to do as God had directed him but to do otherwise. It is man who chose to become dead to God. (Separated from God) This separation is the immediate death that Adam suffered and because all mankind was born of the seed of Adam after this death all man are born in death and all the deeds of man are works of death and no flesh is justified in His sight.

      I find that most OVers have no concept of righteousness. I do believe that most OVers have a high concept of morality but morality is not righteousness. Man's morality, though basted on God's law, is not righteousness. It is the very fact of the higher moral standards of right and wrong that condemn a man because man knows to do right and does not do it. Why, because man acts according to the death that is in him and not the righteousness and life that is God.

      The law was given to show man his deadness and by the law of God man is condemned. Do not expect to be a person of high moral standard and self justified and be saved. You must be born again. You must receive the life of God Himself to be justified. You must be born of God. Every man must receive the life of God from God to be saved. If that has not occurred in your life and if in fact you do not have the spirit of God dwelling within then you are none of His.

      It does not matter your church affiliation, your doctrine or your theology. If you remain a sinner, a person who is opposed to God in the death of man trying to appease God through good works and the keeping of the law, your eternal damnation is assured. Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." Jesus is the word of god given to man by which all men must be saved. To the Jew first and also the Greek
      Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

      The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

      Comment


      • #33
        Hey, E.

        Can a Christian be righteous in Christ and still act in an immoral way?

        "Proof? You want PROOF! You can't handle the proof!"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Philetus View Post
          Hey, E.

          Can a Christian be righteous in Christ and still act in an immoral way?
          yes, but the Spirit will convict that person and the person's conduct will change. The old self will lose its grip but not without a fight. that is why salvation is not left to man. Satan cannot destroy the work of God but God can and does destroy the work of Satan. Satan can deceive man but he cannot deceive God
          Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

          The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Lonster View Post
            Clete:

            Yes

            No
            Thank you for the direct answers.
            We'll get to whether or not God hated Esau in a bit but for now I want to look into your answer to the second question...

            Why don't you hate your parents? In what way are you not contradicting Jesus' command to hate your whole family?
            Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

            This is not a trick question. You know the answer, I'm just wanting you to say it.

            Resting in Him,
            Clete
            sigpic
            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

            Comment


            • #36
              Two types of election

              The first type of Biblical election is one of service and is based on God's choice. God chose Israel for a purpose. We cannot pick our gifts nor our purpose in God's plan for our service.

              Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

              Luke 6:12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles:

              John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

              I Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

              Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,

              The second type of election is to salvation which is our choice based on our faith not on our works of service. Which is what the Jews refused to accept then and Calvinists reject today.

              John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

              Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “ Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

              The argument that the Jews used against the Gospel was that they were already God's chosen people, they had the Word of God, and their service saved them.

              John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

              John 8:33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”

              John 9:28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.

              Calvinists take verses about service and gifts of service to prove that our salvation is God's choice and not our own; John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" is about service, not salvation, as is clearly indicated in John 6:70, "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?' 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve." Judas was chosen to be an apostle but, obviously, not chosen to be saved.
              www.dynamicfreetheism.com
              The only view of ultimate reality that provides
              rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
              The only view that proves the existence and explains
              the nature of God.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                God, in His holy wrath, hated Esau and predestined to reprobation before he was even born. Such is God's right to do so. God predestines the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation.
                Listen to what you are saying AMR.

                "God is RIGHT to predestine people to Hell BEFORE they were ever born!"

                And, yes, I hate my mother and father, in the sense that Christ was commanding in Mt. 10:37 and Luke 14:26. In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison, in effect, stating that your love for me (Jesus) must be so great that it would appear as hate when compared to your love of your parents. And, yes, I affirm that my love for Christ is so great that it appears as if I hate my own parents.
                Brilliant answer! Dead on correct. This is basically the answer I've been trying to draw out of Lonster.
                In short Jesus was using a figure of speech. He wasn't saying to actually hate your parents, what He was saying was to love your family and love Me even more.

                On what basis do you claim that Jesus' use of the term is a figure of speech and God's use is not?

