BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

Status
Not open for further replies.

patman

Active member
lee_merrill said:
Yes, I hold that "will not be built more" (Eze. 26:14, UNASB) does not mean "will never be rebuilt," it means all the building projects current there would be stopped, and they were.
Lee, was the following verse fulfilled, yes or no?

Ezekiel 26:4
"They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

(Hint, the answer has nothing to a temporary halt in building projects.)

I am sure you will agree to this one:

Ezekiel 27:36
"'The merchants among the nations hiss at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.' "

And although you may agree, I am guessing you will deny that God said Nebuchadnezzar would be responsible? Despite God telling us that Nebuchadnezzar and his army would do it. During his day, and they lived on. I already know you will disagree. I am very sure of it. Does that mean I know the future? Read the next sentence for your answer(even thought I am not Jesus, you should see the faulty logic, I hope).

lee_merrill said:
Well, if Jesus is sure, then he knows the future! But maybe you mean Jesus thought it was very probable, and then it would need to be shown that "Truly, truly" did not mean this statement was certain, and that Jesus saying this after Peter said "You know all things" was not a confirmation of knowledge of the future.

I believe Jesus had access through the Father to all knowledge during the Incarnation (Jn. 11:22, 41-42), yet he needed to learn Aramaic and carpentry and the best places to eat in Jerusalem. After the resurrection, he resumed his omniscience (Jn. 21:17), and his omnipotence (Mt. 28:18), directly, that is what I believe.
I think Jesus had access to the full knowledge of God too. Though I do not believe that knowledge includes the future.

I had hoped that you would see the flaw in your logic. If Jesus affirms he knows all things, and yet he himself does not, he lied. Jesus is not affirming anything.

But you say that he gets it back after being resurrected?

Is John 21:17 your proof?

John 21:17-19
17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"​
Still not seeing the truly truly. I just see that Peter said it. Which has it's merits.

But what about the first time they said it to him?
John 16:29-31
29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."
31"You believe at last!"[a] Jesus answered.​
This was before the cross, Lee. Perhaps you shouldn't put so much weight on what Peter said, in your "proof."

I think you are reading way to much in to this, and I think a lot of it is just coming from your mind, what you think you remember hearing. We must read the Bible as it reads, not as we want it to read.
lee_merrill said:
Well I was trying to! Posts can become quite long, if the focus is not kept on some principle issue.
Lee, I agree. I will cut you some slack if you do for me. Thanks for trying.

lee_merrill said:
Certainly God's response can change, but not his nature. And God is a Trinity! So the Incarnation did not change God.
I am going with godrulz.
godrulz said:
God changes in some ways (relations, exeriences, knowledge, emotions, etc.) and does not change in other ways (uncreated, triune, Creator, character). God always was triune, but the Word was not always flesh. The incarnation was a genuine, new change in the being and relations of the Godhead. The Word is now the God-Man forever. This was not true before the creation and incarnation.
Amen godrulz.

Lee, you are admitting change in God. Regardless how small, you admit to it. But you limit it only to his reaction, I guess you think that is a small enough matter that doesn't make much difference.

If by some wild hair, I am right about Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre, and Egypt, I have shown that God's reactions to these nations changed. Agree?

Thanks for the response, Lee.
-Pat
 

RobE

New member
Patman said:
Oh yeah, what about this verse?

Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

I thought Jesus knew all things and said truly truly and all that? Yet I guess all things just means.......... what? He doesn't? So he lied that one alleged time he said truly truly?

Patman, I'll make a personal challenge to you to believe Jesus' own words. Can you do that. Will you?

God the Son didn't know the day or hour so the OV proclaims victory? After all, isn't Jesus also God? God the Father knew the day or hour so the Calvinist proclaims victory? After all, isn't God the Father also God? I told you we'd end up talking about the Trinity, Patrick.

Apparently Jesus was under the Father's authority---in his will so to speak. What about His tears in the garden and His plea to the Father? Doesn't this show that Jesus didn't know everything? But wait, He must of known if He pleaded to have the task taken from Him and He told the pharisees that the temple would be destroyed and built anew in three days, right? So He knew what would happen. Didn't God say 'This is my son, in whom, I am well pleased. Did He just say He was pleased with Himself? The Trinity.....much harder to understand than foreknowledge, omniscience, omnipotence, etc....... Yet your faith will allow you to believe this without logic.

Patman said:
John 14:14
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

God changed into flesh. God can't change??? I doubt it.

God became flesh. What is flesh. Your body---Are you going to have it later or is it going to be a spiritual body like Paul speaks of? Who did Abraham walk and talk with if God had no body? How about Enoch? Abendigo? The Trinity...easy to see a changing God when your talking about two distinct and different personalities, right?

Here's what's wrong with Calvinism:

The task of confounding the "heretic" was now entrusted to the disciple of Beza. Arminius addressed himself to the work; but he soon began to feel that Calvinism was repugnant to all the instincts of his soul. More and more clearly, as time went on, his writings and sermons taught the doctrines since associated with his name and after his death embodied by his disciples in the famous five propositions of the "Remonstrants". For the sake of reference we give the substance of the "Remonstrantie" as condensed by Professor Blok in his "History of the People of the Netherlands" (III, ch. xiv).

"They (the Remonstrants) declared themselves opposed to the following doctrines: (1) Predestination in its defined form; as if God by an eternal and irrevocable decision had destined men, some to eternal bliss, others to eternal damnation, without any other law than His own pleasure. On the contrary, they thought that God by the same resolution wished to make all believers in Christ who persisted in their belief to the end blessed in Christ, and for His sake would only condemn the unconverted and unbelieving. (2) The doctrine of election according to which the chosen were counted as necessarily and unavoidably blessed and the outcasts necessarily and unavoidably lost. They urged the milder doctrine that Christ had died for all men, and that believers were only chosen in so far as they enjoyed he forgiveness of sins. (3) The doctrine that Christ died for the elect alone to make them blessed and no one else, ordained as mediator; on the contrary, they urged the possibility of salvation for others not elect. (4) The doctrine that the grace of God affects the elect only, while the reprobates cannot participate in this through their conversion, but only through their own strength. On the other hand, they, the 'Remonstrants', a name they received later from this, their 'Remonstrance', hold that man 'has no saving belief in himself, nor out of the force of his free-will', if he lives in sin, but that it is necessary that 'he be born again from God in Christ by means of His Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding and affection, or will and all strength', since without grace man cannot resist sin, although he cannot be counted as irresistible to grace. (5) The doctrine that he who had once attained true saving grace can never lose it and be wholly debased. They held, on the contrary, that whoever had received Christ's quickening spirit had thereby a strong weapon against Satan, sin, the world, and his own flesh, although they would not decide at the time without further investigation -- later they adopted this too -- whether he could not lose this power 'forsaking the beginning of his being, Christ.'"

We all agree with the fatalism in Calvinistic belief, the 'authoring of sin' which results, the impotency of grace which occurs, and the situation where free will doesn't exist. I said earlier that Calvin didn't believe in fate. He, and Luther, did logical backflips to avoid these subjects. Most Christians don't believe in the Calvinist point of view even though the scriptural evidence abounds because the scriptures point to a secondary cause in God's overall design----specifically, GRACE.

Here's what's wrong with the Open View:

Patman said:
Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

I thought Jesus knew all things and said truly truly and all that? Yet I guess all things just means.......... what? He doesn't? So he lied that one alleged time he said truly truly?

{He didn't lie because the Father hadn't revealed this to him yet}

They confuse the personalities of the Trinity. They weaken God by saying He can't do all things. They say that God the Son doesn't know the day or hour; but fail to see that God the Father does: BY GOD THE SON'S OWN ADMNISSION. They don't understand submission and responsibility: God isn't culpable for evil if He sees evil occuring today; but is culpable if He saw it in the beginning according to their own profession.

Let me ask you: Who did Jesus say we should worship and why? Was it perhaps God the Father? Who will authority be given to(JESUS)? Who will give it(The FATHER)? The OV systematically ignores the Trinity and their relationship just as the Calvinists do!!!

Why? Just so they can be right in Calvinism's case, obviously. Just so they can understand a personal, caring, loving God in Open Theism's case(I hope). Don't twist the scriptures just to support your position. God the Father; at least, does know the future. Will you admit that this scripture says this? I doubt it.

This is the problem with both Doctrines.

Friends,
Rob

You've asked how can God repent of making man during the time of the flood? I answer with this:

Rob said:
Patrick had a sick cat that He needed to put to sleep, today. The cat had been in his family for five years, but was now sick beyond any help. He knew this day would come because he had dealt with many family pets and their problems before. He had found himself in this situation more than once over the years. Patrick knew what he had to do and it was time. As he grabbed his rifle and took the cat outside; the sorrow built in his heart and mind. A tear welled in his eye. He hated this part of the process and he swore that this would be the last cat he would have. Actually, as he looked into the cats eyes, he was sorry he ever got this one. He didn't know why this morning the thought of 'taking care of the cat' seemed, logically, to be a simple thing----but now; as it came down to it, he was moved to the point of tears and repented of ever having it even though when he got the cat he knew this day would come.
 

patman

Active member
Quick Reply to RobE

Quick Reply to RobE

RobE said:
Patman, I'll make a personal challenge to you to believe Jesus' own words. Can you do that. Will you?

RobE, I am saddened that the way I debate makes it look as though I do not believe Jesus' own words. I believe everything Jesus said, and I know why Jesus said the things he said that didn't seem to come to pass.

I know Jesus knew why He was on earth, I know he realized he would be dead for 3 days.

I can see how you might think I undermine the words of Jesus. I do not, I uphold every one, but when I do not hold them the same way you do, it may seem that I am sinning. We can get into what I think Jesus was saying when he said these things later.

Please realize that for now, I am debating with Lee. He is making illogical and incomplete arguments based on bits and pieces of the scripture, and I am using verses that contradict his view. And I use them knowing what they speak of. And for right now, I feel it best not to get into that.

Lee said "Jesus proclaimed to know all things when he said Peter would deny Christ, and by saying that he knew the future in his prediction" He said the same thing about Jesus' talk with Peter when Peter said he loved Jesus 3 times.

And I am tired of this point. I do not think it holds any grounds at all. Especially when I am debating with Lee on a point that I have 100% proven, and that is that God did not predict the future accurately in the case of Egypt, Tyre, and Nebuchadnezzar.

When I feel that confident that I have won that point, and then I get a response that is something that you really have to stretch to believe, as Lee is doing, I had to put the point down quickly.

If Lee said Jesus knows all things, and Jesus says he doesn't know a certain thing, that means Lee is wrong again.

Lee then said, oh wait, He knew all things after he rose from the dead. That's why he knows it. So I go to the heart of his point. Lee said that since Jesus didn't correct Peter when Peter said "you know all things," and he points out that this happened after the cross, I come back with a point that Jesus didn't correct them when he said it before the cross. Because his disciples did say he knows all things.

It is just a one-two shot to knock that argument down with out writing a zillion words to show him what a stretch it is to really believe that.

Trust me, I believe in the words of Christ. I believe I know what he meant by them, and when you read it without the presumption that Jesus/God/the Spirit knows the future, it doesn't seem so mysterious.

RobE, your explanation to the problem Egypt Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar is "We don't know everything, so it could be something else." I have huge problems with this logic. It allows us to read anything into the word we wish.

God said that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre to the point it would be like a smooth rock.

Your answer seems to be "Yeah, but we don't know everything else. So forget about it."

What else can we apply that too?

Jesus rose from the dead.

"Yeah, but we don't know everything about the situation. So just don't worry about it."

I know you disagree with that last point. But that is the problem I see with it. We can't just wish or hope the words don't mean what they do simply because you think a prophet didn't record every dot and slash.

God said exactly what he meant, without apology. I challenge you to believe in God's word(Turned it around on you eh? I know you do, just take it all as to heart as if it were Jesus’ words).

Thanks RobE. I hope to answer your other post. Thanks for clearing up what you think in it.

-Pat

P.S. Was that catwoman in that story?
 

bling

Member
Thank you gain for sticking in there.

Patman, I feel we are going backwards your answers are generating more questions then answers, a lot of which I’m not excited about. If you would like just answer the Q and you can leave the QX as extra credit questions.
The differences I have found between different sincere Christian groups most often are differences in how they define words:
We define the following words and subjects differently:
1. Agape Love
2. The love between child and parent when it is not agape love
3. Sin
4. Man’s purpose
5. God’s purpose in relation to man
6. Satan’s purpose
7. Sin’s purpose

We may should just stick with Agape love and do them one at a time. I have tried to cover them all with the story of Adam and Eve, and made some wrong assumptions from the beginning. There are books on each of these topics.


1QX. Could Jesus allow a questionable comment to remain unquestioned?
Patman said: . Eve mistakenly added "Do not even look at it" to the word of God. He didn't say that. He just said "Don't eat." If Adam and Eve desired to eat of the tree, If it were a sin, they didn't know it was. They only knew not to do it.
2QX. Why would Eve Lie, how is that logical?
3QX. There maybe no direct command by god not to lie, but God can not lie or have any thing to do with a lie or participate with liars, it is against His nature, so who and when was she taught to lie?
4QX. Are there other messages from God given by good people saying “God said ____” that are recorded in the scripture that you think are lies?
5QX. Do you think Eve is a bad person at this time, better or worse then some of God’s other messengers?
6QX.How can I know something in the scripture is a lie if the Spirit does not lead people to point it out later?
7QX Do you feel only the direct messages from God are true and the ones that say God told us or me are false?
8QX. Do we get the entire message and all follow up messages at the same time or could things be left unwritten, but not unsaid later?
9QX. God programs animals to do certain action with certain causes could Eve at this time been programmed not to lie or felt it would be completely illogical to lie, who taught her about this subject before she became and adult, God?
10QX. Why is it never mention in the Bible that Eve lied, have we been presented with miss information?

1a Q. What prove do you have that Eve lied and did not get additional revelation about the tree, meaning she could have sinned by touching the tree and not eating?

We have only a small part of the garden story and certainly not all the communication between God and them, so everything given is important, Eve telling us that God told them “do not touch” is very telling at least to me:
1. Adam and/or Eve have been discussing the tree with God, which is very logical.
2. The most likely question by them from the answer given, “how close can we get without sinning?” That is the question I hear before the person gets involved in the sin.
3. That question, if asked, is the wrong question to be asking. They are greasing the skids to the sin. They should be asking how far can we go to stay away from the tree? What more should we be doing, to avoid the temptation of the tree?
4. The response God gives shows a real concern for them to avoiding contact with the tree.
5. Getting more detail information about a sin, does not help you avoid that sin.
Patman said: . At any moment, heaven forbid, we can leave on our own will.
12QX. I do not think many people would see killing yourself as a way out of anything, except extreme pain, which very few people are ever under. If the only door is Hell who is going to take it?
Patman said: . I am not avoiding the question. You assume that A and B are the only choices. But there is a C, all of the above!
13QX to be both then your eternal close relationship with God would be dependent upon your works of obedience and God’s grace. I prefer God’s grace, because the good I do is not me but Him working in me, so He should get all the credit. What acts of obedience do you do?
Patman said: . He would want to make a law for them all, because they would not know it is evil to steal fruit from their neighbors tree.
14QX God made many rules at many time. Do verbal or written laws keep people from doing things that displease God at least one time? If you break one rule have you not broken all of them, so do you need more rules?
Patman said: Now that people have commands to break, they have sinned and can be separated.
Commands do not make bad behavior displeasing to God. A person may not be held accountable for doing a thing contrary to God’s nature, but that would still be bad and I feel in need of forgiveness to get back in relation with God. Commands help us understand sin, but may not be everything that separates man from God. If Adam or Eve had lied prior to eating the fruit that would have been contrary to God’s nature, something God can not be a party to.
Patman said: No tree meant no command. No commandment to break meant no sin.
We know in earlier times God winked at the miss behavior of the gentiles, but it does not suggest that this miss behavior was not in need of a savior. This sounds very logical to me, but since Adam and Eve ate the fruit it maybe hard to prove, because you can say they had the knowledge after that, so we cannot talk about any other people. Adam and Eve are naked at the time but it is not wrong to be naked in front of animals, your spouse, and spiritual beings so that is not wrong. If we could show that Eve lied even to Satan that might support your point, but right now I do not see them doing any displeasing activity. One idea would be, suppose they had done some behavior God would not approve of, but yet God had not commanded them about it to make it sin (under your rules) so they did it in ignorance and would keep on doing it, and then God tells them this is sin and their earlier actions displeased Him. If they really wanted to please God (even if just like a child for a parent) this would make them needlessly hurt, with no promises of this act being forgotten or forgiven by God because it was not a sin. Sin is the only acts that are mentioned as being forgiven and forgotten.
15QX Would you rather have your actions that displease God called sin (forgiven and totally forgotten) or not be called sin and remembered by God? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Patman asked; I.E. Lets pretend that there was no tree. All Adam and Eve and anyone who came after them had to do is just say "Yes, I love God" or "No, I do not love God." What would have happened if that had been the case?

