Nang
TOL Subscriber
So you believe 2/3 of God died but 1/3 did not? The Son died and the Holy Spirit died but the Father did not?
Is this your explanation of your belief that God died on the cross?
Cite Scripture please . . .
ECT The Calvinist 5 Solas
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
So you believe 2/3 of God died but 1/3 did not? The Son died and the Holy Spirit died but the Father did not?
Is this your explanation of your belief that God died on the cross?
Cite Scripture please . . .
Saying it doesn't make it so.
All you have to do to get my "interpretation and related doctrines" out of Romans is to read the book and take it to mean what the simple surface reading of the text would seem to mean. It doesn't take a theologian to get my doctrine out of Romans. It takes a sixth grade or higher level of reading skills and very little, if anything, else.
Why do you feel justified in adding to the word of God?
The bible, by and large, means pretty much exactly what it says. All you have to do is read it. There are passages that are more difficult than others but its a thick book and the most important points are repeated several times so that even someone who is stubbornly ignorant usually gets the point.
But Proverbs 3:5 does not instruct us to disregard sound reason. To do so would be to disregard God Himself for He is Reason incarnate! (Romans 1)
And it most definitely does not say "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; of what a verse means." You added that rediculous part!
You want to make it impossible to even argue agaist poor doctrine, never mind prove it false? Is that your goal? Because that's the road that little tidbit of foolishness puts you on. How are you going to argue against a man who claims to have gotten his doctrine by means of the Holy Spirit Himself?
NO!
Reading the bible is not an excercise in mysticism or miraculous revelation! The writing of the bible is where all that happened. It is the Holy Spirit who inspired it's writing and because He is the Author, there can be no reading of it where He is not involved in the first place and I, for one, have full confidence in His ability to write a book that I can understand without His having to supernaturally explain it to me.
Clete
Last edited:
You're just stupid.
I already cited scripture and I didn't say a word about THE Holy Spirit per se.
God the Son existed before He became Jesus. He existed as a Spiritual being. Jesus' Spirit was not the Holy Spirit or else the Holy Spirit could not have come down from Heaven in the form of a dove to light on Him when He was baptized by John. God the Son, the Spiritual part of Jesus, was separated both from His physical body (physical death) and from the Father (spiritual death) (Mark 15:33-39). He was then later raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Romans 8)
It is worth pointing out, however, that there is but One God and that there is a real sense in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all One. We are told by Jesus Himself, for example, that He has the power to both lay down His life and to pick it back up again (John, 10:18) and in Romans 10:9-10 we are told the "God raised Him from the dead" and so we see then that the entire Godhead was involved in the process of the gospel.
The bottom line is this. If you do not believe that God the Son died, you are still in your sins and will be made to pay your own sin debt in full unless you repent and believe in your heart that God not only died for your sins but that He was raised from the dead on the third day as the scriptures record.
Clete
Last edited:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Agreed.
Do you believe in the hypostatic union that existed in Jesus Christ; revealed as the Son of Man and the Son of God?
So you do not believe the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are the same?
Agreed.
It is more than "sense." It is biblical Truth.
Have you ever pondered or studied the Athanasian Creed?
Agreed:
The Father raised Jesus Christ from death:
"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Galatians 1:1
The Son raised Himself from death:
" Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19
The Holy Spirit raised Jesus Christ from death:
"If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." Romans 8:11
Proving all three Persons of the Godhead together, performed the resurrection of Christ:
"And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power." I Cor. 6:14
I believe God sent forth His Son into this world, who was born from the womb of woman; being fully God and fully Man. This God/Man willingly assumed the flesh of His brethren in order to vicariously suffer death to remit their sins. The Son of Man sacrifically gave His life's blood to remit the sins of His children. He suffered the full judgment from God on behalf of those He came to redeem and died physically; only to raise Himself from death to prove He was the Son of God & the Messiah ("Seed") who was promised to mankind by Godly Covenant from before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:1-14
The Godhead did not die. It is impossible that the Persons of the Trinity be separated. The resurrection of Jesus is revelation that only through the workings of Triune God was the power of the devil destroyed, sins were remitted, Godly justice satisfied, and death was overcome with Life. Hebrews 2:1-3:6
I believe that God the Son became flesh, lived a sinless life, died and then rose from the dead.
Jesus was 100% as much God as He had ever been and remains so to this day both a human male and the Creator God.
This is a yes and and a no.
There is some sense in which God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all One and the very same singular God. But there is also some sense in which they are not the same or else there'd be no meaning to making the distinction between the Three Persons of the Trinity.
And so, it was God the Son who died, not God the Holy Spirit, except in the sense in which the two aren't two but One, the details of which are not explained to us in scripture and so cannot be known to us at this time.
No, it is not more than "sense"! The biblical truth is that in some sense the Three Persons of the Trinity are all on SINGULAR God and there is some sense in which the SINGULAR God is three individual persons.