                Some make the mistake of trying to link verses in Mt. and Luke with Malachi and Esau. They would claim that God only loved Esau less, much, much less, but He still loved him. No, this is not what the passage states and the rest of the bible teaches about the sovereignty of God. Much straining is required to make the Esau passage into something different. There is no connection between them unless one strains to make the connection.
                I don't believe that the passage is talking about the two boys at all! Indeed, it is abundanly clear that God is not talking about Jacob and Esau but rather the two nations which would come from them.

                God very simply does not hate unborn babies.

                God's predestining of the reprobates is a harsh doctrine (to our finite minds), but it is scriptural. I always find it interesting that persons that teach the doctrine of the Trinity, they ask persons coming to study to put aside their preconceived notions and not rely upon unaided human reason to determine what can or cannot be true about God. The same persons will insist that the Scriptures be the unquestioned authoritative guide, too. All good advice and instruction. Yet these same persons are unwilling to follow these same rules when encountering God's sovereign predestination.
                Anyone who would advise against the use of sound reason in the study or verification of ANY doctrine, including the Trinity, is a false teacher and a fool. His mind is debased and separated from the mooring of Scripture. If Scripture is the basis of our doctrine, sound reason is the mooring line that keeps us fastened to it. No truth claim can ever violate even a single law of reason without being utterly falsified and as the predestination of unborn babies for Hell and any concept of justice are contradictory, the Calvinist has a big problem, unless, of course, they disengage their ability to think clearly in which case anything at all can be made acceptable.

                The part of the doctrine of predestination that has God, by a sovereign and eternal decree, choosing one portion of mankind to salvation while leaving the other portion to reprobation, initially strikes us as being opposed to our ideas of justice and thus needs a defense. The defense of the doctrine of reprobation rests upon mankind's original sin and total inability to save themselves.
                Our ideas of justice? Since when did the definition of justice become a matter of opinion?
                There is no way I'm going to let you redefine justice AMR.

                God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.

                Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself) must insist that while some are saved from their unbelief and disobedience, in which all are involved, and others are not, it is still the sinner's sinfulness that constitutes the ground of his reprobation. Election and reprobation proceed on different grounds; one the grace of God, the other the sin of man. It is incorrect to say that because God elects to save a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves, that therefore God elects to condemn a man irrespective of his character or what he deserves. No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.
                Your appeal here to original sin doesn't work because, according to Calvinism, God predestined that too. All you've done is moved the problem back a step. You said God's decree "finds all of mankind fallen" when in fact you believe that it was God's degree that CAUSED all of mankind to fall in the first place.

                So the God of Calvinism sets two men's houses on fire and saves one of them from the flames and then demands the man's gratefulness while the other man isn't saved from the flames and then is punished for having set his own house on fire and according to Calvinism neither man has anything to complain about.

                Here is a summary of the proper doctrine of election as understood by any Calvinist worthy of the label :

                Election is a sovereign free act of God, through which He determines who shall be made righteous.
                You forgot, "...and who will not."

                The elective decree was made in eternity.
                Was this decree made before, after or at the same time as the decree to cause man to sin in the first place? Or was that part outside of God's sovereign conrrol?

                The elective decree contemplates mankind as already fallen.

                The elect are brought from a state of sin and into a state of blessedness and happiness.
                You don't believe that man was created evil and in a state of sin, do you?

                Election is personal determining what particular individuals shall be saved.
                And by extension...

                "...and those that shall not be saved."

                Election includes both means and ends,—election to eternal life includes election to righteous living here in this world.

                The elective decree is made effective by the efficient work of the Holy Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases.
                Whether just or unjust it would seem.

                God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.
                Are you here suggesting that such resistance is outside of the providential control of God? Wheren't those who resist predestined to resist?

                The elective decree leaves others who are not elected—others who suffer the just consequences of their sin.
                Their sin which God predestined that they would commit - right?

                Some men are permitted to follow the evil which they freely choose, to their own destruction.
                FREELY CHOOSE?!

                By "freely choose" you mean that they are simply unaware of God having caused them to want to sin and then to act on that desire. Is that correct?

                God, in His sovereignty, could regenerate all men if He chose to do so.
                Which is precisely why we can validly conclude by extension that if you haven't been predestined to salvation you have been predestined to Hell.