I am beginning to see a problem with our understand I did not realize before:
You seem to be saying (correct me please) that the tree was man’s choice: to not love God, to hate God, to be rebellious, to say; “I want out”, to make the choice to follow Satan, and/or something like that. I also assume you feel that is what Adam and Eve thought-out and rebelled, teamed up with Satan and/ or took their only way out. They were depressed, up set with the situation, wanting to die, or liked Satan’s plain.

Q1b… Do you find any scripture support for their motive or thinking in this sin, being their wanting to take the “open door”?

I am not saying this sin did not cause a lot of bad thing, but was it Adam’s and Eve’s reasoning for sinning.
When I first sinned a lot of things changed: I was in need of a savior, I was party to putting Jesus on the cross, my master became Satan, I felt bad, I hurt those I loved and some I did not know, and I knew about this stuff, but I did not think about all that, I was tricked into sinning. I was a good kid with excellent parents I loved and did not want to hurt them, but I did on occasion (sin).
I see Adam and Eve’s sinning as very similar to my sinning and here is why:
1. Their sin is called sin the same as my sins: not rebellion, taking the open door, following after Satan, or hating God.
2. There is not reasonable to make it easy for one group of people to sin (us) and another group of people (Adam and Eve) have to want to die before sinning.
3. Satan did not tempt Eve with “Come on down and show you do not love God!!!!” or any other rebellious idea.
4. Satan tricked Eve, like he has tricked all of us with lies mixed in with truth, and appealing to our lusts and inward desires of the moment.
5. Satan caught Eve when she was not doing anything, it seems she was not thinking some deep thoughts (they were to be tending the garden, she was to be helping Adam).
6. Satan seemed to go after the weakest link at the time, Eve at this time.
7. Adam is not showing rebellious desires, quenching some lust, to eat the fruit. He was catch off guard, by the one he was closest to, his friend, soul mate, and a person on his level in such a way that God could not be at this time (Christ will come to relieve this handicap).
8. It was not a well thought-out planned rebellion, it only took a moment (is that not the way most sins are). You let down your guard and sins happen quickly. One moment your feeling good the next your caught up in a tragedy.
9. Adam and Eve started out like everyone else with a poor understanding of agape love, their love was more like the love of a child for his/her parents, which may seem close to agape love, but is a much lesser form of love.
10. They sinned before they had the indwelling Spirit, which is like mine and I feel everyone else’s first sin.
11. They immediately felt unworthy, exposed, bad about it, not the attitude found in the first moments of a rebellion.
12. My first sin did not feel like I was turning from God, running away, wanting out, just very much like Adam and Eve, I felt tricked.
13. Sin has a pleasure for a season however short and the fruit was convenient, good looking, probably smelled good and tasted good and Eve believed Satan to make her like God and not kill her and Adam could see it did not kill Eve.
14. Other people’s sinning has not been made hard, the other 12 billion that have lived or are living, in fact have all sinned.
QX.. Pat man you stated one time Satan might have tricked God into letting him tempt Adam and Eve; do you really think Satan understands man better then God or our God can be tricked by Satan?
This sin for Adam and Eve was made as easy as any first sin for any of us. The reason they sinned was they lacked agape love and the indwelling Spirit. They lacked agape love, for the reasons I stated before the problems with the Garden:
1. Adam and Eve must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience, that has never happened (except Christ) and God can and did know that. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship.
2. In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned.
3. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46.
4. It seems to work best to love first then obey not as Adam and Eve were asked to do, although I do believe you gain love with obedience (that’s another subject)
5. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Agape love is felt in being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
6. Adam and Eve did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is Huge! (Another discussion topic)
7. Out side the garden there is wisdom gained in the struggle of laboring, the fruits of labor have more value and thus these fruits become your gift to others and God that the garden could not provide you. You can sacrifice. (another subject)
Patman said: Even an innocent child who has yet to understand fully what sin is knows how to love it's parents.
And
I believe we can. Love is something you do.
That is nothing like agape love. A child loves those that love him and wants to be with them and will do stuff for them, a child can not love those that hurt him or love out of God’s love for him or understand sacrifice or make choices per say .
(His response is somewhat predictable either through genes or environmental.)
Yes we naturally love, but that type love will not sustain a true love for our enemies, agape love is vastly different.

Q2…Adam may have loved Eve, but did he agape love Eve or did He at any time agape love God, or did he love with at least some self interest?

Animals can love their parents and animal parents can love their offspring.
At some time we might need to understand agape love compared to other loves.

Patman said: . He didn't create man to sin, he just knew it COULD happen, and out of love, he had a plan!
I am beginning to understand you to be saying, “God does not allow sin, but does allow the possibility of sin.”
This goes back to the same idea about Satan and God allowing him to roam the earth, at first you said God did not allow Satan to do this and did not have the power at this time to put him away. After pointing out Knight’s and lion’s answer of yes God could, you did seem to change, but Knight and lion went on to talk about the purpose of Satan for all of us. You may want to lesson again to the tape. I agree with what they said, but think there is much more which they may or may not agree to. The point is, sin and Satan have a lot of the same purposes.

Q3.What good purpose for good people do you see for Satan now?

Now if I am right about what you said “God does not allow sin, but does allow the possibility of sin.” I don’t know if that can be philosophically defended? Would God not understand enough about man to know given the possibility man will sin, everyone has. With all Adam and Eve lacked they would certainly sin over time. This is to philosophical a question, so lets not get into it and address, have only the possibility of sin.
16QX.Is the Bible telling us everyone in the future will sin at least once?
You say all kinds of problems would occur if we could not sin, but God has made every other animal on earth, so it would not sin, so He does know how to do it. 17QX.They can love, but those animals can not agape love, so what is needed to agape love?
Let us stick with the Garden: If the tree was ugly, smelled bad, had thorns around it and there was no Satan around to convince Eve, with a lie that She would be like God and not die, would Adam and Eve sinned, I do not think so. They had no reason to want to leave the Garden, God was the best parent you could have, they were raised (programmed) as good as you can get by God, they had no one calling God a liar so no lie to believe, they had no need for knowledge of good and evil, they had stuff to do and God was a great companion. I am sure from their reaction after the fall they loved God (but not agape love for God), all the time. Allowing the possibility of sinning today means everyone will sin at least once and allowing the possibility to sin in the Garden and Satan the liar with enough time and Adam and Eve will sin, which is very logical from what we can know about people, Satan, and time.

How are Adam and Eve going to feel about God? Would it not be very similar to children of extremely wealthy parents that provide everything for there children and the parents love them very much. The problem is the kids can very logically feel the parents are doing these things to fulfill their needs as parents which may be true of most parents. Adam and Eve would feel God is doing all this because he wants to feel good about Himself as a parent. They are being loved like all the products of the creator. That type of love felt to be shown to Adam and Eve will not produce agape love back to God, in fact the love Adam and Eve can have for each other, because there is no perceived obligation between them it be freely exchanged could easily be greater then their love for God.
Q4…How can God get around this problem? How does He get around this same issue with us?
Patman said: . Otherwise, God created us in such a way that it would be impossible to love him had we not sinned. That is where I see that thought process taking us. And that is why I reject it.
Q5.. If the thought process takes us to the truth will you except it?

God did not want some things to happen like Christ on the cross, or Satan on earth with man, innocent people being hurt, and man sinning, but if the objective is great enough God will quench His desires and do all it takes to fulfill the objective.
Q6…Do you agree that an agape love relationship is what God is wanting?
Q7…Could you go through all the short comings of the Garden relating to agape love and tell me how Adam and Eve could have over come those short comings to develop agape love for God and others?
Q7 a Adam and Eve must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience, how do they see God’s agape love in that?
Q7b In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness (agape love), “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned at all, this will not apply how can they share in this promises?.
Q7c. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46 how can they become righteous sheep?
Q7d. It seems to work best to love first then obey not as Adam and Eve were asked to do, so what scripture do we have to show the opposite would happen?
Q7e. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Agape love is felt in being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50, so how can they see the full agape love of God for them?
Q7f. Adam and Eve did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is Huge! What makes up for that in the garden that would be a 24 hour equal?
Q7g. Out side the garden there is wisdom gained in the struggle of laboring, the fruits of labor have more value and thus these fruits become your gift to others and God that the garden could not provide you. How can Adam and Eve sacrifice something they earned?

18QX. There is no reason to go into a long story again about what would happen if there was not a tree, but let me ask you what would your tree have been if you were in the Garden?
The tree for Adam and Eve was not there to be a big help to them if they got kicked out, that is not the appeal Satan used or even mentioned anywhere. They could have touched the tree and sinned, according to God. The fruit had an appeal for them right then and Satan went after that desire. This is no big time rebellion like Satan attempted take over, it is the first sin of many first sins by every human that ever lived. Any future problems would be handled by God the way everything else was handle by God, they needed to be dependent on God not their “own” resources. Adam and Eve will still be highly dependent on God and to go to heaven will need God’s agape, love big time.

God did not need foreknowledge to know Adam and Eve would sin, with what they lacked, the ease of the sin, time, and the power of Satan, it was inevitable, I could have told God that. The point is, it is not a deal killer.



If there is something else you would like me to address please restate.

After I completed this, I read your post again. I originally thought the little story about removing the possibility of sin from Adam and Eve was bizarre, but I do see were you are coming from.
YOUR METHOD- Remove sinning from man by removing the rules and allowing humans to behave unchecked. As you and all of us can see: that is chaos, which is a hell on earth, those people would not pleasing God even if they did not “sin”.

MY IDEA ON A GARDEN WITHOUT SIN: Remove Satan, remove the tree, make actions that please God instinctive, provide all the knowledge and logic needed to do good and avoid bad, and provide all the needs of humans so they will not covet. My God can easily do this, I can see how He gave some animals instinctive knowledge not to hurt their own specie. How, He gave us different feelings with different degrees of strength. He has shown a tremendous knowledge of man, sin, love, Satan, heaven and Himself.
This is also the way I picture Heaven, since it was designed before man it had to take all this into consideration, the rule for us will be to do only those things that please God.

The problem with creating this type Garden is the same problem with the Garden you can not develop agape love, you can have a very great wonderful child type love for a parent, but not agape love. We need to be on earth to develop at least some agape love and then we can really be in that eternal agape loving relationship with God.

Q8. What is your heaven like and how does it differ from my ideas?
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
RobE, your explanation to the problem Egypt Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar is "We don't know everything, so it could be something else." I have huge problems with this logic. It allows us to read anything into the word we wish.

God said that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre to the point it would be like a smooth rock.

Your answer seems to be "Yeah, but we don't know everything else. So forget about it."

What else can we apply that too?

Jesus rose from the dead.

"Yeah, but we don't know everything about the situation. So just don't worry about it."

I know you disagree with that last point. But that is the problem I see with it. We can't just wish or hope the words don't mean what they do simply because you think a prophet didn't record every dot and slash.

God said exactly what he meant, without apology. I challenge you to believe in God's word(Turned it around on you eh? I know you do, just take it all as to heart as if it were Jesus’ words).

The turn isn't complete. Let me state exactly what I think so there isn't any misunderstanding...

Deut. 18:18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity.

1)First of all I believe the prophecy was fulfilled. You need to understand this is the position that I'm personally coming from, but since Lee wanted to argue that route I didn't want to be redundant in the discussion. I believe that Lee has done just that.

and if; this is a big IF

2)It wasn't fulfilled then.....

Rob #410 said:
The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar. God changing a judgement doesn't change God at all.

OR;

Rob #410 said:
I'm saying that God tells Tyre that they would be utterly destroyed. Not to be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar would carry away it's riches if nothing changed, just as you are. I'm just saying that it wasn't God's mind that changed; it was something else, that isn't revealed in the bible, changed such as the king of Tyre's mind, Nebuchadnezzar's actions, etc.....

AND;

Rob #408 said:
No He didn't lie. Listen to this closely----- God is not under any edict to reveal everything He intends to anyone. He can't be questioned or held accountable for what He didn't say. To not say something is NOT a lie.

For example: If you eat of the tree you will surely die, but I will come later to redeem you from your mistake, Ok? Oh you ate, but you're not dead. I'm sorry I meant you would die spiritually, Ok?

Did He lie by not saying everything? Of course not.

patman said:
I know Jesus knew why He was on earth, I know he realized he would be dead for 3 days.

3 days, really? Without foreknowledge? Your kidding?

patman said:
Lee said "Jesus proclaimed to know all things when he said Peter would deny Christ, and by saying that he knew the future in his prediction" He said the same thing about Jesus' talk with Peter when Peter said he loved Jesus 3 times.

If Lee said Jesus knows all things, and Jesus says he doesn't know a certain thing, that means Lee is wrong again.

Lee clarified this with the following statement:

Lee Merrill said:
I believe Jesus had access through the Father to all knowledge during the Incarnation (Jn. 11:22, 41-42), yet he needed to learn Aramaic and carpentry and the best places to eat in Jerusalem. After the resurrection, he resumed his omniscience (Jn. 21:17), and his omnipotence (Mt. 28:18), directly, that is what I believe.

Jesus did say that God the Father knew the future and I personally believe that His foreknowledge about Peter and Judas destroys the open view. Why did He know about them and not about the time of His second coming? That hadn't been revealed to Him yet by the Father(who is God as well) who did foreknow the outcome which Lee pointed out in His post. Did Jesus know everything? What did Jesus want to know? The answer is---Jesus wanted to know whatever the Father wanted to reveal to Him. Could He ask the Father? Of course; but Jesus was simply willing to trust in the Father and He showed that trust throughout the scriptures and His actions. How do you think He found out about Judas and Peter? How do you think Peter found out about Jesus' true nature. Jesus answered him saying Peter this you learned from the Father. What's the problem here? Maybe, Jesus always subjected Himself to the 'Father's Will'. I don't know but it would make sense.

I, personally, find this verse much more compelling:

Hosea 11:8
"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused."

Here you see that God can change the future if He wishes. He changed the future of Ephraim because His compassion was aroused. These are the verses that destroy Calvinism, but not the Traditional View. Let me ask you---If God changed Ephraim's destiny, how much did that affect you? How much do you think it changed the overall outcome of what God foresaw? My answer would be it didn't significantly. It just changed Ephraim, not the future. Remember, I already talked to you about 'New Things' and their author. I also told you I believe He can't see past His own decisions(perhaps by one of the other personalities in the Trinity, to be more exact); but this doesn't nullify His 'ability' to foresee the future. Foresight is theory, living is practice. He obiously foresaw Ephraim's future unfolding differently than He had foreseen it in the beginning; because of Ephraims free will choice. He changed the future, but not Himself for Ephraims sake.

After that change He foresaw Ephraims future differently but not Patrick's or Rob's or His own. We're talking about fruit here. What impact did Ephraim have on eternity? Really?

Here we see the secondary cause of salvation expressed without depending on the addage that we're saved through faith alone which Calvinism(determinism) brought to us. The whole point of the incarnation was to allow our future to be changed, wasn't it? This still doesn't change Him or His future, right? It will change how He foresees that future for us, though. We were dead, but now are alive in Christ.

Clarity?

Rob, your friend in Him.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi Pat,

I hold that "will not be built more" (Eze. 26:14, UNASB) does not mean "will never be rebuilt," it means all the building projects current there would be stopped...

Pat: Lee, was the following verse fulfilled, yes or no?

Ezekiel 26:4 "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."
Yes, it was, by "them" (plural), which I hold was more than just Neb and his nation.

Ezekiel 27:36 "'The merchants among the nations hiss at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.' "

And although you may agree, I am guessing you will deny that God said Nebuchadnezzar would be responsible?
Yes, that is my view here.

Despite God telling us that Nebuchadnezzar and his army would do it. During his day, and they lived on.
Well, that would be your conclusion. That would not be my conclusion, though.

I already know you will disagree. I am very sure of it.
:)

Does that mean I know the future?
Only if you have 100% accuracy!

If Jesus affirms he knows all things, and yet he himself does not, he lied.
Actually, I think the lie would be if Jesus says, "truly, truly" (or "I tell you the truth"), if he knew it wasn't sure and certain. But I hold that Jesus knew all things after his resurrection, and had access through the Father to all knowledge during his incarnation.

Still not seeing the truly truly. I just see that Peter said it. Which has it's merits.
Here is a translation (UNASB) that uses those words, in the two instances where Jesus told Peter about his future:

John 13:38 Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

John 21:18 "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go."

The NIV has "I tell you the truth" in both these verses.

This was before the cross, Lee.
Yes, I think Jesus was confirming "you came from God," not the other statements prior to this. I do believe Jesus needed to hear what people said, at this time! I.e., that he did not know all the thoughts all people were having, everywhere while he was on earth, before the resurrection:

Luke 2:49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

Although he did in many instances know people's thoughts...

But my question is, why did Jesus say "truly, truly," or "I tell you the truth," if he knew it might not be true?

Lee: Certainly God's response can change, but not his nature. And God is a Trinity! So the Incarnation did not change God.

Godrulz: The incarnation was a genuine, new change in the being and relations of the Godhead.
I don't see why we need to say that the Father changed, though, nor how Jesus' relationship with the Father changed, either, or how God's nature, considered as in the Trinity, changed in any way, as well.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Pat: Lee, you are admitting change in God. Regardless how small, you admit to it.
Well, that would be our perspective. I believe God is not in time, so even his response to us can't easily be described as a change, as if he was different at one time, and then different again at another.