As I said a moment ago, the details of how this works and what the precise nature of the Divine Relationship is, isn't explained to us. We are simply taught in various ways throughout the scripture that there is one singular God who manifests in three persons.
The reason it is important to put it such terms is in order to avoid contradiction. It is not true, for example, that God is BOTH singular AND plural at the same time and in the same sense. That would be an open and inexplicable contradiction that cannot be true. There is no such thing as an irrational truth. God Himself is Reason. To accept an irrational proposition as truth is literally anti-Christ because it was the Logos of God (i.e. the Reason Himself) that became flesh and dwelt amoung us.
I've heard of it but I'm not even a little bit interested in the creeds of men. Even if I happen to agree with what it says (which I may or may not), the entire idea of "Creeds" is dangerous ground to say the least and it is particularly out of place for the Calvinist who is just completely obsessed with the doctrine of sola scriptura - not that such a glaringly obvious conflict ever prevents them reading, adopting, endorsing, enforcing or otherwise clinging to creeds of all sorts.
Quite so and yet there is One and only One God.
This was clearly mostly gleaned from some creed or another and as far as it goes, it is correct except that the penalty for sin is not merely physical death but seperation from God which is what spiritual death is. (Romans 7:9)
Jesus stated explicitly that the Father had forsaken Him while He was still on the cross. This seperation that occured, however breif it might have been was the full price that Christ paid. We can know, by the way, that the seperation was for the duration of the time that Jesus was in the grave because He tells Mary Magdalene that He had not yet ascended to His Father when she found Him near the empty tomb. (John 20:17)
This is about as close to a denial of the gospel that one can get without having actually done so, especially in the context of this immediate discussion. Indeed, depending on just what you mean, it may well be a bridge too far.
Further, there is no biblical reason for you to believe this anyway. This is just your Calvinism talking. That is to say that you cannot see the clearly stated biblical proof that I've presented because of your allegience to the literally idiotic doctrine of imuutability that no one in all the world would believe if not for a homosexual Greek philosopher who lost his senses in the company of beautiful boys (i.e. Socrates).
Clete
Last edited:
Dialogos
Well-known member
Responding to Clete
Responding to Clete
Clete,
Life is busy, but here's my response.
It is really unfortunate that you get so worked up. If you were to keep your wits about yourself you might actually learn a thing or two.
As it stands, you last post is a veritable catalog of logical errors.
The first one is your persistence in pushing down a straw man. Do Calvinists believe that God’s election is “arbitrary?”
R.C. Sproul says the following in a “Tabletalk” article:
Your claims that we all really, secretly, believe in an arbitrary election without being willing to admit it is the very rhetoric one would expect to hear from someone who refuses to let go of their logical error.
For those who care about things like logic, take note, this is a textbook strawman fallacy.
A second, major flaw in your argument is that you refuse to take into account, the evidence that I have provided. For example, in my claim that the bible speaks of God predestining “individuals” you say the following:
I have repeatedly done so already. You ignore them.
John 6:37 is one, you can’t answer it so you ignore it.
Romans 8:29 is another you didn’t answer.
Both show that God predestines “individuals.”
Your theology can’t accommodate the clear implications of those verses and so you come up with clever ways to explain them away.
Such as, “you see, God isn’t predestining individuals, it is like God has a bucket…….”
Or your version, “American Airlines predestines flights everyday but have no idea who will fill the seats..”
This is merely an attempt to explain away scripture rather than faithfully explain it.
Shame on you!
Listen to God’s word, Clete!
The reason you don’t want to talk about this passage (or John 6) is because they so very clearly exemplify the flaw in your theology. So instead of seeing the problem you choose to ignore it.
I’d be happy to debate a thread on either of those verses or both if you want to drill down. But you won’t, because you know that a clear exegesis of those verses will destroy your stupid American Airlines analogy, which is really just an attempt at explaining away those passages rather than embracing what they clearly say.
Regarding our discussion of immutability and impassibility you said:
We know, that God in His nature, character, plan and purpose do not change because if God were to change his ultimate plan it would indicate that the plan from which He deviated would was flawed or inferior.
Which is apparently what you think happened in Numbers 14. Moses talked God off the ledge, so to speak… right?
This does not preclude the very real interaction that God has with His creation in time (like Moses in Numbers 14). God planned (before time) to alter His perceived trajectory (in time). I commend the approach of John Frame in this regard.
Perhaps you think my approach, or Frame’s approach isn’t “Calvinistic” enough.
Neither of us care.
I challenge the notion that the immutability of God is primarily a notion derived from Plato, it is clear from the passages that I provided that the notion has strong biblical support and derivation. I am sure you will continue with your assertion that Plato said the same thing.
My response is:
So?
Broken clocks and blind squirrels…
How do you answer the very clear similarities between the way you see God and the way the Greeks saw Zeus?
I’ll bet that bakes your noodle a bit.
Please, don’t take a trip through your own theological salad bar and then sit down to criticize me for not accepting the house dressing.