                The Judge of all the earth will do right, and will extend His saving grace to multitudes who are undeserving.
                Quite right except that your theology teaches that any action of mine was first an action of God's; that I do not and cannot do anything apart for God's sovereign decree and thus any action of mine that is punished by God would render Him a hypocrite and unjust.

                Election is not based on foreseen faith or good works, but only on God's sovereign good pleasure.
                As were the sins which He intends to punish in eternal Hell.

                Much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.
                Can someone remind AMR which road was the wide one and which was the straight and narrow one again.

                All of those dying in infancy are among the elect.
                This is off topic but I suppose then that God having predestined all these abortions was a good thing after all.

                There has also been an election of individuals and of nations to external and temporal favors and privileges—an election which falls short of salvation.

                The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.
                [/LIST]
                Fortunately, saying it doesn't make it so.

                It really is impossible for me to comprehend how anyone can accept that the version of God that Calvinism puts forward is in any way a just God.



                Lonster,

                Watch this conversation closely! It will be all about the conflict between the Calvinist idea of sovereignty vs. God's righteousness and justice. The Calvinist will systematically dismantle justice, even going so far as to redefine the term so that it is synonymous, when applied to God, with the term 'arbitrary'. You just cannot have it both ways. Either God meticulously controls everything or He is just - not both. The Calvinist tries his best to have both but he has no choice but to redefine justice to make it work.

                Resting in Him,
                Clete
                Last edited by Clete; June 9th, 2007, 07:33 PM.
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by DFT_Dave View Post
                  Two types of election

                  The first type of Biblical election is one of service and is based on God's choice. God chose Israel for a purpose. We cannot pick our gifts nor our purpose in God's plan for our service.

                  Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came

                  Luke 6:12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles:

                  John 15:16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

                  I Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

                  Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,

                  The second type of election is to salvation which is our choice based on our faith not on our works of service. Which is what the Jews refused to accept then and Calvinists reject today.

                  John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

                  Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “ Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

                  The argument that the Jews used against the Gospel was that they were already God's chosen people, they had the Word of God, and their service saved them.

                  John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

                  John 8:33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”

                  John 9:28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.

                  Calvinists take verses about service and gifts of service to prove that our salvation is God's choice and not our own; John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" is about service, not salvation, as is clearly indicated in John 6:70, "Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?' 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve." Judas was chosen to be an apostle but, obviously, not chosen to be saved.
                  POTD!
                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    Thank you for the direct answers.
                    We'll get to whether or not God hated Esau in a bit but for now I want to look into your answer to the second question...

                    Why don't you hate your parents? In what way are you not contradicting Jesus' command to hate your whole family?
                    Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

                    This is not a trick question. You know the answer, I'm just wanting you to say it.

                    Resting in Him,
                    Clete
                    Ok,

                    NO

                    YES

                    Is that more accurate? The foundation of understanding MUST be established before one can answer. Since you are reserving comment of understanding to actually 'ask' a 'straightforward' question, I'll do it for you.

                    One: Did God hate Esau? Yes. You have to read it that way, because that is what it says but Malachi is clear that this is a judgement on the people descended from Esau. If God actually hated Esau, it is not mentioned. This is a statement about the people who were condemned. The term 'hate' must be considered. I do not believe that it is as simple as our understanding of the word. It means the object is detestable. It is a comment more on the nature of the descendants of Esau. They were detestable "they were indignate toward God 'forever.' God despises them in thier detestableness.

                    Two: Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
                    Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

                    If we are to love our enemies, how could we possibly be expected to hate our parents? Answer: We cannot so therefore there is something else to be gleened from the command to do so. Jesus does not contradict Himself, ever. Rather it is a command to the order of things and steers directly back to the first of the ten commandments: "You shall have no other God before me."
                    Hate in this instance is a comparative term of allegiance. So 'yes,' I hate all in compared to my allegiance and 'no' I do not hate anybody.

                    Going back to One: If God commands us to love our enemies, it is obvious, that God did not 'hate' Esau, like we might think, but we learn an important truth. If one despises God, His love is ineffectual. The only thing left is God's wrath and disdain, because Love has been rejected.
                    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                    ? Yep

                    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                    ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Lonster View Post
                      Well, God is the one making a conditional promise, or prophecy. Not man.