If by some wild hair, I am right about Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre, and Egypt, I have shown that God's reactions to these nations changed. Agree?
Yes, that would be true, if the Open View is correct, then God really changed. Yet we read otherwise, here and elsewhere:

Malachi 3:6 "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Blessings,
Lee
 

patman

Active member
Quick Reply To Lee

Quick Reply To Lee

Lee, I have a long response for Bling that I must get to. This is only a quick reply to your last post. I am glad to see that you can think deductively and you seem smart in that way. My complaint with you is the way you read things into the word, and or ignore things in the word. But anyway...

I asked you if this verse was fulfilled:

Ezekiel 26:4 "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock."

and you said:

lee_merrill said:
Yes, it was, by "them" (plural), which I hold was more than just Neb and his nation.

A few posts ago I sent you a link showing you what Tyre was like today. I guess you didn't read it all, and I don't blame you. It's what you consider "bed time reading." It was http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm

Way down at the bottom we find out that Tyre is still standing to this day.
Tyre Today
Tyre has a colorful souk (covered market) well worth exploring. Look for the Ottoman khan, or inn, just inside the market entrance. On a side street is the "Mamluke House", an Ottoman period residence that is being restored as a cultural heritage and information center by the General Directorate of Antiquities. Also in the souk area is a white, double-domed Shia mosque of great interest. Near the market you will
The port of Tyre
see a busy fisherman's port, in Phoenician times referred to as the "Sidonian" port because it faced north towards Sidon. Walk along the port with the sea on your right and you enter the city's Christian Quarter, a picturesque area of narrow streets, traditional architecture, and the Seat of the Maronite bishop of Tyre and the Holy land. One medieval tower still stands in a small garden. A second one is visible under the little lighthouse. During Crusader times towers similar to these ringed the city.​

God never destroyed Tyre. Still hasn't. It has been fought over through out the years, but no one utterly destroyed it. It has modern buildings, it is being built again and again.

You only disagree that Nebuchadnezzar was going to be the one appointed to destroy Tyre because you take the following verses out of their context and fit it to your view. But your view doesn't take into consideration the 100% truth, and that is that Tyre is standing today.

Lee, for this new argument's sake, it doesn't matter that much who "they" were, even thought through context, we do know. What matters is that "they" never did it. Not even 2500 years later. But it does matter if you want to take the Bible at it's word.

Now even I know that Tyre will not be there forever. But I do not need absolute future knowledge to know that. This is why God goes into details, telling us who would destroy it, how bad it would be, how long it will be gone. Because God changed his mind about Tyre, today it still exists.

The fact is that very little of the prophecy came to pass. Nebuchadnezzar DID make war with Tyre, it was a long fight. But he, nor anyone else, made it like a bare rock, all of its towers were not torn down, Nebuchadnezzar did not receive his wages, the sea did not over take it.

I know you will find some way to explain this away, but again I will make a prediction. It will include only one verse taken out of its context, it will ignore 90% of the other prophecies concerning Tyre, and it will not be researched that much.

I hope I am wrong. It has been the pattern thus far, please let me be wrong Lee.
-Pat
 

patman

Active member
Novel for Bling

Novel for Bling

bling said:
Thank you gain for sticking in there.

Patman, I feel we are going backwards your answers are generating more questions then answers, a lot of which I’m not excited about. If you would like just answer the Q and you can leave the QX as extra credit questions.
Whoa.... I am sorry you feel that we are moving backwards. A lot of my views are constructed from a lot of different study. If I am confusing or raising questions, I guess we have read different things.

I am trying very hard to show you why God make us like he did. Why the way we turned out is a proof for the O.V., and I try to do that by showing what happened, what would have happened had things been different. I hoped that you would see a new way of thinking about things that would show you a way of answering the questions that may come up. I guess not.

I hope I can move this thing forward.
bling said:
The differences I have found between different sincere Christian groups most often are differences in how they define words:
We define the following words and subjects differently:
1. Agape Love
2. The love between child and parent when it is not agape love
3. Sin
4. Man’s purpose
5. God’s purpose in relation to man
6. Satan’s purpose
7. Sin’s purpose

Bling, I do think we are defining these things differently. After all, our views cause us to do this.

Agape Love - Christian love, i.e. A love that is not an erotic love, and it is not an emotional love. Greek for "selfless love"

Child-Parent-non-agape-love - hard to explain how that is not agape. It is very selfless, it is not necessarily emotional, although it can be.

Sin - knowingly doing wrong.

Romans 2 shows how the knowledge of good and evil written in our hearts condemns us, even though we may not have the Bible's law to guide us:
"12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

A law written on our hearts is the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is our accuser when we do wrong.

Romans 5
"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

From Creation until Moses' Law, sin was in the world, but it was not imputed, i.e. taken into account / applied to the sinner. This is why the law was given, to make sin punishable. Even though the sins of those who lived between the time of Adam and Moses was not accounted to them because of the lack of a written law, everyone still died because of sin, for sin leads to death regardless.

By these ideas, I hope that you see that sin is punishable only when the knowledge of sin exists.

Romans 7
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The law shows us what sin is so we are without excuse. Those who didn't have the law are not held accountable to the law. This is why we Christians are freed from the law, that we may escape the punishment.

Man's Purpose - To have fellowship with God. To be the image and likeness of God. To be as a "god" to the animals and the earth by having authority over them. To populate the earth.

1 Corinthians 1:9
God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

Genesis 1
"26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Fellowship with the son does not require the cross for those who do not know sin. The healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick, so those without sin do not need the cross, but those who do sin. Had Adam not sinned, he would have no need for the cross to have fellowship for Jesus.

God's Purpose toward man - to fulfill the duties of a father. To render love, punishment, and teach to his children. God's love includes a level of a relationship, be it small or big, it is still there.

However, if you disown God, he will disown you.

Satan's Purpose - much like man, to have a relationship with God and jobs over other Angels... But that was when he was called Lucifer. Satan abandoned that purpose and made his own, to rebel against God and get others to follow him instead of God. God uses Satan's desire to get others to follow him to God's advantage by allowing him to provide others with a clear choice. It's either Jehovah or Satan, who will you choose? The testing that Satan performs gets the answer rather fast. Satan also finds ways to make those who are guilty gain the need for a separation from God. But God turns that around, by offering those who are separated a way of knowing where they stand that they may find their way back.

Satan's story part 1
Isaiah 14
"12 “ How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:

‘ I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
16 “ Those who see you will gaze at you,
And consider you, saying:

‘ Is this the man who made the earth tremble,
Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world as a wilderness
And destroyed its cities,
Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’ ""

Satan's Story part 2
Revelation 12
"3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Satan Thrown Out of Heaven

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”"

Satan has become our accuser, trying to separate God from man. God uses Satan's plan to separate us from God to stir our consciences that we might return to God through faith.

1 Cor 5
"1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Satan as Lucifer had a purpose to serve God, and to love him. After he fell from that, Satan unwillingly serves a different purpose to cause those who will fall to fall and who will turn back in light of their fall. This is what Satan is willingly and unwillingly doing. He is willingly leading people away, and accidentally leading people to, God. However, more may fall than turn.

Sin's Purpose - to separate us from God.

bling said:
We may should just stick with Agape love and do them one at a time. I have tried to cover them all with the story of Adam and Eve, and made some wrong assumptions from the beginning. There are books on each of these topics.


1QX. Could Jesus allow a questionable comment to remain unquestioned?
Quote:
Patman said: . Eve mistakenly added "Do not even look at it" to the word of God. He didn't say that. He just said "Don't eat." If Adam and Eve desired to eat of the tree, If it were a sin, they didn't know it was. They only knew not to do it.
Jesus at his own discretion may answer a question or not, and correct or not. Sometimes Jesus made it a point to speak things that did not seem clear. Others, he chose to speak plainly. It depended.

2QX. Why would Eve Lie, how is that logical?
Actually it was "do not even touch it." I think Adam added that to the command for her sake. I can see Adam explaining the only rule "Eve, we can eat anything but that tree over there. If you eat it, you will die, God said so. So don't even touch it." Eve may have thought up that part herself. "If I can't eat it, perhaps it would be better if not even touch it." Where ever the idea came from, it was never commanded by God according to the account. But here is Satan, talking to Eve, trying "So is it true you can't eat of every tree?"

And Eve wanted to tell him it was true, and drive the point home. "Not only can we not eat of that tree, we can't even touch it, or else, pffffffffff," as she makes the cutting sign across her neck.

So she didn't tell Satan the exact truth, she added a little to it, perhaps she knew she was wrong, perhaps she didn't. Since we do not know, it is not worth pondering. All we know for sure is that she said something that was incorrect. She was still without sin, too. So it probably was not a lie, but only an incorrect statement.

However, even if it were a lie, she would have not known that was wrong, for she did not know what actions were good and evil. Which ever way you choose to describe it, it all points to that Eve was not held guilty to this mistake in her speech.

As Paul said, sin is only held to the sinner who has the knowledge of the law, either written in stone or written in the heart. Eve had no such law until she ate of the tree.

The only sin that man would be held to was the command of the physical act of eating the fruit of the tree that was forbidden.


3QX. There maybe no direct command by god not to lie, but God can not lie or have any thing to do with a lie or participate with liars, it is against His nature, so who and when was she taught to lie?
I do not know if she "lied", or was just elaborating, or just "oopsed".

BTW, what do you think of this story?

1 Kings 22:23
"So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

That's really a different discussion. But anyway, if Eve knew she were sinning in the act of lying, she would have been held accountable.

Lying isn't something you learn to do. I didn't have to learn to lie, no one taught me, I just did it one day, to hide the truth that I didn't want reviled.

4QX. Are there other messages from God given by good people saying “God said ____” that are recorded in the scripture that you think are lies?
I do not think God lies. I think the only explanation to God knowing the future and still proclaiming an event to happen that he knew wouldn't happen would require a God who could lie. I use that logic to prove that God does not know 100% of the future.

5QX. Do you think Eve is a bad person at this time, better or worse then some of God’s other messengers?
She wasn't a bad person until she fell. Satan was defiantly worst!

6QX.How can I know something in the scripture is a lie if the Spirit does not lead people to point it out later?
Nothing in scripture is a lie, it tells us the truth about what happened in it's accounts and in it's wisdom.

7QX Do you feel only the direct messages from God are true and the ones that say God told us or me are false?
I do not understand this question. Truth comes form all sorts of places, and I will always trust God's word over any other.

8QX. Do we get the entire message and all follow up messages at the same time or could things be left unwritten, but not unsaid later?
Answers are not always easy to find, sometimes we have to study for the answers. I believe we can understand all of the Bible. Sometimes the answers are spread out, sometimes they are together.

9QX. God programs animals to do certain action with certain causes could Eve at this time been programmed not to lie or felt it would be completely illogical to lie, who taught her about this subject before she became and adult, God?
Eve was not programed to be unable to sin. Freewill, or will, allows her to do as she chooses. Eve had no knowledge of sin other than the command God gave her.

10QX. Why is it never mention in the Bible that Eve lied, have we been presented with miss information?
Geez... What on earth did I say in my last post that's making you ask this? Did I say Eve lied?

patman said:
God didn't command them not to want to eat the tree. He commanded them to not eat it. Eve mistakenly added "Do not even look at it" to the word of God. He didn't say that. He just said "Don't eat." If Adam and Eve desired to eat of the tree, If it were a sin, they didn't know it was. They only knew not to do it. Today we know that even inward lust can be a sin, because we have knowledge of good and evil.

God laid out what the sin would be that would separate them. That particular sin was well thought out, because any other sin would leave man helpless, because they would not know good and evil from it. In this situation, wanting to eat the tree, and eating the tree were not the same as wanting to steal and then doing it. We know better today than to lust. Adam and eve were not commanded not to lust, but not to eat.
It is pretty much what I hold to in this post. I don't see that I said she was sinning in lying tho. I see that I said she had no knowledge of such a thing was sin.

1a Q. What prove do you have that Eve lied and did not get additional revelation about the tree, meaning she could have sinned by touching the tree and not eating?
bling, I didn't say she lied. I said she maybe made a mistake...

bling said:
We have only a small part of the garden story and certainly not all the communication between God and them, so everything given is important, Eve telling us that God told them “do not touch” is very telling at least to me:
1. Adam and/or Eve have been discussing the tree with God, which is very logical.
2. The most likely question by them from the answer given, “how close can we get without sinning?” That is the question I hear before the person gets involved in the sin.
3. That question, if asked, is the wrong question to be asking. They are greasing the skids to the sin. They should be asking how far can we go to stay away from the tree? What more should we be doing, to avoid the temptation of the tree?
4. The response God gives shows a real concern for them to avoiding contact with the tree.
5. Getting more detail information about a sin, does not help you avoid that sin.
Quote:
Patman said: . At any moment, heaven forbid, we can leave on our own will.

12QX. I do not think many people would see killing yourself as a way out of anything, except extreme pain, which very few people are ever under. If the only door is Hell who is going to take it?
Lots of people. Ever hear the saying "I'd rather burn in hell than fade away?" It's bad, but people think it. I do not promote this, I really shouldn't have said it. I just wanted to point out just how free we are.

bling said:
Quote:
Patman said: . I am not avoiding the question. You assume that A and B are the only choices. But there is a C, all of the above!
13QX to be both then your eternal close relationship with God would be dependent upon your works of obedience and God’s grace. I prefer God’s grace, because the good I do is not me but Him working in me, so He should get all the credit. What acts of obedience do you do?
I only have faith in Christ and depend on his sacrifice. I have no works to save me. And I like that too. But there was a time when faith and works went hand in hand.

bling said:
Quote:
Patman said: . He would want to make a law for them all, because they would not know it is evil to steal fruit from their neighbors tree.
14QX God made many rules at many time. Do verbal or written laws keep people from doing things that displease God at least one time? If you break one rule have you not broken all of them, so do you need more rules?
Laws are designed to prevent wrongs, but sometime sin takes advantage of a law to make you sin against it. I think God gave us all the rules we need.

If we are separated from God by sin we must have a law written in our hearts in order to both survive, and to turn back to God. Had God not given that, he would have told us in our ear what the law is. Had he tried it that way, our children would be dependent on us for the law. It is just a bad situation. It is better that the law be written in our hearts as a fail safe. God gave us a written law a little later to make our sin's accountable to us.

bling said:
Quote:
Patman said: Now that people have commands to break, they have sinned and can be separated.
Commands do not make bad behavior displeasing to God. A person may not be held accountable for doing a thing contrary to God’s nature, but that would still be bad and I feel in need of forgiveness to get back in relation with God. Commands help us understand sin, but may not be everything that separates man from God. If Adam or Eve had lied prior to eating the fruit that would have been contrary to God’s nature, something God can not be a party to.
Quote:
Patman said: No tree meant no command. No commandment to break meant no sin.
We know in earlier times God winked at the miss behavior of the gentiles, but it does not suggest that this miss behavior was not in need of a savior. This sounds very logical to me, but since Adam and Eve ate the fruit it maybe hard to prove, because you can say they had the knowledge after that, so we cannot talk about any other people. Adam and Eve are naked at the time but it is not wrong to be naked in front of animals, your spouse, and spiritual beings so that is not wrong. If we could show that Eve lied even to Satan that might support your point, but right now I do not see them doing any displeasing activity. One idea would be, suppose they had done some behavior God would not approve of, but yet God had not commanded them about it to make it sin (under your rules) so they did it in ignorance and would keep on doing it, and then God tells them this is sin and their earlier actions displeased Him. If they really wanted to please God (even if just like a child for a parent) this would make them needlessly hurt, with no promises of this act being forgotten or forgiven by God because it was not a sin. Sin is the only acts that are mentioned as being forgiven and forgotten.
15QX Would you rather have your actions that displease God called sin (forgiven and totally forgotten) or not be called sin and remembered by God? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
I don't know what all this means. I only wanted to contrast why the tree is the perfect way for man to leave God. I think any other way would have resulted in a very bad situation for us all, and all our evil would be multiplied forever.

bling said:
Quote:
Patman asked; I.E. Lets pretend that there was no tree. All Adam and Eve and anyone who came after them had to do is just say "Yes, I love God" or "No, I do not love God." What would have happened if that had been the case?

I am beginning to see a problem with our understand I did not realize before:
You seem to be saying (correct me please) that the tree was man’s choice: to not love God, to hate God, to be rebellious, to say; “I want out”, to make the choice to follow Satan, and/or something like that. I also assume you feel that is what Adam and Eve thought-out and rebelled, teamed up with Satan and/ or took their only way out. They were depressed, up set with the situation, wanting to die, or liked Satan’s plain.

Q1b… Do you find any scripture support for their motive or thinking in this sin, being their wanting to take the “open door”?
You were right about what I think about the tree and it's purpose EXCEPT this: "I also assume you feel that is what Adam and Eve thought-out and rebelled, teamed up with Satan and/ or took their only way out. They were depressed, up set with the situation, wanting to die, or liked Satan’s plain."

The Genesis story tells us that Eve wanted the wisdom that came from eating the tree. She gave it to Adam and Adam headed her voice and ate. They had their reasons for eating. They ignored the Death, and probably thought God was lying about that.

The entire point of the Bible is God wishes for us to follow him, and it is our choice. The garden is no different.

