seekinganswers
New member
Z Man said:DUCK!!!
Here comes the flak...
And yet before I said this people were amiable to my position.
Peace,
Michael
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
And yet before I said this people were amiable to my position.
Peace,
Michael
Secret sister
New member
Freak said:
1 Samuel 16:14-16 But the spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. {15} And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. {16} Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
2 Sam 12:11* "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
Secret sister
New member
seekinganswers said:
All things are subject to Gods authority, including Satan, demons and evil.
To believe otherwise sets up a system of Dualism
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Lam 3:38 From the mouth of the Most High does not go out the evil and the good.
sentientsynth
New member
ZMan,
Notice that I haven't disputed what you say. Far be it from me to put words in your mouth. I only ask for your take on this verse for my sake, as I've yet to see it profferred to you.
I would say that God is the necessary cause of all things, that He is the required precondition to casuality itself. In other words, by Him all things consist (Col. 1:17; Heb 1:3). Typically, I equate primary cause will efficient cause. For example, the efficient cause of a hurricane is converging winds toward a low-pressure system, evaporative heating of water, and the Coriolis effect, while the necessary cause is the uniformity of nature, which is the active outworking of God. But this, perhaps, is mere hair-splitting. In the final analysis, God is the author of all things and nothing that happens does so without His foreordination.
We could ask ourselves, Would these things have happened had God not passed by? No. They would not have. God did cause them. But He is not in them, just as you say.
Looks good to me.
SS
seekinganswers
New member
Secret sister said:
You cannot apply these verses as generalities for the entirity of the scriptures. In Genesis chapter one God does not create darkness, but in the midst of chaos makes room for what is, i.e. light. God speaks into the darkness and divides it to make space for life, for reality inhabits space, and where there is no space, there is no reality. God must first make space before there can be life. So the first three days consist in God casting out the spacelessness (the void, the tohu vavohu), to make space that allows for life to fill it in the following days.
The Lord in Isaiah is speaking to Cyrus (that is the ruler of the Persian Empire, the empire that brings Israel into captivity in the exhile). And notice, he is not "evil" based on a definition of his person; he is evil because he does know God. Yet there is a reality about Cyrus that transcends his evil. Even cyrus is God's creation who brings glory actively to God through his actions, though he does not know God. God is the one who has made him and God is glorified through him, for he is God's creation (not Marduk's).
Why is it that the Lord goes on to say in verse 12: "I made the earth, and created humankind upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host. I have aroused Cyrus in righteousness, and I will make his paths straight; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward, says the Lord of hosts."
Cyrus is not actively engaged by God for evil but for good, for there is no reality outside of God (neither good nor evil). "Evil" that pretends to be something it is not will be shown for the nothingness it has become, for evil has no reality outside of the righteousness of God. Evil is not a reality. So I have not formed a dualism but a singular reality grounded in God, who creates what is righteous and good, and in whom all good things consist. Evil will not be sustained, but will only survive parasitically through the good. "The Father causes it to rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous"; even the life of the sinner consists in God (not in the sinfulness, but in the Creation, in life). Evil is not a reality in itself; evil is a reality only in as much as participates in the good.
The Lamentations passage begins, "Who can command and have it done if the Lord has not ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should any who draw breath complain about the punishment of their sins?"
The "good and the bad" here are anthropologically defined, not theologically defined. It is the good and bad from the perspective of humanity. But there is but one purpose in God. You have to rememeber that the author is witnessing the horrors of an invasion of the promised land. Israel has fallen (Jerusalem has been destroyed). This is an evil as far as the Jews are concerned. And yet God is responsible for it. But the New Testament and prophetic writers shine light on this; "God punishes those whom he loves." The punishment which is received as an evil (for it seems to use the distortion to correct) only shows that the only reality is in God, so that even those who reject God can be used to fulfill God's purposes (for Israel).
The evil is not a reality! The only reality is held in God, in whom the Creation consists (not the non-creation). God only sustains life; death is a mere absence of it. And death is truly powerless before God, for death only has substance within the context of life. That which has no life cannot die. And the one who gives life is untouched by death. Death is not a reality; it is the distortion of reality. And it is only in the distortion of the good that death has power. When death destroys life, its power ends. Yet God can raise the dead!
You are the one creating a dualism, for you have set aside two types of Creation, a duality of the will of God. God desires both salvation and wrath. And it is this duality that will cause you to picture a trinity that is schitzophrenic. The Father is wrathful while the Son is merciful. And what you have failed to see is that in Christ the fulness of the Father is revealed. The Son and the Father a fully disclosed to one another. So God is unified in purpose, which is a purpose for life and salvation to all. And it is not forced, for life is a gift not an obligation (if life had been an obligation, it would no longer be life). Life is a gift, and it is sustained in God, not controlled by God. Like the tree away from water, the life appart from God will wither and die. It won't become something else; it will only return to the dust.
Peace,
Michael
Two excellent reasons to be suspicious of your theology, as both of these men founded their theology on Neo-Platonic philosophy rather than strictly on the Word of God.seekinganswers said:
Why do you bring up a point which you know will cast suspicion on your theology? Sounds sort of theologically masochistic to me. :hammer:
Resting in Him,
Clete
"theologically masochistic" :chuckle:Clete said:
Silk Queen
New member
BUMP.
Actually, anyone should believe that anything that exists exists now.Evee said:
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man,
I'm still waiting for a response to post 2458.
Thanks
I'm still waiting for a response to post 2458.
Thanks
No, I'm not being sarcastic at all. The past is remembered, the future is anticipated, existence is now. Time travel is impossible because you cannot travel to places which do not exist.Evee said:
What about this belief has anything to do with atheism?