Now, you seem to take issue my analogy regarding God’s permissive will by saying the following:
The analogy is not, you, sitting at home drinking chamomile wondering if you daughter might possibly be driving too fast. It is you, giving her the keys, knowing that she will, or sitting right next to her silently as you both watch the needle on the speedometer climb while she puts the pedal to the floor.
At some point you don’t get to claim you didn’t allow it to happen.
The difference, of course, is that I, and the Calvinists you so despise, recognize that God can be fully in control of all things (something you must deny) and also perfectly holy, just and righteous. We simply ascribe to God the ability to see exactly how allowing what He allows ends up validating Romans 8:28, whereas you limit God to thinking exactly like you do.
Did God permit the fall?
Yes or no?
I believe no such thing.
You have made God in your own creaturely image; you are an idolater. You have done exactly what David said in Psalm 135 the nations do, when they make their idols.
This powerless, forgetful thing you have created isn’t the God of Isaiah 46, ”declaring the end from the beginning..”
Repent.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Repent, while there is yet time.
Responding to Clete
Clete,
Life is busy, but here's my response.
It is really unfortunate that you get so worked up. If you were to keep your wits about yourself you might actually learn a thing or two.
As it stands, you last post is a veritable catalog of logical errors.
The first one is your persistence in pushing down a straw man. Do Calvinists believe that God’s election is “arbitrary?”
R.C. Sproul says the following in a “Tabletalk” article:
You say:Table Talk said:
…Because it’s a canard, a straw man… Sproul’s article proves it.
Your claims that we all really, secretly, believe in an arbitrary election without being willing to admit it is the very rhetoric one would expect to hear from someone who refuses to let go of their logical error.
For those who care about things like logic, take note, this is a textbook strawman fallacy.
A second, major flaw in your argument is that you refuse to take into account, the evidence that I have provided. For example, in my claim that the bible speaks of God predestining “individuals” you say the following:
:doh:Clete said:
I have repeatedly done so already. You ignore them.
John 6:37 is one, you can’t answer it so you ignore it.
Romans 8:29 is another you didn’t answer.
Both show that God predestines “individuals.”
Your theology can’t accommodate the clear implications of those verses and so you come up with clever ways to explain them away.
Such as, “you see, God isn’t predestining individuals, it is like God has a bucket…….”
Or your version, “American Airlines predestines flights everyday but have no idea who will fill the seats..”
This is merely an attempt to explain away scripture rather than faithfully explain it.
Shame on you!
Listen to God’s word, Clete!
God’s Word said:
The reason you don’t want to talk about this passage (or John 6) is because they so very clearly exemplify the flaw in your theology. So instead of seeing the problem you choose to ignore it.
I’d be happy to debate a thread on either of those verses or both if you want to drill down. But you won’t, because you know that a clear exegesis of those verses will destroy your stupid American Airlines analogy, which is really just an attempt at explaining away those passages rather than embracing what they clearly say.
Regarding our discussion of immutability and impassibility you said:
Many do not. I happen to think that God’s interaction with His creation is genuine and yet also maintaining that God is still omniscient (which necessitates God knowing the future) and ordains both the ends and the means. So, for example, when it appears that Moses persuades God to relent from wiping out Israel in Numbers 14, I believe God knew that Moses would intercede and that He would respond and relent. God was both present “above” time and “in” time, so to speak.Clete said:
We know, that God in His nature, character, plan and purpose do not change because if God were to change his ultimate plan it would indicate that the plan from which He deviated would was flawed or inferior.
Which is apparently what you think happened in Numbers 14. Moses talked God off the ledge, so to speak… right?
This does not preclude the very real interaction that God has with His creation in time (like Moses in Numbers 14). God planned (before time) to alter His perceived trajectory (in time). I commend the approach of John Frame in this regard.
Perhaps you think my approach, or Frame’s approach isn’t “Calvinistic” enough.
Neither of us care.
I challenge the notion that the immutability of God is primarily a notion derived from Plato, it is clear from the passages that I provided that the notion has strong biblical support and derivation. I am sure you will continue with your assertion that Plato said the same thing.
My response is:
So?
Broken clocks and blind squirrels…
How do you answer the very clear similarities between the way you see God and the way the Greeks saw Zeus?
People make provisional plans all the time. Why do you assume God is incapable of it? God planned to do “X” if people do “A” and planned to do “Y” if people do “B.”Clete said:
Yes. But Whose plan was it to send Jonah to preach Nineveh toward repentance?Clete said:
I’ll bet that bakes your noodle a bit.
I am what I am and that’s all that I am (apologies to Popeye for appropriating his moto). I’m not sure why you think I covet the label in the first place. I’m much more interested in being considered a faithful expositor of God’s word than I am concerned with maintaining the label “Calvinist.” Can you say the same for your “open theism?”Clete said:
Clete, TOL is filled with folks who, quite literally, cherry pick their doctrinal stances from a diverse set of theological backgrounds. Your own is likely an amalgamation of cherry-picked doctrines from dispensationalism and open theism. You don’t think Greg Boyd is a mid-acts dispensationalist, do you? How about John Sanders, do you think you both hold to the same view on inclusivism? You don’t think John Nelson Darby was an open theist, do you?Clete said:
Please, don’t take a trip through your own theological salad bar and then sit down to criticize me for not accepting the house dressing.