QX.. Pat man you stated one time Satan might have tricked God into letting him tempt Adam and Eve; do you really think Satan understands man better then God or our God can be tricked by Satan?
Did I say God was tricked? Did I use that word, or is that how you read me? Eve was tricked, Adam was too. God isn't a fool that he can be tricked. He knows what Satan is up to.

I was trying to say that, like Job, Satan may have asked God permission to tempt Man. God HOPED man would pass the test.

bling said:
This sin for Adam and Eve was made as easy as any first sin for any of us. The reason they sinned was they lacked agape love and the indwelling Spirit. They lacked agape love, for the reasons I stated before the problems with the Garden:
1. Adam and Eve must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience, that has never happened (except Christ) and God can and did know that. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship.
2. In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned.
3. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46.
4. It seems to work best to love first then obey not as Adam and Eve were asked to do, although I do believe you gain love with obedience (that’s another subject)
5. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Agape love is felt in being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
6. Adam and Eve did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is Huge! (Another discussion topic)
7. Out side the garden there is wisdom gained in the struggle of laboring, the fruits of labor have more value and thus these fruits become your gift to others and God that the garden could not provide you. You can sacrifice. (another subject)

Bling, what do you mean by "problems with the garden?" Do you think the Garden concept was a bad idea because man wasn't sinning? With the implications of your 7 points, you seem to believe that we were setup to fail in the garden that we might have grace instead?

Q2…Adam may have loved Eve, but did he agape love Eve or did He at any time agape love God, or did he love with at least some self interest?
Adam's selfless love was fully possible in the Garden. Despite the wisdom he would have been benefited and that he would have desired, he could have selflessly gave that up to follow God's one command. Had Adam never ate, he would forever show his Agape love by passing up the fruit. The fruit was desirable, but out of selflessness, Adam's agape love would magnify God. But Adam didn't do that. He selfishly ate.


bling said:
Quote:
Patman said: . He didn't create man to sin, he just knew it COULD happen, and out of love, he had a plan!

I am beginning to understand you to be saying, “God does not allow sin, but does allow the possibility of sin.”
This goes back to the same idea about Satan and God allowing him to roam the earth, at first you said God did not allow Satan to do this and did not have the power at this time to put him away. After pointing out Knight’s and lion’s answer of yes God could, you did seem to change, but Knight and lion went on to talk about the purpose of Satan for all of us. You may want to lesson again to the tape. I agree with what they said, but think there is much more which they may or may not agree to. The point is, sin and Satan have a lot of the same purposes.

No No No. I said it was not his God given purpose to do all that. And I added, in agreement to Knight, that God uses Satan to a different point than originally planned.

Q3.What good purpose for good people do you see for Satan now?
I guess I just don't think about Satan in regards as being good for good people. Satan is Evil. I can not conceive of a way that He is good for good people, or that he has good purposes for good people. I can't wrap my brain around a possibility right now. Perhaps I will after I think about it for 100000 years, but for now, I cant think of how Satan can have a good purpose for good people.... Well, other than being happy to see Justice come to him.

bling said:
Now if I am right about what you said “God does not allow sin, but does allow the possibility of sin.” I don’t know if that can be philosophically defended? Would God not understand enough about man to know given the possibility man will sin, everyone has. With all Adam and Eve lacked they would certainly sin over time. This is to philosophical a question, so lets not get into it and address, have only the possibility of sin.

I do not believe that “God does not allow sin, but does allow the possibility of sin.” I believe God did not create us to sin, but allows that if we wish to sin, he will allow it to a point, and will judge us for it.

16QX.Is the Bible telling us everyone in the future will sin at least once?
No. There are many humans who were innocent when they died. The countless abortions for example, none of those people sinned when they died. The Bible does not say everyone is going to sin. What about Adults who have yet to die? They will sin, the bible seems clear that apart from Christ, none are righteous. All man have the flesh and the knowledge of sin, and sooner or later will sin. Future knowledge is not required to know this. And this is a result of the fall, not a requirement for Adam and Even. Because Adam and Eve fell, Adults in the flesh will eventually sin.

bling said:
Let us stick with the Garden: If the tree was ugly, smelled bad, had thorns around it and there was no Satan around to convince Eve, with a lie that She would be like God and not die, would Adam and Eve sinned, I do not think so. They had no reason to want to leave the Garden, God was the best parent you could have, they were raised (programmed) as good as you can get by God, they had no one calling God a liar so no lie to believe, they had no need for knowledge of good and evil, they had stuff to do and God was a great companion. I am sure from their reaction after the fall they loved God (but not agape love for God), all the time. Allowing the possibility of sinning today means everyone will sin at least once and allowing the possibility to sin in the Garden and Satan the liar with enough time and Adam and Eve will sin, which is very logical from what we can know about people, Satan, and time.

How are Adam and Eve going to feel about God? Would it not be very similar to children of extremely wealthy parents that provide everything for there children and the parents love them very much. The problem is the kids can very logically feel the parents are doing these things to fulfill their needs as parents which may be true of most parents. Adam and Eve would feel God is doing all this because he wants to feel good about Himself as a parent. They are being loved like all the products of the creator. That type of love felt to be shown to Adam and Eve will not produce agape love back to God, in fact the love Adam and Eve can have for each other, because there is no perceived obligation between them it be freely exchanged could easily be greater then their love for God.
Q4…How can God get around this problem? How does He get around this same issue with us?
Love.

bling said:
Quote:
Patman said: . Otherwise, God created us in such a way that it would be impossible to love him had we not sinned. That is where I see that thought process taking us. And that is why I reject it.

Q5.. If the thought process takes us to the truth will you except it?
Will you? The process of thought be it wrong thinking, or right, can lead us to truth in a round about way. So sure. But I reject that sin is a requirement to love. My explanation of the selfless act of denying the tree shows that agape love existed before sin from Adam to God pretty well.

bling said:
God did not want some things to happen like Christ on the cross, or Satan on earth with man, innocent people being hurt, and man sinning, but if the objective is great enough God will quench His desires and do all it takes to fulfill the objective.
Q6…Do you agree that an agape love relationship is what God is wanting?
Perhaps. There are different loves that The bible uses. Friendship love is a good one that God would want too.

Q7…Could you go through all the short comings of the Garden relating to agape love and tell me how Adam and Eve could have over come those short comings to develop agape love for God and others?
I did this above. Adam and Eve, by selflessly denying the advantages of the tree, would show selfless love to God by following his command and denying their desires.

Q7 a Adam and Eve must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience, how do they see God’s agape love in that?
God desires to have Adam and Eve as his forever. The tree is a selfless way for God to give them away to not be his. This is a powerful showing of Agape love.

Q7b In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness (agape love), “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned at all, this will not apply how can they share in this promises?.
A sinless being will not experience this aspect of forgiveness. I do not agree that forgiveness is a requirement for Agape love, it is simply an avenue to it. One of many built into the garden that can be reached without sin, a fall, and grace.

Q7c. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46 how can they become righteous sheep?
This question assumes a world with NO sinners. Everyone would be righteous in that they do not sin. By not sinning, they are doing everything described in Matthew 25 and more. So what if there wasn't a sinner to be nice to, they were being good to each other by not sinning. They are needy in that they need each other not to sin. And they are needy in that they need each other's fellowship. And God's fellowship.

Q7d. It seems to work best to love first then obey not as Adam and Eve were asked to do, so what scripture do we have to show the opposite would happen?
Jesus said, "if you love me, you will obey my word." This was Adam's test. "Do you love me Adam?" Had adam said yes, he would have obeyed.

Q7e. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Agape love is felt in being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50, so how can they see the full agape love of God for them?
God could tell them what he would do for them, and they would be amazed. They couldn't experience that first hand. And I think they would have been better for it.

Q7f. Adam and Eve did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is Huge! What makes up for that in the garden that would be a 24 hour equal?
To my knowledge, the Spirit is in Christians. He was not pored out before. Many people made it without the indwelling. It is wonderful to have the Spirit, Adam and Eve had the full Godhead there with them! I think that's pretty good!

Q7g. Out side the garden there is wisdom gained in the struggle of laboring, the fruits of labor have more value and thus these fruits become your gift to others and God that the garden could not provide you. How can Adam and Eve sacrifice something they earned?
Adam and Eve worked the garden too. There would be a lot to their life had they not sinned.

18QX. There is no reason to go into a long story again about what would happen if there was not a tree, but let me ask you what would your tree have been if you were in the Garden?
I agree with God. Let them have all the food they need, work the garden, and love me by being selfless in denying the tree I put there to cause a divide between us that would give them wisdom to make it without me, and pre-plan for salvation through my son's death.

bling said:
After I completed this, I read your post again. I originally thought the little story about removing the possibility of sin from Adam and Eve was bizarre, but I do see were you are coming from.
YOUR METHOD- Remove sinning from man by removing the rules and allowing humans to behave unchecked. As you and all of us can see: that is chaos, which is a hell on earth, those people would not pleasing God even if they did not “sin”.

MY IDEA ON A GARDEN WITHOUT SIN: Remove Satan, remove the tree, make actions that please God instinctive, provide all the knowledge and logic needed to do good and avoid bad, and provide all the needs of humans so they will not covet. My God can easily do this, I can see how He gave some animals instinctive knowledge not to hurt their own specie. How, He gave us different feelings with different degrees of strength. He has shown a tremendous knowledge of man, sin, love, Satan, heaven and Himself.
This is also the way I picture Heaven, since it was designed before man it had to take all this into consideration, the rule for us will be to do only those things that please God.
That story should be bizarre. That is why God didn't do it that way. And he wouldn't do it your way either because that takes away freedom to love God.

bling said:
The problem with creating this type Garden is the same problem with the Garden you can not develop agape love, you can have a very great wonderful child type love for a parent, but not agape love. We need to be on earth to develop at least some agape love and then we can really be in that eternal agape loving relationship with God.

Q8. What is your heaven like and how does it differ from my ideas?

Heaven is wonderful. But there are many wars in heaven, there are people asking God to avenge them, Satan comes up from time to time to constantly accuse us. It's going to change tho, God will recreate heaven and earth.

The new Heaven and Earth will be a place for those who have love and love God. Guided by love, we will do that which is right.

Shewwww. We gotta shorten the next one ;)
goodnight bling.

-Patman
P.S. I didn't proof read this. Hope it all makes since.
 

patman

Active member
For RobE

For RobE

RobE said:
The turn isn't complete. Let me state exactly what I think so there isn't any misunderstanding...
RobE said:
Deut. 18:18
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity.
1)First of all I believe the prophecy was fulfilled. You need to understand this is the position that I'm personally coming from, but since Lee wanted to argue that route I didn't want to be redundant in the discussion. I believe that Lee has done just that.

2)It wasn't fulfilled then.....
RobE said:
Originally Posted by Rob #410

The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar. God changing a judgement doesn't change God at all.
OR;
RobE said:
Originally Posted by Rob #410

I'm saying that God tells Tyre that they would be utterly destroyed. Not to be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar would carry away it's riches if nothing changed, just as you are. I'm just saying that it wasn't God's mind that changed; it was something else, that isn't revealed in the bible, changed such as the king of Tyre's mind, Nebuchadnezzar's actions, etc.....
AND;
RobE said:
Originally Posted by Rob #408

No He didn't lie. Listen to this closely----- God is not under any edict to reveal everything He intends to anyone. He can't be questioned or held accountable for what He didn't say. To not say something is NOT a lie.

For example: If you eat of the tree you will surely die, but I will come later to redeem you from your mistake, Ok? Oh you ate, but you're not dead. I'm sorry I meant you would die spiritually, Ok?

Did He lie by not saying everything? Of course not.

I think the words of God are true. What I am trying to say is that if God is looking into the future to predict one thing would happen, swearing on his very name at times that it would, and there are several cases when what he "saw" happening didn't happen, he is not being truthful about what he predicted. We can't pretend or make up that God said "NOT" after each prophecy that didn't come to pass, and didn't have it written down. That would be wrong, that's putting words into the bible for the purpose of clinging on to a belief.

RobE, like it or not, your theory only works by assuming/putting words into God's mouth that were not recorded. To believe this really does make God into a lier, because he withheld the real truth when he was revealing so called truth, but questions the meaning of all of God's words because we do not know what else happened or was said.

We are not talking about what God said to Adam, we are talking about the exact thing he prophesied against Tyre in this example. They were two different things. God said Man would die if they eat the tree, and he was right. God said Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, and it didn't happen.

Even if you think Deut 18 is the end all proof to your theory, you have to hope God left out words to make his words true, but that makes them lies to us. There is a better way. Let me show you first how impossible the theory that God knows the future is in light of Scripture.

These are the rules the Settled View sees for God:
1. God cannot change at all
2. God knows absolutely everything
3. God is in absolutely every place in every time / OR knows about it

Those rules I disagree with. But we agree with this:
God does not lie (esp. to his children)

So lets apply the Settled View rules against the things we see happening with Tyre.

To sum up the things that were to happen to Tyre, Nebuchadnezzar would bring an end to them utterly and certainly. They would be scraped clean like a smooth rock, every tower turned over, and they would be remembered no more.

This is what really happened: Nebuchadnezzar did not utterly destroy Tyre. It became a part of his kingdom. It has been fought over throughout the years and was won by infamous wars such as Alexanders conquest and the Crusades. It is even around today.

Rule Number 1. God cannot change. The explanation about what happened to the prophecy cannot be explained by a change in God. Every aspect of God is certain, stagnate, and even his words.

Rule Number 2. God knows absolutely everything. God knew exactly what would happen to Tyre. He also foresaw any repentance of the humans, who can change. He knew that Nebuchadnezzar wouldn't take Tyre. He foresaw that in October of 2005 Tyre would still be standing.

Rule Number 3. God was actually there with the armies who fought Tyre. He was there when they started fighting, he was also at the very exact same time, there when they stopped fighting. He knew with out a shadow of a doubt what would happen.

AGREED Rule Number 1. God does not lie. This rule will be looked at through the Settled Scope. God, seeing the non destruction of Tyre, knowing what changes would exist in humans, and even being in the very fights and lives of all those participating, would find it impossible to lie about what he saw.

Going by these rules, if they are true, we should see that every time, every prophecy, every word uttered by God would result in the exact thing he said, without change, despite our change. We would see him always getting what he expected, and never using the words like IF, because he knows no such possibility of change.

If God prophesied anything, It would certainly happen.

The S.V. agrees 100%. They run to their Bibles and grab a chapter like Deut. 18 and chant it's meaning in light of the 4 rules. But then someone comes along, like me, and says, "wait a second!" There are a few prophecies that did not come to pass as spoken by God.

I go through the Bible, I using the words of the Bible, and support everything I saw with the truth of scripture.

Suddenly God can change, but just a little, according to Lee. OR he just changed the future. But he is still all knowing, and knows exactly everything. Even his future actions with certainty, and he saw that he would change the future. And all along, he still predicted the future that he foresaw himself changing.


And I cry that doesn't work. God would never be able to say one thing and something else happen and it not be a lie, because he knew with certainty what would happen; he even foresaw his own action of changing the future to be different from what he proclaimed (which seems to be an attempt to make his words wrong) but that would still be impossible since he cannot lie and he knows the absolute future of everything, thus not matter what God changes, recognizing his inability to change, he would still compelled to tell the truth according to what will happen and he would speak the events of the newly changed of future, which was never new to God.

Did you follow that?

It just doesn't work. It doesn't work because it is an attempt to explain God apart from scripture. I believe the best answers are found in scripture, not ones we make up to fit what we think is happening out of our own reasoning. If God explains himself, I'll take that answer over any man's any day.

If God explains why he would allow his words to go unfulfilled, I will take what he said over what you think might have happened. Because your understanding is not his. And the way you add to his words by this theory is nothing compared to the truth he gives as he describes his ways.

RobE, I hope you can see the paradox. It is impossible to make your reasoning fit into the word. Even if you do have one verse that you think proves God's absolute foreknowledge, there are a zillion other reasons why your theories cannot stand.

So, now we have a real situation. God proclaims Tyre's utter and eternal doom. He says they will be sent to the pit, even. And no one would remember, and Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it, and receive wages from it. And it doesn't happen, as God himself admits. If God admits to it, I am taking his word for it.

There is no room for foreknowledge in this AND God being truthful. Because If God absolutely knew the future, he never would have said Tyre would be as a bare rock at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and then it not happen, and it remain 2000+ years. But he did say it.

So am I contradicting Deut 18? No. Deut 18 does not say anything about absolute foreknowledge, but it is a test for us to judge whether a prophet is of God or not. What is the test? Does what the prophet say happen, yes or no? Well that sounds final, right? But we should know better. God is deeper than one verse can contain.

Again, Jeremiah 18 is a very important verse. It cannot be taken out of the picture, because it applies to every prophecy.

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. BUT If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

This is something that the prophets know is true about God. Jonah said this in Jonah 4:
2 He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."

Again, in Jonah 3 the words couldn't be more clear "10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened."

Why? Jeremiah 18 says "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." And Jonah 4 says "But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

God's compassion is more important than seeing a prophecy fulfilled.

And if God knew the future, he would have no need to say these things, because anything he proclaimed would be as good as destiny. He saw it happen, no matter what events would transpire, it would happen.