                      Conditional = God says B will happen if A happens. Otherwise C will happen.

                      The problem for the S.V. is that God knows A is never-ever-ever-ever-ever (I thought this was a link for a second) going to happen. Did he really make a prophecy, did he really make a promise if he knew he would break it?God never breaks unconditional prophecies.
                      Conditional prophecies or promise, are seen as accepting terms. Regardless of whether you see nonOV as having a logic problem (If he knows, it must be insincere) the conditional is a prompt for response and effects a change regardless.
                      I see them as interjections to turn man or teach a truth to those who will change.


                      I agree, but what I'm driving at here is that you see Jonah's message as unconditional prophecy, and I see it as either conditional or promise.

                      Isn't that a form of a lie, to say something will happen (conditional or not) when you know it won't? Isn't that God leading his people on?
                      No. I believe even though I know which meals my kids like and will pick, that there is value in giving choices. I am not insincere in my offer at all. I could just make the dinner. More importantly however, is that God has an agenda to accomplish. His Words do not return void. He accomplishes what He desires. It is not always as clear what that purpose was, but I have no doubts.
                      And before your answer like other S.V.ers, should God do evil that good may come of it?
                      Hey Lon,

                      Your answers always seem to skate right on the edge of what we want you to realize by giving a direct answer or by tackling the problem head on. It is interesting to hear what you think, but sometimes I have no other way of conveying what I want you to hear from me other than to have you "face" the issue I am getting at.

                      I am not the best at communication anyway, but let me try this again.

                      It is a lie to tell someone something will happen when you know it will not happen. I guess that is pretty black and white, and there aren't any exceptions to the rule.

                      If I tell a child that I will give them a cookie if they can reach it. If I then put the cookie on top of the fridge, I deceived the child. I knew he couldn't reach it, I knew before I even made the promise that he couldn't meet the conditions to it. that makes it a lie too.

                      That is why it is impossible to say God isn't lying when you attach absolute foreknowledge to conditional promises.

                      You argue he does this conditional promise thing to get a people to strive to do right. True, but how many times did that not go according to plan? If God knew they wouldn't meet the conditions whether he said something or not, then why lie like that?
                      - Changing wineskins, at last.

                      - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by patman View Post
                        Hey Lon,

                        Your answers always seem to skate right on the edge of what we want you to realize by giving a direct answer or by tackling the problem head on. It is interesting to hear what you think, but sometimes I have no other way of conveying what I want you to hear from me other than to have you "face" the issue I am getting at.
                        I agree with you, but rather than seeing it as an actual attempt, try to realize that the scriptures are not as black and white to me, as they appear to you. You (and others) often ask 'yes/no' questions that are almost always incomplete questions. In my mind, it is best to give all the data you know exists, rather than asking yes/no because they way it is asked I'm constrained to problematics either way I answer. For instance: Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up? To me, the question is wrong. It is hard to answer a wrong question. So I try to give perspective as to why I find the question disagreeable. The question, "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" is such a question.

                        Originally posted by patman View Post
                        let me try this again.

                        It is a lie to tell someone something will happen when you know it will not happen. I guess that is pretty black and white, and there aren't any exceptions to the rule.
                        Yes, but not to the question "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" or "Did God lie?" Yes the prophecy to Ninevah was fulfilled, and No, God did not lie, but because of the way you asked the question, you have no idea 1) why I believe this, nor 2) an anwer that could be appreciated until we discuss the matter.
                        QUOTE=patman;1438749]
                        If I tell a child that I will give them a cookie if they can reach it. If I then put the cookie on top of the fridge, I deceived the child. I knew he couldn't reach it, I knew before I even made the promise that he couldn't meet the conditions to it. that makes it a lie too.[/QUOTE]
                        I appreciate that you believe it is a lie, but it is not. The child may go get his mother to reach it. The child may get the step ladder. The child may pull drawers out and create a stair. If the child reaches the cookie and I deny them, I've lied. Also, a cookie is a bit of an odd analogy, "What father, if his son asks for bread, would give him a serpent?"
                        QUOTE=patman;1438749]
                        That is why it is impossible to say God isn't lying when you attach absolute foreknowledge to conditional promises.[/QUOTE]
                        If however, I asked the child to reach for something to show them their limitations, I've taught the child something about his inability, not deceived them.
                        QUOTE=patman;1438749]
                        You argue he does this conditional promise thing to get a people to strive to do right. True, but how many times did that not go according to plan? If God knew they wouldn't meet the conditions whether he said something or not, then why lie like that?
                        [/QUOTE]
                        Because failure, as well as success teach us something. Success reveals ability. Failure reveals coming short. In business, the learning curve for failure is greater than that of success. There is no difference here.
                        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                        ? Yep