Now, you seem to take issue my analogy regarding God’s permissive will by saying the following:
Well, in one sense it sure does. But your analogy is flawed because of your own limitations as a creature rather than Creator.Clete said:
The analogy is not, you, sitting at home drinking chamomile wondering if you daughter might possibly be driving too fast. It is you, giving her the keys, knowing that she will, or sitting right next to her silently as you both watch the needle on the speedometer climb while she puts the pedal to the floor.
At some point you don’t get to claim you didn’t allow it to happen.
The difference, of course, is that I, and the Calvinists you so despise, recognize that God can be fully in control of all things (something you must deny) and also perfectly holy, just and righteous. We simply ascribe to God the ability to see exactly how allowing what He allows ends up validating Romans 8:28, whereas you limit God to thinking exactly like you do.
Stating it emphatically isn’t the same as proving it.Clete said:
Did God permit the fall?
Yes or no?
:yawn:Clete said:
I’ll call you when your opinion makes a difference on the matter.Clete said:
Liar.Clete said:
I believe no such thing.
Now you are projecting. I’m not the one who thinks God has short term memory loss (vis a vis our conversation regarding Ahaz).Clete said:
Wrong and wrong.Clete said:
And YOU choose to believe, contrary to both scripture and logic, that God is unaware of the possibilities a man of average intelligence could easily prognosticate and powerless to prevent his creatures from doing bad, bad things.Clete said:
You have made God in your own creaturely image; you are an idolater. You have done exactly what David said in Psalm 135 the nations do, when they make their idols.
This powerless, forgetful thing you have created isn’t the God of Isaiah 46, ”declaring the end from the beginning..”
Repent.
You’re an angry little elf, aren’t you?Clete said:
You are a clown, a tragic little clown... :zakath:Clete said:
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Repent, while there is yet time.
Last edited:
ttruscott
Well-known member
Ummm, of course but what Sproul ignores is that this purpose of election of some says NOTHING about HIS supposed purpose for the non-election of others, their being passed over for election and therefore salvation for nor reason that any condition or dismerit was found in them.
Sproul often has quite pithy one liners but they dismay me when I realize they are to up his credentials when he preaches such blasphemy as UNconditional election and non-election and inherited sin, sigh.
Dialogos
Well-known member
This is a nonsensical statement.
The elect were chosen to receive salvation from their sin. The non-elect were left in their sin.
Out of curiosity, what do you think salvation is in your theological framework?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Calvinism teaches that "all" were made sinners as a result of Adam's sin and not just "many." The word "many" must have the same meaning both times it is used at verse 19 and it is certain that "many" but not "all" will be made righteous.
Do you agree?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
In order for anyone to have the Lord Jesus as his federal head a person must do something, and that is to believe.
Before anyone can haveadam as his federal head that person must also do something, and that is to sin.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What kind of "death" do you think is being referred to in the following verse, Dialogos?:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).
Thanks!
It doesn't prove it!
I've already acknowledged many times, and you have ignored it as many times, that of course Calvinists don’t typically put their doctrine in the terms in which I express them and that they very often give lip service to the opposite of what their doctrines actually teach. What Sproul calles “Table Talk” is actually just so much “Double Talk”!
I have quoted and requoted original sources, citing the specific book and chapter in which those quotes are from so that anyone who wants to can easily find them and check to see if that which I have quoted gives an accurate picture of what was actually being said.
Do you ever go to those sources to prove that I've set up a straw man argument?
NO!
You know why?! It's because it wouldn't help you to establish such a claim, that's why!
I don't frankly care what Sproul claims in some article or sermon he gives! The doctrines which he believes and teaches others to believe speak for themselves. The fact that he even feels the need to state otherwise is evidence of what those doctrine teach. No one will ever accuse me of teaching a doctrine that makes God even seem like He might be arbitrary. I won't ever see any need to give lip service to God's justice in response to someone quoting the source material of my most basic and foundational doctrines. It would never occur to anyone to make such an accusation against me because, unlike Sproul and other Calvinists, I don't start with a pagan doctrine of immutability, I start with God's justice!
It isn't a secret! What are you talking about?
Look, I don't know if you're just intentionally misrepresenting my position or if you actually don't get it so I'm going to make so plain and easy that a third grade child could not miss it.
I am not saying that Sproul is lying, in the sense that he doesn't believe what he is saying, he believes both contradictory things! That's why he calls it a "mystery". The point is, however, that he forms his doctrine and creates his entire theological worldview around the belief that God is arbitrary.
You can see it in the very quote you provided. He states that God is not arbitrary and then states that God is arbitrary! That's what he does! Don't believe me? Let's look...