RobE said:
I, personally, find this verse much more compelling:

Hosea 11:8
"How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused."

I enjoy other translations for this verse also. They still show how God's heart chins for us, and that causes him to change his judgments, and that still is change. It is wonderful to know that the future is open, that nothing HAS to happen, and even God can change from punishment to compassion for whatever reason, all this is because his heart is so full of love for us. He is so loving that he created us to have an open future, to choose him, and to have life. Nothing is settled to him, except that those who love him and whom he loves will forever be rewarded and blessed.

-Pat
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi everyone,

RobE: Question: If what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord hasn't spoken. What does this mean to you in relationship to the unfulfilled prophecies used by the OVers to state their case against traditional Christianity...
That indeed is a most pertinent question.

Pat: Way down at the bottom we find out that Tyre is still standing to this day.
I don't mind, though, my interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy doesn't require that Tyre never be rebuilt. Again, I believe it is possible that "not be built more" is meant, which would fit with Tyre being reduced to a bare rock, and then possibly rebuilt, after all building projects being stopped.

Pat: God never destroyed Tyre.

Well, Floyd Hamilton said Old Tyre was "a bare rock" ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict", vol. 1, first edition, p. 279), the archaeologist Renan called what he saw there "ruins built out of ruins" ("Tyre Through the Ages", p. 22). Tourists have no Phoenician ruins to see on the island today! See the various tourist web pages on Tyre. That would imply that Phoenician Tyre was indeed destroyed.

Pat: the sea did not over take it.
"Tristam continues his description of the desolate city. 'The south side gives the clearest idea of the plan and position of the ancient city, on the foundations and massive sea-walls of which we may note the fishermen day after day spreading their nets, while the columns and capitals have been cast into the sea and "her stones and timber and soil have been cast into the midst of the water".'" "Tyre Through the Ages," p. 20).

Blessings,
Lee
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
I think the words of God are true.

Jesus Matthew 24:36 said:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Hebrews 13:8 said:
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Deut. 18 said:
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.

Patman said:
What I am trying to say is that if God is looking into the future to predict one thing would happen, swearing on his very name at times that it would, and there are several cases when what he "saw" happening didn't happen, he is not being truthful about what he predicted. We can't pretend or make up that God said "NOT" after each prophecy that didn't come to pass, and didn't have it written down. That would be wrong, that's putting words into the bible for the purpose of clinging on to a belief.

Let me rephrase this a little....

Rob Mauldin said:
What I am trying to say is that IF God foresaw the future and said what would surely happen, and there are several cases when what He foresaw didn't happen,...

THERE MUST BE SOME REASON HE DECIDED TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME. AND, HE WAS UNDER NO EDICT TO TELL US ABOUT WHY HE CHANGED THOSE OUTCOMES BECAUSE HE'S GOD.

Patman said:
God said Man would die if they eat the tree, and he was right. God said Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, and ....

He was wrong????

Patman said:
Even if you think Deut 18 is the end all proof to your theory, you have to hope God left out words to make his words true, but that makes them lies to us.

Again, leaving out information isn't lying. How large do you think the scripture would be if He told you every action He took from the Alpha to the Omega? Reconsider your idea of what a lie is, please.

Patman said:
These are the rules the Settled View sees for God:
Patman said:
1. God cannot change at all
Rob said:
How do you improve on perfection?
Patman said:
2. God knows absolutely everything
Rob said:
That can be known.
Patman said:
3. God is in absolutely every place in every time / OR knows about it
Rob said:
God knows reality and nothing is hidden from him

Patman said:
Those rules I disagree with. But we agree with this:
God does not lie (esp. to his children)

So lets apply the Settled View rules against the things we see happening with Tyre.

Rule Number 1. God cannot change. The explanation about what happened to the prophecy cannot be explained by a change in God. Every aspect of God is certain, stagnate, and even his words.

{Immutability 101}Changing your mind doesn't change you. God is not stagnate-- He's dynamic. He does create new things. This doesn't change His character, who He is, or alter Him in any way.

(This explanation of immutability probably stems from the Pagan Greek philosophy which abounds in Star Trekian logic.)

Patman said:
Rule Number 2. God knows absolutely everything. God knew exactly what would happen to Tyre. He also foresaw any repentance of the humans, who can change. He knew that Nebuchadnezzar wouldn't take Tyre. He foresaw that in October of 2005 Tyre would still be standing.

{Omniscience 101} God knows everything that can be known. God knew exactly what would happen to Tyre, if nothing changed. He could have seen the repentance, but not His own actions towards it. Decisions .vs Outcomes. The decision is yours, the outcome is His.

Patman said:
Rule Number 3. God was actually there with the armies who fought Tyre. He was there when they started fighting, he was also at the very exact same time, there when they stopped fighting. He knew with out a shadow of a doubt what would happen.

But God wasn't powerful enough to make the prophecy come about? What actually happened Patman? Is it in the Bible?

Patman said:
AGREED Rule Number 1. God does not lie. This rule will be looked at through the Settled Scope. God, seeing the non destruction of Tyre, knowing what changes would exist in humans, and even being in the very fights and lives of all those participating, would find it impossible to lie about what he saw.

Going by these rules, if they are true, we should see that every time, every prophecy, every word uttered by God would result in the exact thing he said, without change, despite our change. We would see him always getting what he expected, and never using the words like IF, because he knows no such possibility of change.

If God prophesied anything, It would certainly happen.

Greek philisophical foreknowledge, right?

Patman said:
I go through the Bible, I using the words of the Bible, and support everything I saw with the truth of scripture.

Jesus Matthew 24:36 said:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Patman said:
Suddenly God can change, but just a little, according to Lee. OR he just changed the future. But he is still all knowing, and knows exactly everything. Even his future actions with certainty, and he saw that he would change the future. And all along, he still predicted the future that he foresaw himself changing.[/b]

And I cry that doesn't work. God would never be able to say one thing and something else happen and it not be a lie,...

You need to reexamine this. The OV says He said one thing and something else happened and it wasn't a lie(even if He had the power to fulfill His own words).

Patman said:
.... because he knew with certainty what would happen; he even foresaw his own action of changing the future to be different from what he proclaimed (which seems to be an attempt to make his words wrong) but that would still be impossible since he cannot lie and he knows the absolute future of everything, thus not matter what God changes, recognizing his inability to change, he would still compelled to tell the truth according to what will happen and he would speak the events of the newly changed of future, which was never new to God.

Did you follow that?

Yes. You're talking about determinism which I oppose. Remember, I believe that the Calvinists have missed the boat.

Patman said:
It just doesn't work. It doesn't work because it is an attempt to explain God apart from scripture. I believe the best answers are found in scripture, not ones we make up to fit what we think is happening out of our own reasoning. If God explains himself, I'll take that answer over any man's any day.

Tell me where God explained Himself in the scripture about Tyre. If you can then you have proven the scripture supports your view that He can change His mind. If you can't then you fall into the same trap that you say my logic looses with in my last post. See, not everything that God does is in the scriptures, Right? We can guess from other scriptures, but you want to hold my feet to the fire on what scripture contains; and, remain free yourself to read anything into it you please.

Patman said:
If God explains why he would allow his words to go unfulfilled, I will take what he said over what you think might have happened. Because your understanding is not his. And the way you add to his words by this theory is nothing compared to the truth he gives as he describes his ways.

Tell me the scripture that says 'And the Lord thy God changed His mind because He was mistaken about His ability to overthrow Tyre.'


Patman said:
RobE, I hope you can see the paradox. It is impossible to make your reasoning fit into the word. Even if you do have one verse that you think proves God's absolute foreknowledge, there are a zillion other reasons why your theories cannot stand.

So, now we have a real situation. God proclaims Tyre's utter and eternal doom. He says they will be sent to the pit, even. And no one would remember, and Nebuchadnezzar would destroy it, and receive wages from it. And it doesn't happen, as God himself admits. If God admits to it, I am taking his word for it.

There is no room for foreknowledge in this AND God being truthful. Because If God absolutely knew the future, he never would have said Tyre would be as a bare rock at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and then it not happen, and it remain 2000+ years. But he did say it.

And yet, even though He is powerful, He couldn't bring it about, right?

Patman said:
So am I contradicting Deut 18? No. Deut 18 does not say anything about absolute foreknowledge, but it is a test for us to judge whether a prophet is of God or not. What is the test? Does what the prophet say happen, yes or no? Well that sounds final, right? But we should know better.

Why?

Patman said:
God is deeper than one verse can contain.

But not two versus, huh?

Patman said:
Again, Jeremiah 18 is a very important verse. It cannot be taken out of the picture, because it applies to every prophecy.

Who says?

Patman said:
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. BUT If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

This is something that the prophets know is true about God. Jonah said this in Jonah 4:
2 He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."

Again, in Jonah 3 the words couldn't be more clear "10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened."

Why? Jeremiah 18 says "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." And Jonah 4 says "But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

God's compassion is more important than seeing a prophecy fulfilled.

I agree.

Patman said:
And if God knew the future, he would have no need to say these things, because anything he proclaimed would be as good as destiny. He saw it happen, no matter what events would transpire, it would happen.

Determinism vs. Freewill?

Patman. With me at least, we could probably understand each other better if you quit thinking that I believe in determinism. I don't. Foresight is different than Foreordination. Please consider this. Foresight = You see the future from where things stand right now. Foreordination = You see and order how everything will be in the future.

Clarity?

Rob Mauldin
 

patman

Active member
Lee, this could be the end?

Lee, this could be the end?

Lee, I hope you know that "Old Tyre" and the Island of Tyre were both considered "Tyre." I don't know about you, but if an army attacks half of the city and destroys it, and leaves the other half ok, that city is not considered destroyed.

Confusing Evidence from Lee Given Clarification
I am a little confused as to your reference to "Old Tyre." Did you really think it was like an old city? Like everyone lived there, it was destroyed and then people came along and made a "New Tyre?" Or did you understand that the one city was divided by some water, and hoped your post would make it look like you were right?

I know you really, really, really, want to be right on this, so you will take any explanation. So I am thinking you just hoped that the prophecy was fulfilled by 50% of the city being destroyed would be "good enough." I am guessing that you understand "Old Tyre" just means it is the side of Tyre that was abandoned, not that it is the "Original Tyre."

"Tyre consisted of two distinct parts, a rocky fortress on the mainland, called "Old Tyre", and the city, built on a small, rocky island about half-a-mile distant from the shore."

"It was besieged by... Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, apparently without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians... In 332 BC the city was conquered by Alexander the Great, after a siege of seven months in which he built a causeway from the mainland to the island, but it continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre

His "causeway" was made from the remains of Old Tyre that lead to Tyre's Island portion.

http://www.kadmous.org/souwar/t/tyre2cities.jpg

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/TyreMap00.jpg

"Tyre, a city on the coast of Syria, about lat. 32ø N. was built two thousand seven hundred and sixty years before Christ. There were two cities of this name; one on the continent, and the other on an island, about half a mile from the shore; the city on the island was about four miles in circumference. Old Tyre resisted Nebuchadnezzar for thirteen years; then the inhabitants carried, so to speak, the city to the forementioned island," http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeisa23.htm

Only half of the city. The migration from the coastland of Tyre to the Island portion of Tyre meant that the inhabitants took off all their wealth. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was left with an empty city, and received no wages for this efforts.

But the City of Tyre remained, and to this very day remains, both coastland and island.

I bring all that up in hopes that anyone who reads it is not deceived into thinking that Just because one part of a city is destroyed, and the rest remain, it does not mean the entire city was.

Lee's "Double Life" (Its ok Lee, we can use other forums besides TOL)
Google is an amazing tool for information. As I searched for lots of information on Tyre and I came across this:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121739

It is an internet form like TOL (but not as cool). And guess who is in it? Lee_Merrill!!! Its you. The same north california music loving programer talking about fancy stuff like the Bible.

It's really good reading. Everyone should go read.

Lee... does our conversation seem like deja' vu?

They spent from April through September of 2005 arguing with you over Tyre. As it turns out, you know half of these arguments already and still after all this time keep to the only two points you could come up with:

"They" isn't Nebuchadnezzar's forces, and "never build more" isn't the same thing as "never to be rebuilt."

I don't know why you treated their arguments with more grace and humbleness than you do mine on this thread, often times when you were wrong you admitted it, you really seemed to listen to the other arguments and offered many other suggestions to their points. Yet, even with their arguments being as good as they were, no matter how right they showed you they were about Tyre, you still have not learned.

What more can I contribute to you than they have not already said? After loosing the debate with them, the only way you found you can make it work is by reading some translation (that holds the same meaning as we all have been trying to get you to see) and stretching it to fit some dude's account of Tyre(of which still does not allow you to escape the truth, Tyre was never destroyed).

Some of the people found way better research to prove what I have been saying this entire time! There are some wonderful pictures of Tyre, way better than what I submitted. They really did a wonderful job. And so did you in some ways: by communicating and trying to understand, even though you allowed yourself to come to the wrong conclusion and thus embarrassed yourself on the form.

That can be a commendable attribute for you. You would rather believe in the bible to the point that your reputation does not matter. But it does matter. You reflect on us all. When someone is right, and they show themselves to be right (especially as well as these people did) You should at least say, "OK, It appears that you are right about Tyre. I must admit that I do not know exactly what the meaning of all this is, but I still believe in the Bible, in God, and that it is all Truth in account, and that God's words are honest." You should show a love for truth, and It is OK to say "I just don't know."

They should respect that. And it allows you time to figure out what is wrong, why does it appear to be that the words concerning Tyre are not fulfilled? That would be the way you should study, not blindly hoping that your methods of reading things into the word that aren't there will convince someone. I wonder how easily it was to convince yourself of that? Lee, you will never find the answers you may be looking for in life if you do not read the Bible and take its words as they are.

Remember, when I first started talking to you, I said the individual words should not be focused on because we are reading a translation. Instead the over all meaning is better to look at so that we can get the picture with out having to "fight over words." You seemed to agree.

Here is Ezekiel 26:14 in Several translations. We should easily see what was supposed to happen.

NIV
I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD.

NASB
"I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken," declares the Lord GOD.

NLT
I will make your island a bare rock, a place for fishermen to spread their nets. You will never be rebuilt, for I, the LORD, have spoken! This is the word of the Sovereign LORD.

KJV
And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

NKJV
I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken,’ says the Lord GOD.

Lee, God intended, originally, for Tyre to be brought down to nothing and it was to remain that way forever. And the opposite is true, as I am sure you remember from me telling you, and all those other folks. Tyre is still there. I thought you would be surprised to find that out when I posted you the first time that Tyre is still there. I sent you a link from middleeast.com that you found and posted months ago on this other forum! You did read it, as it turns out.

The way you presented evidence on this forum made me believe you had no idea what you were talking about. But the truth is you already heard all of this, and participated in learning much about Tyre. I have spent so much time making research, notes, and pages and pages of proof from the Bible itself to show you how right the words are. They did the same thing, and still you do not know.

As it turns out, the real reason you didn't seem to put much effort into the research is because you heard it before, and didn't 1.) want to go through it again, or 2.) be proved wrong again because of it. Perhaps that is why you undermine the bible's historical accuracy, because you know it makes you lose this debate. And that's why you ignore the entire prophecy against Tyre, because the rest of that stuff makes you look wrong too.. so lets just focus on the one little stretch of the imagination and hope someone things you get it right? Lee, I do not know what to think about you anymore.

I identify with Post #352 by Johnny Skeptic

"Lee avoided replying to my comment about dating because he didn’t want to embarrass himself anymore than he already has. That is why he vacated that thread. In typical fashion, he did not quote “any” corroborative sources that back up his arguments. This is simply not done in debates. Apparently Lee believes that if he makes completely uncorroborated assertions, a few gullible people might believe him. He might be right. A few gullible people believe that the earth is flat.

Unlike Lee, I provide corroborative sources for my arguments. The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says “For much of the 8th and 7th centuries BC the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585–573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II.”

An excerpt from an article at http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm says “Early in the sixth century B.C. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, laid siege to the walled city for thirteen years. Tyre stood firm, but it was probable that at this time the residents of the mainland city abandoned it for the safety of the island.”

An excerpt from an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre says “[Tyre] was besieged by Shalmanseer III,………and by Nebuchadnezzar (586-573 BC) for thirteen years, apparently without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians.”"
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2757493&postcount=352

All I can do is throw up my hands. I do not know what will make you see that Ezekiel 26 is largely unfulfilled prophecy. But that is because it shows that God can change his mind, and that shows that he does not know the future, along with the idea that we have a truth-telling God.

He does that often. He can change the way he wishes to do things, but he cannot change that he is loving, powerful, and good... And I thank God that my prayers can have an effect on him, that I might be able to change his mind about something because he listens to me, and the future is wide open.

So I am pretty much at an end here for you Lee. We fed you the best research and proof AND scripture, and you denied them all for mud-pie. I hope you find that you can still believe in God despite the Tyre being unfulfilled.

When 20 People tell you the same thing, and I am the 21st, why should I believe this time you will listen the first 20 times? All I can do is pray for you to open your ears. I started to erase the evidence I found, knowing you already heard it... but Bling and RobE might be interested, I know you already read it, so I guess they will... perhaps someone will listen to truth.