                        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Lonster View Post

                          I agree with you, but rather than seeing it as an actual attempt, try to realize that the scriptures are not as black and white to me, as they appear to you. You (and others) often ask 'yes/no' questions that are almost always incomplete questions. In my mind, it is best to give all the data you know exists, rather than asking yes/no because they way it is asked I'm constrained to problematics either way I answer. For instance: Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up? To me, the question is wrong. It is hard to answer a wrong question. So I try to give perspective as to why I find the question disagreeable. The question, "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" is such a question.


                          Yes, but not to the question "Was the prophecy to Ninevah fulfilled?" or "Did God lie?" Yes the prophecy to Ninevah was fulfilled, and No, God did not lie, but because of the way you asked the question, you have no idea 1) why I believe this, nor 2) an anwer that could be appreciated until we discuss the matter.
                          Originally posted by patman View Post
                          If I tell a child that I will give them a cookie if they can reach it. If I then put the cookie on top of the fridge, I deceived the child. I knew he couldn't reach it, I knew before I even made the promise that he couldn't meet the conditions to it. that makes it a lie too.
                          I appreciate that you believe it is a lie, but it is not. The child may go get his mother to reach it. The child may get the step ladder. The child may pull drawers out and create a stair. If the child reaches the cookie and I deny them, I've lied. Also, a cookie is a bit of an odd analogy, "What father, if his son asks for bread, would give him a serpent?"
                          Originally posted by patman View Post
                          That is why it is impossible to say God isn't lying when you attach absolute foreknowledge to conditional promises.
                          If however, I asked the child to reach for something to show them their limitations, I've taught the child something about his inability, not deceived them.
                          Originally posted by patman View Post
                          You argue he does this conditional promise thing to get a people to strive to do right. True, but how many times did that not go according to plan? If God knew they wouldn't meet the conditions whether he said something or not, then why lie like that?
                          Because failure, as well as success teach us something. Success reveals ability. Failure reveals coming short. In business, the learning curve for failure is greater than that of success. There is no difference here.
                          I believe this one issue is black and white. Either there is a lie or there isn't. You seem to be making excuses for what is a lie to God when he knows the future.

                          In my cookie analogy, you changed the rules so the child could get the cookie. Ok, let me add they are in a desert, no chairs, no other people, only a father a child a fridge and a starving monkey who always eats cookies. As soon as He puts the cookie on the fridge the monkey eats it. Now surely you can see the father lied to the child, can't you?

                          A lie is one of the most basic of all sins. God would never lie, for any reason, even if it resulted in good.

                          Let's just use a real situation instead.

                          While Israel entered the promise land, God several times told them they would drive out all the nations if they obeyed Him. They didn't, so he didn't drive them out.

                          Now, the S.V. applies an extra element to the story, one that isn't there. That element is that God knew that all along. Before he even made the promise. The future is settled, their "free will" actions would result in failure.

                          So why make the promise? All God had to do was command it, but instead of stopping there, he adds on "Oh, If you do that I'll do this," knowing as the words come out of his mouth that he'll never do it.

                          That is a lie. You must remove the "he knew the outcome" (which is added/assumed by the S.V. anyway) in order for that not to be a lie.

                          Perhaps this will absolutely drive my point home. The S.V. says to God, the past, present, and future exist all at once to God. Everything is settled. And to us, the only thing we can see as "settled" is the past:

                          If I said, "I will give you a million dollars (But only if John Wilkes Booth doesn't assassinate Lincoln, otherwise I take a million dollars out of you)" and you didn't know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln, and I knew you didn't know, then I lied to you. That is the same thing that God would be doing to Israel when he promises them good if they do good, and punishment otherwise.
                          - Changing wineskins, at last.