Clearly, then, in the mystery of the grace of God, He is never whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary.
That much is clear enough, right? No wiggle room for misunderstanding him there but then one might wonder why such a clear statement could be considered a “mystery”. He explains when he says this...
Though the reason for our salvation does not rest in us, that does not mean that God is without a purpose in choosing His elect.
This is what Ayn Rand, an atheist, called a Stolen Concept Fallacy.Sproul here has stolen the concept of justice. Can you see it? No, of course, you cannot. I’ll explain…
Calvinists don't just believe that "the reason for our salvation does not rest in us", they also believe that the reason for our reprobation does not rest in us, either. In fact, you couldn't rationally believe the one without believing the other. Reprobation is just the condition one's find themself by virtue of having not been selected for salvation. Thus, as far as the reason not resting in us in concerned, before that selection takes place, all are the same.
How does that apply to justice? Well if you are punished for a reason that does not rest in you then whoever is doing that punishing is unjust, by definition and is, therefore, being arbitrary, also by definition. Thus, Sproul puts forward the notion that God's purpose is good (i.e. just) but denies the premise upon which the concept of justice is logically based. That is as text book an example of a Stolen Concept as you will ever find.
So, yes, Sproul and pretty much all but the most stridently irrational Calvinist will give lip service to God's justice and will acknowledge His justice while still believing that God predestines people to an eternal punishment for no reason that is found in those being punished and will chalk the incongruity up to "mystery" or "antinomy", not caring to even attempt to reconcile the obvious contradiction.
Only your inaccurate representation of my argument is a straw man. In effect, you've used the idea of a straw man argument as a straw man argument! It would be pretty clever had you done it intentionally.
I didn't ignore them! I specifically made the point that you make the claim that the Bible explicitly says God predestines “individuals.” (The quotes there are your quotes, not mine.), then you cite passages that just flatly do not explicitly state that God predestines individuals. They just do not! I don't know what else to tell you! I mean, I can post the verses...
John6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
Romans 8:29 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.
Romans 8:29 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.
There! Feel better?
I don't see how you could! Neither of those verses even come close to "explicitly saying that God predestines “individuals.””, which is your claim!
Can it be that your doctrine so colors your perception of the scripture that you actually think that those two verses are explicit examples of Calvinist doctrine?
Surely not!
Implications?
Implications?!
Your claim wasn't about implications! Your claim was that those verses were EXPLCIT statements of Calvinist doctrine! Are you now, one sentence after having told me that I ignored you, agreeing with me!
Do you understand the difference between "explicit" and "implicit"?
What's more is that neither of those two passages even imply that individuals were predestined! They might can be construed to imply that but you'd have to bring the doctrine with you to the reading in order to get that, especially if you were to read more than just one verse at a time.
I’ve said a thousand times and I'll say it again now. Not one single syllable of Calvinism's distinctive doctrines is found anywhere in the bible. All of it, every single point, must be brought to the reading of scripture in an a priori fashion. That's how Augustine was shown to do it and that's how ever single Christian who has bought this heresy every since then has done it - including you.
Hypocrite!
It is you and those who taught you Calvinism who bring doctrines to the bible rather than drawing them from it.
I've ignored nothing. In fact, I responded to it directly. You just didn't like my response because you somehow think that "implicit" and "explicit" are synonyms.
This was a lie!
If such were true, you would have simply done it here and now! Instead, you want to pretend like I'm afraid of the bible! Who are you trying to convince here, yourself perhaps?
Go ahead! Prove it! You’ll only make a fool of yourself in the attempt!
The problem for you is that you don’t get to simply pick and choose which premises you’re going to ignore while hanging onto the concepts which are based on them. It just doesn’t work that way. At least not in any sort of worldview that is at all rational.
And in any case, all you saying here is that you reject Calvinism! If God’s state of mind can change then He is not impassible. If He is not impassible then He is not immutable – by definition! If He is not immutable then the entire construct of the Calvinist system falls to pieces! The reason Calvinist believe that God is a know it all control freak is because He’d have to be mutable if He weren’t! The only reason Calvinism exists at all is because Augustine introduced the Classics into Christianity when his mother’s bishop explained to him how to interpret the scripture in light of Aristotle’s and Plato’s philosophy, which he had used as a reason to reject the bible as childish because it taught that God could change His mind.
Also, it isn’t “relent”. You’ve cited the original language at me a few times. Look it up. The text says that God repented, not relented. The two words are not synonyms and the only reason modern translators use ‘relent’ is precisely because they are all Calvinists and couldn’t bring themselves to translate it correctly. I have no idea how they think ‘relent’ salvages their doctrine but regardless, the term in the original is used hundreds of times throughout the bible and is correctly translated “repent”.
Stupidity.
You just got through denying that God is impassible. So how then does this same logic not apply to God’s state of mind? “If God were to change His state of mind, it would indicate that the state of mind from which He deviated was flawed or inferior.” That’s the logic! See what I mean about not getting to simply pick and choose which doctrines you like and which you don’t?! It doesn’t work!