I shall await your reply before making any final decisions. It seems that nothing I say, no matter how true it is, will make you listen.
-Pat
 

patman

Active member
RobE

RobE

Hello RobE.

I agree that we could move along more if we would read each other more carefully. I am not going to go through your post like you did mine, and rebut each and every rebut which is a rebut from the time before. I do not take back anything that I said, and I do not believe I need to make it any clearer.

I told you before, and will say it again, I am not categorizing you. You said you were not a Calvinist, and good. And see, I remembered that on my own. I am very glad we do not have to go down that route.

In my 3 Rule evaluation of Tyre, I try to show what would happen if God simply "foresaw" what would happen. I never put a label on you, I never said "you belong in this group". However, You agreed with my 3 points, even though you reworded some of them, the 3 points still fit in those following points. Say it how you want to, I still ask you to explain the problem presented:

If God simply knows all things knowable, including the future, and is a truthful God, his prophecies about the future actions would be 100% accurate and would take into account any future change by anyone and anything, including his own. Anything he said would be final, and there would be no room for question.

God does not have to reveal EVERYTHING to us. But what he does reveal is going to be true to the best of his knowledge. A God with that much power would say something, it be true, and would have already taken into account that which he foresaw and the future changes.

You asked me to reconsider my idea about God lying if he leaves information out. I do not believe I said it like that. I know God has the righteous right to say whatever he wants, and to not say other things. But it is a lie if ANYONE is talking about a subject, knowing all there is to know about it, and says something contrary to it. AND it is a lie if ANYONE is talking about a subject, of which they know all about, and gives only 50% of the information that will cause an understanding about that subject that leads to an incorrect understand, and knowing that withholding the other 50% would have lead them to the right decision. It doesn't have to be 50% for that matter. It can be any percentage.

He gives 10% that we might get an understanding that is incorrect when 11% would have allowed us to form the correct understanding.

Jane went to Sue's house last night and got drunk.

Jane's mom asked Sue what she did last night, and was she doing anything wrong?

Sue answers, "I to Jane's house."

Sue Lied to her mother. Even though she didn't say anything incorrect, she didn't answer the question honestly.

Here a situation. You tell me how a god who is honest, and who knows the future, would predict it, and I will post what I think and why.

Joe is born. When he is 15 years old, he becomes a Christian. When he is 17, he starts hanging out with friends who get him to use drugs. When he is 18, he is arrested for underaged drinking. When he is 21, he goes to jail for buying drugs. While he is in jail he repents. When he is 22, he becomes a minister. When he is 23 he becomes a counselor for past drub addicts.

How do I think it would be predicted? He could take any sentence above, say "thus says the honest future telling god, when Joe is 22, he will become a minister," prophecy it, and he would be both honest and telling the future accurately. He would not need to include any other segment from his life, even though he knew it, but has the right to show anything he wishes.

He would not say "thus says the honest future telling god, when Joe is 15, he will become a minister," because that is not accurate.

This I think you will agree with.

Now my problem is that this doesn't happen with Tyre, at all. Just read Ezekiel 26 and you'll see the problem I have. God explecidly said what would happen to them, and lead us to the conclusion that he would do these things. If you are saying "Yeah, but God didn't reveal everything to us, so thus he might have also said it wouldn't happen just like that." if that is you arguement, I hope you can see how it is a lie and dishonest.

I say this happened not because God was wrong, or weak, or had a headache. Because he choose not to cause it to happen, and I believe he can do that. This is always the reason a prophecy may not happen, it has been understood throughout the ages, even at the time of Deut. For even in those days, God would say something and then change his mind. Remember the post about Moses Praying to God not to destroy the Jews in the valley, and how God relented?


You rightly say that a change in mind is not a change in character. I agree. But a change in mind would be impossible for God if he knew the future. He knows his mind, past, present, and future, and always knows what it will be. How can it ever change. This is why I believe that Change is impossible for God if he knows the future.

The absolute knowledge of the future leads to many logical conclusions. The assertion that God knows the future is also a logical conclusion from the idea that he knows everything knowable.. the future is assumed to be under that umbrella.

I thus say that future knowledge not something that is knowable.

Thanks, Rob

Pat
 

bling

Member
Thank you for responding.

Patman said:
Whoa.... I am sorry you feel that we are moving backwards. A lot of my views are constructed from a lot of different study. If I am confusing or raising questions, I guess we have read different things.
This is my fault I assumed too much, I thought you had a similar understanding of agape love, Satan’s roll, God allowing sin, and Eve’s sin. We must be more basic, in our discussions.

Patman said:
Agape Love - Christian love, i.e. A love that is not an erotic love, and it is not an emotional love. Greek for "selfless love"
There are books written that try to define agape love and whole semester courses in seminary schools just on agape love. Do you really feel it can be defined with a sentence?

You might start with C. S. Lewis’s little book on the subject. Make sure you use a good concordance if you look up only the love that is agape in the scripture and then look up the other loves separately.

We have about 44,000 other ancient Greek manuscripts and the words for love are used thousands of times, but agape love is used rarely. There are also lots of uses of eros and storgie love in other Greek literature which are not used in scripture. Christ came along and used a word for love that was not in frequent use and thus could redefine the word to some extent.

I am sure a Google search could help with agape love. For the most part it appears the early Greek writers use agape love and Phileo love the same. The word itself does not define the meaning today I and others have come to use agape to stand for only the love Christ defined and Phileo as a lesser form, but that is not historically true and the scripture writers can use interchangeably . I should call my agape love; Godly type love and all others just love. When I have been using agape love I have been meaning the Godly spiritual love that Christ defines and Paul defines in 1 Cor. 13. First I would like to use Jesus definition of my agape love. He was asked by a Pharisee one time to define what He meant. Jesus gave a parable of the Good Samaritan. There are lots of different loves we can love God with and will please Him, as a friend, as a family member, and as a father, but that is not the love the good Samaritan had for the Jewish man on the side of the road. The Samaritan would have no Jewish friends (the Jews thought worse of the Samaritans then gentiles and the Samaritans seem to feel the same way about the Jews). The Jews thought they had a God given right to hate the Samaritans that gave further reason to their hatred. They would also be unclean if they associated with a Samaritan and probably ostracized by other Jews. It was not all that for the Samaritans, since they may not have thought it was God directed for them to avoid the Jews, but they returned the hatred easily. The Jews thought they were the chosen, which really made others hate them. The Pakistanis and the Indians may come the closes to the relationship.
For a Samaritan to feel love for a Jew:
1. He would have to have empathy for all human, have that heart string plucked that had not become hardened by sin.
2. He would have to at least intentionally look past race.
3. He would have to totally discount all other Jews he had met, decide to forget them for the moment and probably made this decision much earlier to avoid the hesitation at the seen.
4. He would have to be willing to sacrifice time, money, maybe even his job and reputation (his reputation among his Samaritan friend and business group will be shattered, if they find out.)
5. He can not expect even a thank you from this Jewish person, their religion would not allow it. ( The teacher of the Law could not even say “the Samaritan”.)
6. He has to over come worldly logic that would say: don’t help this Jew, he would not care for you, one less Jew in the world will make it better, his own race has left him why should you care, and he would probably rather die then have you touch him (that is what you have heard Jews say).
7. The Samaritan has to use Godly logic and say: this is a child of God that God loves and God has asked me to love, I have already promised God I would help others, I never thought He would present me with a unconscious Jew to help, but here he is and I must obey my commitment. It might not have been all that much thought out, but this is a huge act of kindness with much risk and sacrifice and requires thought.
8. The Samaritan is prepared to help, at least in thinking through on what he might have to do or with experience.
9. The Good Samaritan did not have blinders on, he was not so focused on the next stop as the potential stop on the side of the road, that was his goal. He was set up to help mentally, materially, and physically.

The Good Samaritan defines agape love, this is the kind of love God has for us and the kind of love God wants us to have for Him and others. This type of love can be commanded of us and does not require a mutual good feeling.

Patman asked:
Child-Parent-non-agape-love - hard to explain how that is not agape. It is very selfless, it is not necessarily emotional, although it can be.
I was trying to get the closes love to Godly love I could think of. Some Parents do agape (Godly) love their children and in contrast some animals will fight to the death protecting their off-springs, but these animals still do not have a Godly love. We are to love God like good children love good parents and God loves us like a good parent loving a good child. Those are feeling we can have for God and others, but He is asking for more, you can not have a feel good love for your enemy without (Godly) love. He loves us to the point of allow a perfect child of His to suffer the punishment of His bad children for the sack of the bad children, that is not logical.
God’s love for us is not as a result of sharing in our screw up and thus trying to make up for that or because of any other obligation on His part. God has done everything right, we are the only ones at fault and yet He loves us. Child- parent love is natural and logical, agape (Godly) love is not natural or logical it is like the Good Samaritan’s love. God does want both types of love, but Godly love must be developed from the small seed that lies within us.
Patman said:
Sin - knowingly doing wrong.
Will in this case ignorance is not bliss. We do not know what is written on human’s hearts and what was written on Eve’s heart or what all was said to Adam and Eve.


Patman said:
Man's Purpose - To have fellowship with God. To be the image and likeness of God. To be as a "god" to the animals and the earth by having authority over them. To populate the earth.
I think I need to explain why I see man’s objective as being agape or Godly Spiritual love. I think it was understood from the beginning that God agape loved us and wanted us to spiritually love Him. Now we can use scripture to show our purpose is to glorify God or to be in relationship with God, but we are commanded to Luke 10:25-28. The idea of us loving with all our emotions, spirit, soul, strength and mind means it is the major facture in our thought process. Now, I know all in scripture does not mean all, but it does mean the vast majority, leaving some of the mind open to do other things, but those other things have to take a subjective roll to the main thought and command. Everything we do is dominated by the loving of God, making it by default the only thing we can do if we do it right and thus our objective. Even loving our neighbor comes from loving God first along with all the other commands. You can not fulfill this command and do other things that are not include this command it leave you no where to go it is all of you.


Patman said:
Satan's Purpose - much like man, to have a relationship with God and jobs over other Angels... But that was when he was called Lucifer. Satan abandoned that purpose and made his own, to rebel against God and get others to follow him instead of God. God uses Satan's desire to get others to follow him to God's advantage by allowing him to provide others with a clear choice. It's either Jehovah or Satan, who will you choose? The testing that Satan performs gets the answer rather fast. Satan also finds ways to make those who are guilty gain the need for a separation from God. But God turns that around, by offering those who are separated a way of knowing where they stand that they may find their way back.
Q1. So, is God allowing Satan to continue to exist here on earth to fulfill this purpose you have now come up with?
Patman said:
Sin's Purpose - to separate us from God.
Q2. Sin certainly does that, but does it do more?
Q3. What does being separated from God put into motion that can result in being good for us in the end that not being separated from God can not put into motion?

2QX. Why would Eve Lie, how is that logical?
[
QUOTE]In response to 2QX Patman said:
Actually it was "do not even touch it." I think Adam added that to the command for her sake. I can see Adam explaining the only rule "Eve, we can eat anything but that tree over there. If you eat it, you will die, God said so. So don't even touch it." Eve may have thought up that part herself. "If I can't eat it, perhaps it would be better if not even touch it." Where ever the idea came from, it was never commanded by God according to the account. But here is Satan, talking to Eve, trying "So is it true you can't eat of every tree]And Eve wanted to tell him it was true, and drive the point home. "Not only can we not eat of that tree, we can't even touch it, or else, pffffffffff," as she makes the cutting sign across her neck.

So she didn't tell Satan the exact truth, she added a little to it, perhaps she knew she was wrong, perhaps she didn't. Since we do not know, it is not worth pondering. All we know for sure is that she said something that was incorrect. She was still without sin, too. So it probably was not a lie, but only an incorrect statement.
This is a very interesting scenario. I know you don’t like using your interpretation and thus saying Eve lied. So let’s go along this path saying Adam miss communicated to Eve or Eve miss communicated to the serpent and that miss communication is given us in the scripture with no explanation from the spirit guided writers. I agree Adam may have reasoned to add to the command if Eve showed Adam a lot of curiosity about the tree. That may have only increased her curiosity and with miss information may have notices animals touching the tree and nothing happening and she may have already accidentally touch the tree without any thing happening, which would only add to the question will it do anything? This makes it easier for Satan to trick Eve. Eve really has no logical reason, I know, to miss communicate, but maybe she did like to talk about the tree and just added something to sound wiser then she was about the tree to a serpent.
The bottom line using your scenario, Adam and/or Eve as prophets (those that get direct information from God and convey it to others) took the information from God changed it (extrapolated it or embellished on it) conveyed their own revised information to others as coming from God, and that revised information is recorded in scripture with nothing being record showing the information to be embellished. If that is true then it could happen other places the same way. Let’s take your favorite Ezekiel: Ezekiel is informed by God the ruler of Babylon will destroy Tyre in such and such way, very similar to the other countries God told Ezekiel would be and were destroyed. We have only (like with Eve) what Ezekiel says was told him by God. Now, God could have been referring to Alexander the Great, but Ezekiel and his people being in the country of Babylon, had some great news to tell Nebuchadnezzar, the problem is it is not him the prophecy is about, but Ezekiel embellishes on what God said maybe sounding like Nebuchadnezzar own prophets. I imagine the whole group of Jews was rewarded for this prophecy. The fact the prophecy that God could easily fulfill was not fulfilled as said by Ezekiel tells us there is a problem and really with the prophecy, since nothing is mentioned about any change in Tyre. The scripture do not have to give us any more as they did not give us any more with Eve.
Thank you, for showing this alternative interpretation to Ezekiel.

Patman said:
I only have faith in Christ and depend on his sacrifice. I have no works to save me. And I like that too. But there was a time when faith and works went hand in hand.
Q4. What works ever helped save anyone?

Patman said:
The Genesis story tells us that Eve wanted the wisdom that came from eating the tree. She gave it to Adam and Adam headed her voice and ate. They had their reasons for eating. They ignored the Death, and probably thought God was lying about that.

The entire point of the Bible is God wishes for us to follow him, and it is our choice. The garden is no different.
Q5. Do you think; you or anyone else that reaches the maturity of accountability really have a choice if they will sin or not?
My point has been we are initially tricked into sinning without a lot of for thought, and from the Eden story I feel everyone would agree that Eve was tricked into sinning.
Q6. What support do you have to show Eve was not tricked?

Patman asked:
Did I say God was tricked?
I was using this story by you:
Patman said:

Satan's objective is to be like God. He wants the power. He saw the potential in the human race, that they might follow him and serve him. What is a king without followers?

That having been said, It is also possible that Satan was sent as a test from God. Just like Job. Satan approaches God, God still thinking his creation is very good, and says "Adam and the woman only follow you out of ignorance, give me the chance, and they will leave you for me!" God says, "They are holy and sinless, they will always follow me."

After all, the garden was great, the blessings was great, no death... no sin. Why would they ever leave? So God allows the test. He thinks they will pass.

And as the story goes... God thought his vineyard would produce good fruit, but instead he got sour grapes. Apparently the power and independence of being on their own was enough to make them sin.

Patman asked:
Bling, what do you mean by "problems with the garden?" Do you think the Garden concept was a bad idea because man wasn't sinning? With the implications of your 7 points, you seem to believe that we were setup to fail in the garden that we might have grace instead?
Everything centers on the objective, like every goal in business, war, family or religion. If the objective is for humans to have a place and situation to develop agape (God type) love ( a love that can not be instinctive, that can not be given without being willingly received, requiring intelligence, above being logical, and needing a complete commitment). That place needs to be explained, shown to be the place, be able to be compared to other places and alternative situations, and shown early on. The Garden is a great place to show me and to show me first. It tells me a lot about God, love, obedience, the Spirit, Satan, sin, humans, and heaven. It really shows me why I do not want to be in that situation. The 7 problems I see with the garden are insurmountable for my objective.

Patman said: Adam's selfless love was fully possible in the Garden.
Here again, Adam could have love for God like a child loves a great parent and Adam could have love for Eve like a husband can love a great wife. These are wonderful loves God wants, but a sacrificial love for let us say, a stranger that has just caused intentional extreme hurting of his wife. This is not going to be developed in this garden scenario and yet that is God type love that is an all consuming love of heart, soul, strength and mind.