I don't see the contection but am eager to clear up whatever problem you think this idea presents. Could you flesh out this question for me? That is, could you tell me what your line of thought was that lead you to ask this question?
Resting in Him,
Clete
seekinganswers
New member
Clete said:
And would it intrest you to know that for me my life now is held in God, as are the lives of all those who came before us (even those in the grave). And God's purpose for life in the future gives me hope for the future. The past, the present, and the future (telos or culmination) are held in God, while I am resigned to the present. But through Christ I am compelled to be united not only with those who come before me, but also in faithfulness to those who will come after me. God is greater than the now. If he holds the lives of all who came before us, than he is greater than the present. The question is whether God holds the future as well. In Christ that is assured (there is hope for the future; it is not uncertain). And it is the past, present and future reality of Christ that assure us of this hope.
God does not live in the present. God resides within God's own will, which encompasses time and space and the Creation itself.
Peace,
Michael
Z Man
New member
Isaiah 45:7God_Is_Truth said:
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.
I interpret this passage to say that God creates calamity. How is that interpretation wrong, given that it's pretty clear and straight from God's mouth Himself?
Yes, we need to figure out what Jesus is saying apart from certain theological positions, but NOT apart from God's Biblical character. If God clearly states in Isaiah 45:7 that He creates calamity, I'm sure we can apply that statement throughout the Bible. It's a given when Jesus talks about the tower - a certain calamity - that God must've been the cause, given the creditials we read about His character throughout the rest of the Bible.
Yeah, I'm against people interpreting the Bible from their theological, indoctrinated opinions, but not against interpreting it using the whole text.
Don't underestimate the wisdom of God. What about the weakness and shamefulness of the cross would bring God glory? God uses weakness and calamities to display His glory:
1 Corinthians 1:25, 27-29
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence.
2 Corinthians 2:9-10
And God said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
I don't think Jesus has to say 'glory' everytime He speaks for us to understand that glory is always given to God.
I don't think, as you have stated earlier, that we should build a doctrine upon one verse, let alone one word within a parable, because of it's 'vagueness and generalities'. Personally, I don't believe Jesus is promoting the idea of a world governed by chance in the parable of the good Samaritin. I believe He was using a figure of speech known as 'tropes'. Tropes has several sub-categories to it, such as hyperbole, antonomasia, auxesis, and euphemism, to name a few.
I'm not so sure that I'd agree with you on that one. I mean, I don't think it's logical to believe in God - it takes faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself is illogical - it takes faith. For God to always have existed is illogical and incomprehendable to me. For everything to come out of nothing by God's spoken word is illogical and incomprehendable. Nothing about God can be explained logically - Christianity is a belief grounded in faith. Faith goes where logic cannot.
Isaiah 55:8
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
We cannot make the mistake of holding God accountable to our attributes and characteristics. He's not human - He can do anything He pleases. His very existence is baffling to us; why doubt that He can control all things?
seekinganswers
New member
Clete said:
Because if you reject my position based on association, than you have engaged in fallacy. And in stating my position, I am being as truthful as I can be.
You are arrogant. Both Augustine and Aquinas have influenced Christianity beyond what you even realize. Does this make them always right? No. But you cannot dismiss them. If you dismiss them, you have undermined the very foundation of your thinking. Whether you like it or not, Greek thought is at the core of Modernism and the Enlightenment. To pretend that it is not is just plain ignorant. And Christians are indebted to both Augustine and Aquinas, for they, if anything, set the mode of thought that would continue for thousands of years (their systematic theology lies at the foundation of even the Protestants). It is not until the past 150 years that anyone else has come close to setting them aside, and even now it is difficult to set them aside altogether.
If we think we have the ability to rise above our ancestors (whether by blood or in ideology) we have engaged in the worse pride there is. And it is a pride that comes to us through Modernity, which pretends that it can look to the past in an unbiased manner in order to overcome it. And what is established is a quaint mythology that makes us feel better about ourselves, and allows us to ignore the very sins inherent to our thought.
Christ didn't come in a new way. Christ himself was indebted to the prophets of Israel, and he came within the context of Israel, and he never displaced Israel for something else. If we cannot see that when Christ comes he is imbedded in the Creation (with contingencies and such), than we are as guilty as the gnostics who pretended that Christ is something else. Christ came in the flesh, and if we do not receive him in all the contingencies that the flesh entails, than we have not received Christ (as the early church was very serious about emphasizing).
We know nothing about Christ except through the tradition, for Christ must be handed down to us through the ages. And though we can gripe and moan about it, we are stuck with it. Augustine and Aquinas were much more wise than you are, for they did not pretend that they were closer to the beginning than those who came before them. You, Clete, would claim to know more about Christ 1400 years after Augustine, who was only a few hundred years out from Christ. And it is for this reason that the scriptures have been used in our age to justify atrocity. The scriptures have been united to the liberal project of the Nation-state, and you don't even realize it. As Haurwas puts it so bluntly: "It is the job of the church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual North American Christians...for they are far too corrupt to be reading the scriptures on their own."
It is not enough to read the scriptures. Anything we read can be forced to say what we want it to say. It is important that we first learn how to read, and then we will find that we must be transformed before we find ourselves within the narrative of the scriptures.
Peace,
Michael
Peace,
Michael
seekinganswers said:
What does any of that mean?!!!
Why do you find it necessary to speak in code?
If you can unpack this and translate it into normal English, I'll read it with interest, otherwise it will get ignored along with 90% of everything else you say.
I don't understand why people want to intentionally make it difficult for others to understand them! :kookoo:
Resting in Him,
Clete