Having said that, I agree that God has certain things in mind that He will cause to take place. He has an end goal in mind and He will achieve it but not because He has every event predestined nor is it because He took a peek into the future to see how it would all come out. On the contrary! He has plans both for us and for Himself that He has the power, will and wisdom to carry out regardless of who or what stands in His way.
You know, if you put words in my mouth that imply a blasphemous attitude, but it is my understanding of the passage that is correct, then it is you who is guilty of the blasphemy, not me. In other words, if Numbers 14 means what it seems to say, then that would mean that you think that God was, in fact, “talked off the ledge”. You’d better hope it doesn’t mean what it says!
There are several passages where God is talked out of doing that which He thought, and even said, that he was going to do. Number 14:20 is one of the most obvious and impossible to deny…
Numbers 14: 11 Then the LORD said to Moses: “How long will these people reject Me? And how long will they not believe Me, with all the [signs which I have performed among them? 12 I will strike them with the pestilence and disinherit them, and I will make of you a nation greater and mightier than they.”
20 Then the LORD said: “I have pardoned, according to your [Moses’] word;
20 Then the LORD said: “I have pardoned, according to your [Moses’] word;
No, He didn’t. There can be no such thing as “before” time – by definition. There is not one single hint of anything that resembles a biblical teaching of God existing outside of time, which is a really good thing, by the way, because if it did, it would be proof that the bible was a false, made up fairy-tale for children.
You’re a pathetic fool.
Do you think I’m making up totally well documented and easily confirmable and not even disputed history?
The history of immutability starts with Plato and goes from there, some 800 years later, to Ambrose of Milan and to Augustine of Milan who wrote his “Confessions” in which he states that in the works of the Platonists, “God and His word are everywhere implied.”. From there, the doctrine finds its way into the Catholic tradition (Augustine being considered by the Catholics to be a “Father of the Church”). Then about 1100 years after Augustine, Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, nails his 95 thesis to the church door in Worms, German and shortly thereafter, the Tryant of Geneva, John Calvin writes his “Institutes” which formalized Luther’s “Reformed” Augustinian theology and Calvinism is born. Then about 400 years after that, someone taught the same exact line of thinking that Socrates used in Plato’s writings to you and then you used it to try to convince me that God’s plans cannot change.
Thus is the entire history of Calvinism in one paragraph!
The doctrine of divine immutability nor any other distinctively Calvinist doctrine existed anywhere in the church or in the Jewish tradition that preceded it until Augustine who proudly states that he got it from Plato.
Now, that’s just the facts of reality. You can reject it if you want and play pretend like it isn’t true if you want but it won’t change the facts.
I’ve already responded to this!
It is not my argument that immutability is false because Plato believed it! That isn’t the argument! If it were, you’d have an excellent point! But it isn’t and so you don’t.
It isn’t that Calvinism’s immutability is similar to Plato’s, it’s that it is identical to it and in fact can be historically traced and inextricably connected to it!
There is no such historical linkage that can be found anywhere connecting my doctrine with any belief concerning Zeus. In fact, all Open Theism really is, is a continuation of Luther’s work except that instead of removing the influence of Rome from Christian doctrine, it is the influence of Greece that we are excising. It is nothing more than the consistent application of Luther’s own petition which states “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”
And I mean that quite literally. There is no book anywhere that makes any argument for Open Theism that is derived from anything remotely Greek in origin, nor is there any author who has any ties to or prior allegiance to any pagan philosophy as Augustine not only had but proudly retained and willfully applied to his reading of the scripture.
This most certainly is not Calvinist doctrine! This is Open Theism!
There is no “if people do” in Calvinism! Calvinism teaches that there is God’s plan and nothing else. That it is a perfect plan that cannot change or else God would break and that therefore everything that anyone does and every other event that happens as well, was all preplanned, orchestrated, ordained, and predestined by God Himself BEFORE time even began.
Go tell your pastor that you dared to tell someone you don’t even know that God has contingency plans!
Be sure to film it! I want to see his head spin off his shoulders!!
This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen?
Why would that “bake my noodle”?
And, by the way, now who’s attempting to avoid the plain reading of scripture? I mean you can’t get any more explicit than the whole book of Jonah, the entire point of which is stated in chapter 3 verse 10…
Jonah 3:10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
Notice what that says! God had said that He would being a disaster upon them but He did not do it.
I mean, case closed!
I am a proud open theist but not because of the title but because there isn’t anyone who can present arguments that would make me decide there is a need to pick and choose the doctrines which it teaches the way I’ve forced you to do.
Not that you’re alone in that, by the way. The same sort of thing happens all the time. When people cannot defend a Calvinist doctrine, they have two choices, they can reject it or they can ignore it. If they reject it, as you have, then I’ve won the debate because, like I’ve already said, picking and choosing which doctrines your want and don’t want to cling too simply doesn’t work. Words mean things and ideas have consequences. You cannot reject bits and pieces of immutability without tacitly rejecting it entirely. The same is true with Calvinism as a whole.