Patman said: I guess I just don't think about Satan in regards as being good for good people. Satan is Evil. I can not conceive of a way that He is good for good people, or that he has good purposes for good people. I can't wrap my brain around a possibility right now. Perhaps I will after I think about it for 100000 years, but for now, I cant think of how Satan can have a good purpose for good people.... Well, other than being happy to see Justice come to him.
It all centers on the objective. Can Satan help good people fulfill there objective of developing a God type love? Philosophically (and that seems the approach Knight and lion were using) you need bad to see good in contrast. Satan allows us to know what good is and what bad is at the same time and to appreciate the good.
I do not think you need an extremely powerful being that can over power all human ability to do this. Satan has a lot more power then he needs to accomplish just this and that is part of the why, we will need to remain dependent on Godly power to over come Satan, we are not and can not be self dependent.
Some times to rally the troops to fight you need a real challenging enemy, one that brings everything out of you or your troops. An enemy that will cause you to prepare, an enemy that you will not hesitate to ask for help to defeat, an enemy that makes the victory that much more wonderful.
God is asking us to have sacrificial love for Him, if sin is not made to seem extremely attractive, then what is being given up (where is the sacrifice). Satan can make through lies sin to be attractive. These are not tests by God, but temptations of Satan allowed by God to discipline us to greater development of love.
In general Satan helps make this world the way it is, which is extremely bad. An extremely bad place, makes good people the contrast, it provides endless opportunities to do good, and it provides unlimited growth possibilities. If there were no robbers on the road, we might assume the priest and the Levi were the good people (the chosen ones) and the Samaritan was the bad person.
I will let you digest that for now.
Patman said: I do not believe that “God does not allow sin, but does allow the possibility of sin.” I believe God did not create us to sin, but allows that if we wish to sin, he will allow it to a point, and will judge us for it.
Q7. If God did not expect us to sin yet all those that have reached the age have sinned then is He a poor creator? Should He not share in the blame for our sin?
16QX.Is the Bible telling us everyone in the future will sin at least once?
In response to 16QX patman said:
No. There are many humans who were innocent when they died. The countless abortions for example, none of those people sinned when they died. The Bible does not say everyone is going to sin. What about Adults who have yet to die? They will sin, the bible seems clear that apart from Christ, none are righteous. All man have the flesh and the knowledge of sin, and sooner or later will sin. Future knowledge is not required to know this. And this is a result of the fall, not a requirement for Adam and Even. Because Adam and Eve fell, Adults in the flesh will eventually sin.
We agree there are people that are save and need not be saved. I am referring to mature minded adults.
We can talk about “original sin” later.
Patman said: God desires to have Adam and Eve as his forever. The tree is a selfless way for God to give them away to not be his. This is a powerful showing of Agape love.
Q8. Do you really feel Adam and Eve both thought out very carefully their choices and made a real conscious decision to not want to be a child of God any more? Do you not see Eve being tricked by Satan? Do you not see the sorrow in Adam and Eve having to leave the Garden? If their were hating God and wanting to die, why did they not kill themselves after leaving the garden since they had more reason then ever to be unhappy with the situation? When you in your own life sinned the first time were you making a bold statement that you wanted out of your save relationship with God or were you tricked into that first sin like everyone else’s first sin?
Patman said: Heaven is wonderful. But there are many wars in heaven, there are people asking God to avenge them, Satan comes up from time to time to constantly accuse us. It's going to change tho, God will recreate heaven and earth.

The new Heaven and Earth will be a place for those who have love and love God. Guided by love, we will do that which is right.
Many wars??? People asking for vengeance??? Satan still being around???
Wow, someday we will have to go through Revelations. I have a totally different idea on this, I am not a premillenniumist.
We may come to a point that says, we can see alternatives, given some assumptions we do not agree with at this time. The unfortunate issue it will conflict with further interpretations of other scripture. I will leave this up to you. God continue to be with you.
 
Last edited:

RobE

New member
patman said:
If God simply knows all things knowable, including the future, and is a truthful God, his prophecies about the future actions would be 100% accurate and would take into account any future change by anyone and anything, including his own. Anything he said would be final, and there would be no room for question.

This isn't true. As long as something doesn't change the future then what He foresaw will happen. We're on the same page here. Can you see it?

1) God can see your future 10,000 years ago.
2) He sees you're going to break the supernatural law which results in spiritual death.
3) God strives to get you to change your future without coercing you.
4) You choose Jesus and become a 'new creation'.
5) Your future changes.
6) God foresees your new future.

Patman said:
God does not have to reveal EVERYTHING to us. But what he does reveal is going to be true to the best of his knowledge.

I agree. It just seems to me if He doesn't reveal that He changed His mind; you can't accept any other change; and you consider a 'mind change' to be a personality change.


Patman said:
You asked me to reconsider my idea about God lying if he leaves information out. I do not believe I said it like that. I know God has the righteous right to say whatever he wants, and to not say other things. But it is a lie if ANYONE is talking about a subject, knowing all there is to know about it, and says something contrary to it. AND it is a lie if ANYONE is talking about a subject, of which they know all about, and gives only 50% of the information that will cause an understanding about that subject that leads to an incorrect understand, and knowing that withholding the other 50% would have lead them to the right decision. It doesn't have to be 50% for that matter. It can be any percentage.

Like, in forty days, I'll destroy Ninevah. Maybe it's always been understood there are conditions with God like the conditions for being a believer.

Patman said:
He gives 10% that we might get an understanding that is incorrect when 11% would have allowed us to form the correct understanding.

Why didn't He tell Adam to eat from the Tree of Life? What's the biblical proof that God changed His mind about Tyre?

Patman said:
Joe is born. When he is 15 years old, he becomes a Christian. When he is 17, he starts hanging out with friends who get him to use drugs. When he is 18, he is arrested for underaged drinking. When he is 21, he goes to jail for buying drugs. While he is in jail he repents. When he is 22, he becomes a minister. When he is 23 he becomes a counselor for past drub addicts.

How do I think it would be predicted? He could take any sentence above, say "thus says the honest future telling god, when Joe is 22, he will become a minister," prophecy it, and he would be both honest and telling the future accurately. He would not need to include any other segment from his life, even though he knew it, but has the right to show anything he wishes.

He would not say "thus says the honest future telling god, when Joe is 15, he will become a minister," because that is not accurate.

This I think you will agree with.

I do.

Patman said:
Now my problem is that this doesn't happen with Tyre, at all. Just read Ezekiel 26 and you'll see the problem I have. God explecidly said what would happen to them, and lead us to the conclusion that he would do these things. If you are saying "Yeah, but God didn't reveal everything to us, so thus he might have also said it wouldn't happen just like that." if that is you arguement, I hope you can see how it is a lie and dishonest.

I say this happened not because God was wrong, or weak, or had a headache. Because he choose not to cause it to happen, and I believe he can do that. This is always the reason a prophecy may not happen, it has been understood throughout the ages, even at the time of Deut. For even in those days, God would say something and then change his mind. Remember the post about Moses Praying to God not to destroy the Jews in the valley, and how God relented?

You rightly say that a change in mind is not a change in character. I agree. But a change in mind would be impossible for God if he knew the future. He knows his mind, past, present, and future, and always knows what it will be. How can it ever change. This is why I believe that Change is impossible for God if he knows the future.

Why? Isn't that the whole point of the incarnation? To change your future. If you had no future what would the point be? You change your future with your free will decisions. You decide your eternal outcome even with Him paying the price---the choice is yours. He just 'observes' your outcome from where you are in the present. Do you understand this?

Patman said:
The absolute knowledge of the future leads to many logical conclusions. The assertion that God knows the future is also a logical conclusion from the idea that he knows everything knowable.. the future is assumed to be under that umbrella.

This destroys grace. Does He know every possible outcome? Perhaps? But when I speak of foreseeing your future, He's simply looking at where you are going today, from your current free will point of view. He directs outcomes and you make free will choices.

However, because of free will, the future can change in the present. Do we agree? If the future changes in the present then does the overall future change at all, really? The decision maker's future changes, but not Gods.

Choices vs. Outcomes

Do you see how God can change His mind without being wrong when He foresaw what He would do before? The two don't co-exist. It's theory vs. practice. He's no more of a liar if He said "I'll destory Tyre." and doesn't destroy it----with foresight than without it. It's the same argument we had about culpability. Can you see it?

A)He foresaw himself destoying Tyre, said He would, and didn't so He lied.
B)He didn't foresee himself destroying Tyre, said He would, and didn't so He lied.

What's the difference?

Please Clarify this for ME!

Rob
 

patman

Active member
Bling

Bling

Bling, I bolded the offense in this quote.
bling said:
Let’s take your favorite Ezekiel: Ezekiel is informed by God the ruler of Babylon will destroy Tyre in such and such way, very similar to the other countries God told Ezekiel would be and were destroyed.

We have only (like with Eve) what Ezekiel says was told him by God. Now, God could have been referring to Alexander the Great, but Ezekiel and his people being in the country of Babylon, had some great news to tell Nebuchadnezzar, the problem is it is not him the prophecy is about, but Ezekiel embellishes on what God said maybe sounding like Nebuchadnezzar own prophets.

I imagine the whole group of Jews was rewarded for this prophecy. The fact the prophecy that God could easily fulfill was not fulfilled as said by Ezekiel tells us there is a problem and really with the prophecy, since nothing is mentioned about any change in Tyre. The scripture do not have to give us any more as they did not give us any more with Eve.
Thank you, for showing this alternative interpretation to Ezekiel.
Everyone is starting to get into this Ezekiel conversation. Bling, I must say that everything you say in here is utterly untrue. Comparing Eve to Ezekiel is a long stretch. And to say Ezekiel goofed up the message, or twisted it so Nebuchadnezzar would be happy is simply incorrect if you hold to the word of the Bible.

Bling, I have invested many many hours of study on this subject. I have submitted it on here for everyone to read, to critique, and ask someone else to do the same thing. I guess no one is interested in doing it.

I found out that Lee actually has been through this before, and in that debate, the points I make about the prophecy were confirmed, and I had nothing to do with the debate. This makes me happy in that I feel that my study has lead me in the right direction.

If you really wish to challenge Ezekiel, I ask you to research the book, the Bible, and history before you try to twist my words around to make it sound like I said something I didn't. I in no way showed this thing you said I did, and neither did you. It is simply to far of a stretch of the imagination to believe such a thing is true when weighed against the evidence.

You called this "my favorite" book. It is not, that would be the Bible as a whole. I focus on Ezekiel because of a challenge made by Lee several posts ago. I have set out to prove my point, and I have done so. His ongoing rebuts make me talk about it all the more, and as I said to him in the last post, I am about to stop. After all, how many people does it take to get a point across to someone about something that is so easily proven?

The Garden
You really seem to put a lot of thought into the Garden. I do not see where you are headed with your thoughts, some of them I can agree with, others seem to imply things that I cannot.

I feel the line of questioning is leading us no where when I do not know what your real point is. You state we are debating about the future knowledge of God, but I feel as if it is more a way of you preaching your views on the Garden.

bling said:
There are books written that try to define agape love and whole semester courses in seminary schools just on agape love. Do you really feel it can be defined with a sentence.
Bling, I have written novels to you answering your questions directly. And I get a comment like this and wonder why? I have put so much work into these replies trying to show you many aspects to the Garden. I defined Agape love with many examples in that, and have shown how it is possible.

If you want to use the Samaritan story to define it, you are missing out, because that is only one way to it.

As you said, there are many forms of love, why are we limiting God to only one? Why is that so important to you?

Q1. So, is God allowing Satan to continue to exist here on earth to fulfill this purpose you have now come up with?
I do not like the implications of this question at all, Bling. I have answered your questions as fully and completely, and on the same exact thought process every time. If you are confusing me with someone else you are debating, perhaps you should apologize to us both, and go back and re-read what I wrote to you.

Q4. What works ever helped save anyone?
There was a time that faith without works was dead, Bling.

Q6. What support do you have to show Eve was not tricked?
Um... did you ask the same question last time, but the subject was God instead of Eve? Eve was tricked, she thought she wouldn't die if she ate. But she knowingly sinned. That is the main point.. that sinned knowingly.

That's all I want to answer for now. I do not want to get into another 20 questions and have to go though each one like the last time, especially when what I write is a free-for-all to be twisted around. That has to stop, Bling. I never misrepresented you, even if I did disagree with you.

That like an old journalism trick. "Politician A is a pro-lifer, that means Politician A hates women's rights."

Don't do that again.

So I have been generous in answering all your questions without asking any of my own. I do not feel that this debate is moving forward at all, and I defiantly feel that It is way off track.

So, Question 1. Please summarize your overall point. Once I get what you are trying to prove we can take the small stuff into account.

Question 2. Do you think God planned for Adam, the very man himself, to sin?

Question 3. If God thinks that the situation we are in now is better than it would be in the Garden, do you have scripture that states this clam?

That's another thing. I really backed up my comments with scripture. Please use more scripture in your replies.

Question 4. If God foresaw Adam's fall before he created Adam, and knew everything there was to know about Adam and the very exact flaw that was in him, and created that flaw regardless, would God not have initiated the sin by Adam's design?

RobE tried to twist this one around on me too a few posts back. This really gets under my skin. I write these long answers and spend my spare time and put so much thought into this, and then my very own words are used and practically quoted to manipulate a point. I say exactly what I intend, again I ask that everyone respect that by not using my words in context I did not intend for.

RobE said the answer to the ideas and problems brought up by question 4 as to "why" is "freewill". I hate the method he used, by using my own type to say it. The thing about question 4 is it revels that if God knows the future, there is indeed a type of destiny. A God who designes Adam to behave in such a way actually predesgined him to sin or not to. This removes freewill because God got the exact design he wanted because of his knowledge of the Future.

Because the very design of Adam was foresaw to cause a desired reaction, and that design was implemented anyway. Because of the design, that was known about in EVERY way, Adam was most certainly going to sin BY design.

And that is yet another reason I reject the notion that God knows the absolute future.

Anyway, bling, you are going to have to get to the point. What are you getting at?

-Patman
 

RobE

New member
patman said:
Question 4. If God foresaw Adam's fall before he created Adam, and knew everything there was to know about Adam and the very exact flaw that was in him, and created that flaw regardless, would God not have initiated the sin by Adam's design?

No.

Patman said:
RobE tried to twist this one around on me too a few posts back. This really gets under my skin. I write these long answers and spend my spare time and put so much thought into this, and then my very own words are used and practically quoted to manipulate a point. I say exactly what I intend, again I ask that everyone respect that by not using my words in context I did not intend for.

I'm sorry, Patman. I thought it was the same context. Actually, I believed they were exactly the same. My answer and yours were in unity. In fact, I was waiting to say the exact same thing you said. Waiting for the right moment. I used the method I did for emphasis only, not to belittle you.

Patman said:
RobE said the answer to the ideas and problems brought up by question 4 as to "why" is "freewill". I hate the method he used, by using my own type to say it. The thing about question 4 is it revels that if God knows the future, there is indeed a type of destiny. A God who designes Adam to behave in such a way actually predesgined him to sin or not to. This removes freewill because God got the exact design he wanted because of his knowledge of the Future.

This is where we disagree and agree at the same time. I say that free will makes the choice between good and evil available. Between obedience and sin your freewill exists. So do you. Yet above you say it removes His free will. Which is it?

Patman said:
Because the very design of Adam was foresaw to cause a desired reaction, and that design was implemented anyway. Because of the design, that was known about in EVERY way, Adam was most certainly going to sin BY design.

Yes, but the design didn't create sin. Sin was there before Adam exercised His free will. The design created Free Will. Sin is one of the outcomes of Free Will. The Law brought an increase in sin. The Law was righteous and perfect yet increased sin. Do you understand?

Was the Law evil? No. Is Free Will evil? No. Do both increase sin? Yes?

His design wasn't to increase sin --- it was to make man in His own image and create Free Will. This He accomplished and sin increased. Could He do this without sin. No. A choice must exist to be made. If the negative choice isn't known then what choice is there to make? Eve made her choice and died, Adam made his choice and died, etc...,etc...,etc....

Could things have gone another way? Yes. Was it likely to go another way? No.

Isn't that why He put Lucifer, the Tree, and Adam all in the same garden? If He couldn't foresee the outcome then why did He? A real choice had to exist for Adam to have true Free Will. Sin wasn't in the fruit----It was in Adam's free choice. Did the Lord set Adam up to sin? No. He gave Him an opportunity to excercise the Free Will He'd given him.

Patman said:
And that is yet another reason I reject the notion that God knows the absolute future.

I personally have a hard time believing God knows your absolute future. You have a choice just as Adam did and there is a lot more 'Trees' to choose from today.

Mercifully, Jesus brought us a new choice. And through that choice ALL MEN can live. How much greater is the happiness when the lost son returns. How much greater is Free Will love than obedience?

Yours,
RobE
 

patman

Active member
RobE

RobE

RobE said:
I'm sorry, Patman. I thought it was the same context. Actually, I believed they were exactly the same. My answer and yours were in unity. In fact, I was waiting to say the exact same thing you said. Waiting for the right moment. I used the method I did for emphasis only, not to belittle you.
I understand. I know your intentions were well, and thank you for the concern. Regardless of which side of the coin you fall on, It was a good answer, wasn't it? :) I am glad I took the words out of your mouth, and said them first!!:p (I got dibs)
RobE said:
This is where we disagree and agree at the same time. I say that free will makes the choice between good and evil available. Between obedience and sin your freewill exists. So do you. Yet above you say it removes His free will. Which is it?
Rob, I am so glad that we agree on this. Regardless of the future subject, this is really one of the most important aspects. Our freedom to choose good or evil is our own and the best part is that God will have grace. These things unite us, and I always keep that in mind. I am glad you do too.
RobE said:
Yes, but the design didn't create sin. Sin was there before Adam exercised His free will. The design created Free Will. Sin is one of the outcomes of Free Will. The Law brought an increase in sin. The Law was righteous and perfect yet increased sin. Do you understand?

...