                          - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Clete View Post


                            Watch this conversation closely! It will be all about the conflict between the Calvinist idea of sovereignty vs. God's righteousness and justice.
                            These attributes are not mutually exclusive.

                            God is sovereign, righteous, and just.


                            Either God meticulously controls everything or He is just - not both.
                            God justly and sovereignly controls all things. The fact that you cannot grasp such a God, does not do away with Him.

                            The Calvinist tries his best to have both but he has no choice but to redefine justice to make it work.

                            Resting in Him,
                            Clete
                            Oh, pooh. What silly talk.

                            The Calvinist does not have to redefine anything. All the Calvinist has to do is read his Bible and believe what it says.

                            The Bible says God is sovereign, righteous, and just.

                            You should learn to live with it.

                            Nang
                            "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                            " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                            Gordon H. Clark

                            "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                            Charles Spurgeon

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by patman View Post
                              I believe this one issue is black and white. Either there is a lie or there isn't. You seem to be making excuses for what is a lie to God when he knows the future.

                              God would never lie, for any reason, even if it resulted in good.
                              Agreed, God does not lie.
                              Originally posted by patman View Post
                              Let's just use a real situation instead.

                              While Israel entered the promise land, God several times told them they would drive out all the nations if they obeyed Him. They didn't, so he didn't drive them out.

                              Now, the S.V. applies an extra element to the story, one that isn't there. That element is that God knew that all along. Before he even made the promise. The future is settled, their "free will" actions would result in failure.

                              So why make the promise? All God had to do was command it, but instead of stopping there, he adds on "Oh, If you do that I'll do this," knowing as the words come out of his mouth that he'll never do it.
                              Is an offer spurned disingenuine regardless of whether it is accepted or not? Further, Is it ignoble to offer even in the case of failure, if something important is learned?
                              Originally posted by patman View Post
                              That is a lie. You must remove the "he knew the outcome" (which is added/assumed by the S.V. anyway) in order for that not to be a lie.
                              My knowing my children will choose mac 'n' cheese over tuna casserole but offering the selection is neither deceptive nor disingenuine. They get to participate in decision, I get to hear from their little voices, etc. etc.
                              Originally posted by patman View Post
                              Perhaps this will absolutely drive my point home. The S.V. says to God, the past, present, and future exist all at once to God. Everything is settled. And to us, the only thing we can see as "settled" is the past:

                              If I said, "I will give you a million dollars (But only if John Wilkes Booth doesn't assassinate Lincoln, otherwise I take a million dollars out of you)" and you didn't know John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln, and I knew you didn't know, then I lied to you. That is the same thing that God would be doing to Israel when he promises them good if they do good, and punishment otherwise.
                              Looking at your analogy, I agree, there is deception. Now show directly that this is the case with a nonOV interpretation of any given scripture. Before you do, let me identify from your analogy that there was malicious purpose and intent not only implied, but expounded. Your burden is to not only show infraction, but to show that the purpose had to be malicious.

                              In Him

                              Lon
                              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                              ? Yep

                              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Lonster View Post
                                [COLOR="Black"]Looking at your analogy, I agree, there is deception. Now show directly that this is the case with a nonOV interpretation of any given scripture. Before you do, let me identify from your analogy that there was malicious purpose and intent not only implied, but expounded. Your burden is to not only show infraction, but to show that the purpose had to be malicious.

                                In Him

                                Lon
                                OK.

                                Exodus 23
                                22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.

                                Judges 2
                                20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.” 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.

                                The S.V. must add the 3rd element.

                                SettledView 3:16
                                God knowth the entire future perfectly.


                                I could give you a million more, but that should suffice. I will add no commendation, as your requested. Read it for yourself.


                                BTW. I didn't imply malicious intent. I simply provided the facts, the actions speak for themselves. I put it there to show you how evil it would be if God said this knew that and did that.
                                - Changing wineskins, at last.

                                - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X