One major advantage that Calvinist typically have against Arminianists, especially in debates, is that the Calvinist is, in regards to its foundational premises, logically consistent with itself. It truly is constructed upon the premise of the absolute, utterly total immutability of God. If you even touch that doctrine a little bit, the whole thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards.
Of course, most people who call themselves Calvinists don’t have any idea about the philosophical underpinnings of their doctrine, nor of its historical origins and so they can quite confortably pick and choose, as you do, without having any inkling of the damage they’ve done to their entire theological worldview. They simply believe what they believe and that because of what they heard the “expert” behind the pulpit told them to believe.
You have no such excuse! You are not the mindless sheep following the herd for the sake of following the herd. You know better and choose to be inconsistent rather than to reject your precious doctrine, which is Calvinism at its core, whether you choose to call it that or not.
Exactly!
Sheesh, how is it possible that you cannot see how you just made my point?
Just what is it that you think is meant by “cherry picking”?
Your argument here is that if I’m not in 100% agreement with Greg Boyd and John Sanders that I am somehow therefore cherry picking my doctrine?!
Is that really why you think it means to cherry pick doctrines?
I’ve been a Christian since I was in third grade and since then I have, at one time or another, believed in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of doctrines to one degree or another. I was the epitome of the one who is blown about by every wind of doctrine. I always wondered why some Christians believed one thing while others believed the opposite and was always amazed at how each could make the claim that theirs was the biblically correct position.
I had no idea who was right and who wasn’t. I knew what I believed and I had some idea of why I believed it. What I was doing was a form of cherry picking but it wasn’t the doctrines that I’d cherry pick for the sake of the doctrines themselves but rather it was the arguments that I heard someone use to support that doctrine. I say it was cherry picking because there was no underlying principle, no common thread that connected them all together. I didn’t care is the argument came from a Baptist or a Pentecostal. It didn’t matter to me if I heard the argument in Sunday School, saw it on the Trinity Broadcasting Network or read it in a book. It didn’t matter. All that mattered was whether the argument made sense and was congruent with the rest of Christianity (i.e. the undisputed parts).
That continued until I came across a theological system that did far more than just make excellent arguments for its particular distinctive doctrines but provided an underlying frame work that not only made the doctrines which it affirmed make total sense but also made it intuitive why apposing doctrine are false all while allowing one to almost always take the plain reading of the text of scripture to mean what it seems to mean.
When someone brings to me a system that is better (i.e. more logically sound and biblically consistent) then I’ll do as I’ve done since I was ten years old and pick it up and never look back. Until then, I cite Luther once again…
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other."
You’re delusional.
I have in no way given my daughter permission to speed!
No it isn’t flawed at all. I have the absolute ability to entire prevent my daughter from driving.
And even if I didn’t then the analogy goes away. In other words, the analogy presupposes my ability to prevent my daughter from driving. If they presupposition is removed then you’re changing the analogy.
You are arguing against yourself!
Do you think that Calvinism teaches that God did know that Adam would sin?
More than that Calvinist explicitly teaches that God MADE ADAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF SIN!!!
Don’t believe me? Ask B57 who has a whole thread devoted to that exact topic where every Calvinist in site has shown up to post their “Amen brother!”.
No one has ever claimed otherwise.
I keep finding myself asking whether it is really possible that you do not understand the point.
The only thing I limit God to is reality. I don’t believe in fairy tales. God cannot have predestined all things the way Calvinists teach and be holy, just and righteous. It is a contradiction. That isn’t merely “the way I think” as if sound reason where some sort of personal opinion.
Of course He did!
You very obviously have missed the point. The point of denying the veracity of the concept of “God’s permissive will” isn’t to say that God doesn’t permit things. That’s stupidity!
Look, you believe, as do all Calvinists, that there is a distinction between God perfect will and God’s permissive will. That the perfect will of God is what God wants while His permissive will is what God allows to actually happen whether its consistent with His perfect will or not.
The problem for the Calvinist is that this is OPEN THEISM!!!!
In Calvinism, whatever happens is God’s perfect will. His will cannot change because if it did, it either wasn’t perfect to begin with or else it would no longer be perfect (sound familiar). God, according to Calvinism, predestined every single solitary event that has or that will ever occur before time itself even began according to His perfect, immutable will. Thus what happens is His perfect will. You can call it His permissive will if you want and make some sort of theoretical distinction if you choose to but it is a distinction without a difference because everything in one category is also in the other because nothing can happen that God did not allow to happen and nothing that happens does so outside is providential, omnipotent, immutable, sovereign will.
Get it?
When you come to understand that whether you are saved or not is NOT a matter of anyone’s opinion, most especially mine, you’ll be a step closer to being saved.