His design wasn't to increase sin --- it was to make man in His own image and create Free Will. This He accomplished and sin increased. Could He do this without sin. No. A choice must exist to be made. If the negative choice isn't known then what choice is there to make? Eve made her choice and died, Adam made his choice and died, etc...,etc...,etc....

Could things have gone another way? Yes. Was it likely to go another way? No.
RobE, I really do understand where you are coming from. It does make some since, and you have presented your point well. In my rebuts, I never meant to categorize you, I just see a problem with it. You do not, and I think you understand what I say the problem with it is.

I know you are trying to clear the problem up, and you do well at answering parts. But the root issue still exists. I understand I do not know all things, and really, as I told Bling, I do not really think the proof about our topic is found in Genesis, but some circumstantial evidence is.

Of course, that's circumstantial because it supports my beliefs, and you also have elements in it to support your beliefs. I do not think I can connivence you or anyone by using the Garden unless you really trusted me and my reading of the story.

The problem I have, I do not know if there is a real answer to it for your advantage. The question goes to the deepest things, things almost beyond our grasp. It is like a philosophy class, the beginning of beginnings. I always hated Philosophy class, I thought it was a little silly, because of that concept. If God created, who created God, and who created that god, and who created that one, and BLAH. I think it's really a philosophical joke for Plato and his bunch meant to drive people like me crazy.

But anyway, I do not know how it can be answered. If god foresaw the future, and he created Adam knowing what would happen, and did it anyway, he knowingly created the aspect of Adam that caused the sin.

I know you believe freewill answers it, and It helps some... but it still doesn't allow you to get past the "God did it anyway." And the "why would God create something knowing it would be so evil" and all those others of billions of questions that come.

And that creates a problem with freewill itself, because God foreknew the way his creation would act, and he made it the best way possible, as if it were a program set out to do what God wanted. It's a mess to me.

I can see that you do not have a problem with it. I hope you can see why I do. If you can find a good scriptural answer that addresses the problem as directly as possible, I would be interested in reading it.

(Both our answers come from an overview of the Bible, that is where a lot of what we know about the Garden comes from.)
RobE said:
I personally have a hard time believing God knows your absolute future. You have a choice just as Adam did and there is a lot more 'Trees' to choose from today.
I agree. And that is really what I am saying. I know God knows some of the future, and he is able and smart enough to be right about predicting it. But just like you said, there's that choice element that causes things to change in an unpredictable fashion.

If you think this, I wonder why we are really debating, because that is really the heart of it. God does not know ALL of the future.
RobE said:
Mercifully, Jesus brought us a new choice. And through that choice ALL MEN can live. How much greater is the happiness when the lost son returns. How much greater is Free Will love than obedience?

Yours,
RobE
Amen, amen, amen, RobE. God bless
-Pat
P.S. I had to edit this thing because my formating was bad.
 
Last edited:

RobE

New member
Quick Reply to Patman

Quick Reply to Patman

Patman,

You have to understand that Open Theism presents a case that God knows NONE of the future(because freewill makes it unknowable). If you believe He knows SOME of the future then you're holding the same belief as Arminius and Traditional Christianity.

The problem comes with what I call 'Real' choices. What are they. In my view they are:

a) Choose Life.
b) Choose Death.

All we see is passing away. Nothing else matters. See Solomon's response to this in ECCL. when he's talking about what's important.

This, to me, is the only real choice our free will allows us to have. We do other things in our life, of course, like working in the Master's field, doing the Master's work, etc....

Why do we do this? Because He knows who are His; through their actions. He gives us the desire to do these things. They are relative in increasing the 'harvest' for Him.

When all that you see passes away then we'll start living the reality that He already knows. The angels were tempted and fell. How much greater will those be who don't see and still believe.

That free will choice to me is expressed acutely in the final judgement where all men will be judged on their free will choice. What will that judgement be? Life or Death? Traditional Christianity realizes that these choices are the only real ones. Do they have an impact on your eternity? Yes. Do they have an impact on His eternity and what He's doing? No. He'll not be thwarted by anyone or anything. His Plot, Plan, or whatever you want to call it will continue.

Remember, the bible shows many places where God had foresight into the future. Whether or not you want to consider this foresight a supernatural predictive ability(open theism) or simple foresight(Traditional Christianity) it has the same effect and outcome attached to it. I believe that to simply predict would go astray after a while whereas foresight would explain long term outcomes better. Consider this. You and I might be on the same page. Even Open Theism sees the end before the judgement seat. Does this mean their future is predetermined and closed?. Yes. The definition of 'closed' is inaccurate when place upon 'Traditional Christianity' just as the term 'open' is inaccurate when placed upon 'Open Theism'. The only 'closed' position is that of Calvinism. The 'open' outcome is possible for the vast majority of believers.

Open Theism hasn't discovered a 'New' concept in theology, it's just tried to reduce God's scriptural capabilities. This is what I see flawed with it. They push the envelope too far. In order for them to say God can't see any of the future then they have to reduce the Godhead to more moderate standards such as Zeus was in ancient Greece. In essence they try to make God into man's image. Dangerous, huh?

Yours,

Rob
 

patman

Active member
RobE

RobE

Hello Rob,

I hope I can shead a little different light on the OV.

I am going to do something a little different this post. I will answer your post backwards...
RobE said:
Open Theism hasn't discovered a 'New' concept in theology, it's just tried to reduce God's scriptural capabilities. This is what I see flawed with it. They push the envelope too far. In order for them to say God can't see any of the future then they have to reduce the Godhead to more moderate standards such as Zeus was in ancient Greece. In essence they try to make God into man's image. Dangerous, huh?
I still ascribe to the Open View. I think the communication in this thread uses the words "future knowledge" a little loosely, as I am guilty of. The Open View actually does "allow"(i say that for lack of a better word) for God to have some future knowledge.

I agree, the idea that God has no future knowledge is one that visualizes God as having less power than he does. And that is never good to do. But we must be careful as to how we word "future knowledge."

In just passing by, someone reading "God does not know the future" will assume that is total. And someone reading "God knows the future" will assume it is supernatural or a special power. Both terms, as far as I understand them are used as more a general concept.

To clear it up some, God knows some of the future means that there are some things that God can predict because he knows the outcome. I mentioned before, a ball rolling down a table would be something God could know the future results of. Because the ball is controlled by the constant rules of physics.

God knows some of the future in that he will cause things to happen. Such as the judgement of the world. He knows that this will happen one day. He knows the second coming will happen one day.

These things God knows, not because he has a map of the future he is looking at, but because he is 1, smart enough to predict, or 2 is powerful enough to see about.

As I said before, and I think you agree, we humans are much more complicated than balls rolling down the table. Our freewill has aspects that cause us to be unpredictable at times. That is not total, it is possible to be very sure of someone's future actions, but it is not something that can happen with 100% accuracy.

RobE said:
Patman,

You have to understand that Open Theism presents a case that God knows NONE of the future(because freewill makes it unknowable). If you believe He knows SOME of the future then you're holding the same belief as Arminius and Traditional Christianity.
I am an Open Theist. I think there can be extreme believers who take it so far as to say he knows "NONE" of the future, but I think that is just their desire to push the idea that makes it sound that way.

God has demonstrated great ability to "predict" the future at times, or to "see through" actions he said he would in the future when that time comes (i.e. not before it happens but when it happens).

Saying God knows NONE of the future is accurate if you put it in the context of the future being a map, a script, a crystal ball, or whatever. But if you take all that away, and say God knows that which he plans to bring about, and these things will happen in the future, and thus God knows the future in regards to his plans, then you spoke right. And if you say God is smart enough to know the outcome of certain events because he can calculate their variables before it happens. it would be correct.

RobE said:
The problem comes with what I call 'Real' choices. What are they. In my view they are:

a) Choose Life.
b) Choose Death.

All we see is passing away. Nothing else matters. See Solomon's response to this in ECCL. when he's talking about what's important.

This, to me, is the only real choice our free will allows us to have. We do other things in our life, of course, like working in the Master's field, doing the Master's work, etc....

Why do we do this? Because He knows who are His; through their actions. He gives us the desire to do these things. They are relative in increasing the 'harvest' for Him.

When all that you see passes away then we'll start living the reality that He already knows. The angels were tempted and fell. How much greater will those be who don't see and still believe.

That free will choice to me is expressed acutely in the final judgement where all men will be judged on their free will choice. What will that judgement be? Life or Death? Traditional Christianity realizes that these choices are the only real ones. Do they have an impact on your eternity? Yes. Do they have an impact on His eternity and what He's doing? No. He'll not be thwarted by anyone or anything. His Plot, Plan, or whatever you want to call it will continue.
I can see the gist of what you are saying. But I must disagree a little (what else am I good for?).

Do the people who choose life, or death, have an impact on His eternity and what He's doing? You say no. I say yes. I know that God doesn't require us for his existence to continue. But he desires our love and our being with him.

Rob, I know you are a christian, and saved. But I want to use you in this story:

God's final judgement has arrived. He begins going through the billions of lives that lived on his creation. He was there from the very beginning, watching, looking for those who would follow him forever. He could tell that most people didn't really want to follow, no matter what he did.

He has been both looking forward to this day, and dreading it. It would be a chance to put everything right for those who would follow him. But it would mean punishing those whom he desired.

He just went through thousands and thousands of people who said no. He went through their history, reading the choices they made, remembering some of them from being there first hand. Each person rejected God, and each rejection broke his heart. He remembered that.

Finally he gets to you, and others like you. When others around you were rejecting God, you stood firm. When God called, you answered. This is something that is special for God. Because You answered the call, you chose to follow him, and his heart was exceedingly glad for you.

He redeemed you, and you will spend eternity with him, and he will be so happy for it.

The End of the simple story.

In this way, our choices have and will have an impact on God.

RobE said:
Remember, the bible shows many places where God had foresight into the future. Whether or not you want to consider this foresight a supernatural predictive ability(open theism) or simple foresight(Traditional Christianity) it has the same effect and outcome attached to it. I believe that to simply predict would go astray after a while whereas foresight would explain long term outcomes better. Consider this. You and I might be on the same page. Even Open Theism sees the end before the judgement seat. Does this mean their future is predetermined and closed?. Yes. The definition of 'closed' is inaccurate when place upon 'Traditional Christianity' just as the term 'open' is inaccurate when placed upon 'Open Theism'. The only 'closed' position is that of Calvinism. The 'open' outcome is possible for the vast majority of believers.
I do not know if I would attribute the predictive and the simple foresight to one group or the other. The biggest thing OV disagrees with is an absolute knowledge of the future, and to my knowledge, most other views disagree with that and say there is an absolute knowledge. You are the first to say otherwise.

And I am glad you do say otherwise. There is a difference between a supernatural knowledge of the future, and just being able to accurately predict it. Both views claim to allow God the power to see out his plans, except the supernatural knowledge tends to take that far and say all thins that happened are his plans.

I think most of the people I have encountered on this forum who claim to have the OV do allow for some future knowledge.

Bob Enyart said:
Does God know our entire future? If He does, I call this the Settled View, then a question arises as to whether God wills for evil to occur, regarding human versus divine responsibility for sin and suffering. Some Settled View proponents say that God has “simple foreknowledge” by which He does not mandate all the future but rather plans His own actions and sees the rest of the future as an observer. Other Settled View proponents say that God not only sees, but also that He has preordained the future. The Open View, alternatively, reports that the future is not settled, and that the responsibility for wickedness thus lies obviously with those in rebellion against God, for cruelties are not required to occur as in the Settled View.

The Settled View, the traditional view of divine exhaustive foreknowledge, holds that God knows everything that will ever happen, eternally, both within the Godhead and without. The Open View teaches that God can change the future. He interacts with the flow of history and changes the outcome of the future as it unfolds by His decisions and actions. Notice that this explanation does not mention human free will. True Openness is based upon God Himself and not upon creaturely free will. Openness exists independent of man’s free will because Openness describes God as He always has been and will be, including throughout eternity past. ...

These words were carefully used. I bolded the ones that show Bob allows for some future knowledge. As Bob pointed out and as I want to stress, the future Is always open to change, even to God. Even if God today knows something will happen tomorrow, that is knowledge is open to change. And that is the whole idea.

Bob Enyart said:
So God knows the hearts of men (as all sides agree), and He has influence and power to intervene (as all sides agree), and God would especially intervene to fulfill prophecy

(AND)

God knows us in the womb, after fertilization, but not before. He has the ability to create the first Man possessing a will (as He did), but therefore not to know what Adam would name the animals until he does (Gen. 2:19). He knows what we will say, before we say it, but not before we think it. Sam you quoted Ps. 139:4, “Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.” God knows our thoughts, which precede our words (even for extroverts who “think” by talking). It takes a long time, billions of cycles in computer terms, for “my tongue” to respond to the electro-chemical signals from my brain. Further, you do not “think” with your brain, (this is not an ad hominem, hold on for a moment). Reasoning is a non-physical process. Atoms, regardless of how complex their arrangement, cannot reason. Molecules cannot be self-aware. You do your reasoning (which is a non-material function) not in your brain but in your soul-spirit, which is interfaced to your body through the massive “broadband” wiring of your brain. So, God can read your thoughts, which occur in your spirit, long (in picoseconds, Planck time, or God’s hertz, take your pick) before your mouth can utter your request. So for instances like Mat. 6:8b and Ps. 139:4, God knows what you will need, and even more, He knows what you will ask before you utter your prayer. So Scripture teaches that God knows our thoughts before we speak them, but naturally, not before we think them!

Like Bob Enyart, who had a huge impact on my getting involved in learning scripture and gave me a better understanding of the right biblical political views, Bob Hill gave me a great start on my path to understanding the Bible. They both belong to the Open View, and both helped me in more ways than they will never know.

Bob Hill said to me:
"This doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know any of the future. God knows the future of the events He predetermines. In fact, that is what our Scriptures passage shows us. But, here He is talking about the corporate body of Christ. He foreknew a body of Christ. Anyone in that body of Christ will be conformed to the image of Christ. That's what He explicitly said. He did not say He foreknew who would be saved. “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified" (8:29-32)."
http://bibleconcordances.com/ubb/Forum19/HTML/000002.html


On the same forum, Obidiah agrees with Bob Hill
"The body of Christ is foreknown, chosen and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, holy and blameless before the Father. Notice that in neither passage does it say that we are chosen to be saved or to believe the gospel. In neither passage does it specify that we as individuals are chosen. We enter the picture -- we enter the chosen, predestined body of Christ -- through faith (Ephesians 1:13-14). Once we have entered this glorious reality, we are sealed into it in such a way as never to be lost from it (Ephesians 4:30)."


The future is not a map at all. There are things that God, and even we simple humans, can predict about it with some certainty.

I can do this sometimes. Several times I predicted the responses of lee. I told him what side he would fall on before he told me. And Clete did the same thing, after I wrote my "masterpiece" proof for lee, Clete said lee wouldn't agree. And he was right.

Not to mention all the things my mom told me would happen as I got older. All the proms and dates and ups and downs and graduation and driving and fun times I actually experienced as she said. And the things my dad told me about getting older, the things I would look back on, the way I would get a job and do the things I have, he was right.

Now my dad is telling me I better enjoy my body while it is young.. OH NO! What's going to happen to me? For I know he is right, one day when I am old, my body will not be the same, and I have that to face in the future.

God willing I live to be old enough. If he is willing, I am sure he will do what he can to see that it happens that I live on earth for many years. And then the things I am told will happen to me too, just as they did for my Father.

The future is wide open. A quad-zillion-quad-zillion possibilities for us all, each involving our will to do whatever we choose. As some things are predictable, some things just aren't.

So God knows some future events because he will cause them to happen, such as the Body of Christ as spoken about by Bob Hill and Obadiah. This is not extensive knowledge, it is a simple knowing about it. But there are many aspects about the future that are not knowable. And this is the Open Theist belief. It is not a TOTAL unknowing. And it in no way is an absolute knowing/clear vision/looking into except for those things God has purposed (such as the Body).

Calvinist tragedy
I think even some Calvinist see open possibilities, despite themselves. They won't have any logical explanation for it, but they still believe it. If they didn't why would they try to do anything (That's a joke)?

Calvinism is truly dangerous, not Open Theism. Not only are the implications it has in stating that God's responsibility to us and our predetermined sinful actions are all his, but it puts many well meaning Christians on the sidelines, waiting for some predetermined fate to happen to them. "God has a plan for my life, so I will wait for God to tell me what he wants me to do in regards to ________________."

My best friend had an engagement broke off because his fiancee was waiting for this. She thought waiting for some sign about some predetermined plan was more important than honoring God's command to keep her word and love her husband to be. Throwing out predestination frees people to live their lives. And as true as that statement is, it is not a proof against it. Nonetheless it is a reason to question it, as both you and I do.

But we are not really talking about Calvinist, I just wanted to throw that in there incase anyone would read, and stop the same from happening to them. We are to have life and to live it more abundantly, not sit idle and wait. God would rather we act on our own than we follow some "script".

So, I hope you can see that Open Theism does allow for some future knowledge to a point. But it is with an understanding that even some future knowledge is open to change, because the future is not absolute. We can Trust God do shape our future in heaven to be a wonderful time to live. And that is going to be awesome. He also posses the ability to predict, and some predictions he may be very sure about, but they are not always with absoluteness.
-Patman
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top