Of course you do! Tacitly, to be sure but, nevertheless, the belief is there. You’ve modified your definition of justice to make your mind blind to the fact, but the fact remains.
Again, it’s a tacit belief but nevertheless, you do believe that you are wiser than the God who actually exists. You know, the one who risks being rejected in order to make it possible to be loved. You think that God is foolish.
On the contrary! This is precisely what Open Theism believes God does all the time!
You have it backward! It is Calvinism that worships an unchanging stone idol.
I acknowledge that the bible teaches that I was made in God’s image. That I was made with eternity in my heart and with an innate awareness of not only God’s existence but of His very nature; that I was made for the purpose of relating with and loving the God who made me and that therefore He is as real as I am and and He is, at least to some significant degree, relatable to me; that He not only made man in His image but became a human being and died the death that I deserve and then, by His own power, raised to life again (three points that Calvinism cannot survive, by the way) and that He is a man to this day, and forever more will be and that I will be made like Him on that Great Day.
Isaiah 46 doesn’t say what most Calvinist make it say. I’m actually pleasantly surprised to see you quote it accurately. God predicts the future. This much is not in dispute. It is the means by which this is accomplished that Calvinists go insane with, not to mention well beyond what the scripture can support.
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other."
Psalms 139
Hypocrite
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other."
Clete
Last edited by a moderator:
“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
well said. The are two basic principles of the nature of God.
1 God is one
2 God is known to us by three persons, the trinity.
We tend to pay more attention to principle 2. Unless we reject the doctrine of the Trinity. This is the case with some because the Trinity is beyond our ability to reason. We can know about God's relationship with Himself, but how the triune God is one is not understandable to us. We have to assert it (know it in action) without logic, by faith only.
Well, they do mean similar things...
But what's funny is that "relent" is actually WORSE for the Calvinist, because while "repent" simply means to turn away from (doing) something, "relent" means to STOP doing what one is already doing.
No no no!
It is not about asserting something "without logic" as though the doctrine committed some fallacy of logic. It does not!
That is to say, that the bible does not. There are lots of Christians that assert all sort of lunatic things that are logical contradictions and insist that we must accept them, as you put it, "without logic, by faith only" as though accepting something by faith means that one does so without reason. That isn't what biblical faith is to begin with but, more to the point, the biblical understanding of the Trinity doctrine doesn't require any such suspention of sound reason anyway.
There is no contradiction inherent in the Trinity doctrine. That is precisely why it is important to be careful to state the doctrine the way I stated it. For a contradiction to exist the assertion must be made that two contradictory truth claims are both true at the same time AND IN THE SAME WAY. Most people forget that last bit. The Trinity doctrine does not simply state that God is both singular and that He is plural - period. If it did, then that would be a contradiction and if we accepted as true then we would indeed be accepting it without logic and by blind belief ("faith"). We would also undermine any ability to have a rationally coherent worldview where it was possible to falsify any truth claim at all. If we accept contradiction in one place, where do you stop? If someone says that God is a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater and that the 1958 song by Sheb Wooley is the greatest hymn ever written and that the truth of this claim must be believed without logic and by faith only, how could we refute it? After all, we think one is three and three is one, right?
On the contrary, rather than stating a contradiction, it is simply asserted that there is but one God; That the Father is God; That the Son is God; That the Holy Spirit is God and that while the three are distinct in one sense, they are One in some other sense. The difference between those senses is not explained to us. If it were explained then I have no doubt that we could understand it. Although I do concede the possibility that God's existence is transcendant above us enough that there is the possibility that there is no common context by which the divine relationship can be explained to us this side of seeing God face to face but asserting that is speculation. What we know is only that it isn't explained. We cannot know why it isn't explained any more than we can know the explanation. The point is, however, that not knowing why or how does not imply either irrationality nor some innate inability to understand it.
Clete
Yeah! That's what I meant when I said that I don't understand how 'relent' salvages their doctrine.
I mean the word absolutely should be translated as "repent" and the only possible motive for doing otherwise has to be related to the doctrine of the translators. But they cut their nose off to spite their face! "Relent" implies a weakening of God's will; that He doesn't really want to stop but is sort of crying uncle and giving in somehow. That's far worse for the Calvinist than 'repent' which just means to change one's mind (in this context).
Clete
No No No?
If what you said and I quote above is different than what I said, then I'll advocate using this, but I'll say what i said because what you said seems merely more wordy and complex, yet does not add much to what i said.
I'll further stipulate, that as you put it may be the more telling and resolved presentation, but I must confess to not perceiving the difference. It may perhaps be added, my presentation my be more remedial.
Well, I meant no insult. I was mosly reacting to the last sentence in your post...
We have to assert it (know it in action) without logic, by faith only.
I'm always very vigilant in stearing people away from such ideas. They are dangerous in the extreme.
In short, one must never allow the irrational to be accepted as truth. If that isn't were you intended to send my thinking then I'm very happy to hear it and am happy to consider your position cleared up!
:up:
- Status