ARCHIVE: Thread Theft (docrob and Knight)

[Charity]

blessed are those who suffer

:first:

 

[Lighthouse]

You, Lighthouse, have no idea what you're talking about. Petras in my Analytical Greek Lexicon does not at all mean truth. It has two distinct uses in the New Testament, as foundation stone or as a piece of a stone. Peter's name does not mean pebble, but is a proper name quite common in the first century Rome, and it is a word distinctly related to the word petras. Their root is very much the same. To make a distinction like you do is absurd. Petros means stone and petras is a stone that is part of a foundation, or cornerstone. A stone can be part of the foundation and still be called a stone. Paul himself talks about the foundation of the church being the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cheif cornerstone. Peter is at the foundation whether you like it or not.

Either way Christ was referring to Himself as the Petras on which the church would be built, not Peter.

As far as Peter being succeeded by single successors, this is a no-brainer. Apostolic succession cannot come by birth. That would be absurd (like the succession of kings!). So the appointing of Bishops and Priests and Nuns has nothing to do with whether they are the blood relative of the previous so-and-so. Even protestant denominations understand the appointing of leaders in this way. The one who follows leadership must pay heed to his or her successor in some way. They are not simply placed there to forget everything that came before (although sometimes I wonder in evangelical circles). The one who comes after will somehow continue in the glory or infamy of the one who came before, and will have to build off of that foundation (and if one does not lead in this way, they will be very poor leaders).

Knock knock, sa. Christ is the High Priest. There is no succession. There is only the downward authority. And the Pope has no role, because the papacy is treated as though it were the role of God Himself. It isn't. Only God has the authority to make rules and regulations, and to recant His word. No one else has that authority, especially not the Pope.

And what are you smoking that made you think I thought church leadership should be by birthright? As you can see below, God doesn't care whether church leaders are single or married, and neither should we.

And now for my critique of my own tradition: why is it that pastors must be married? It is the bane of my existance as I pursuit ordination. People assume I'm getting married. My former pastor's wife asked me when I was going Seminar whether I had a wife lined up or not. It is sickening to me and wrong, because it appears that single men in the church are relegated to youth ministry until they get married (or even while their married) until they work their way up to senior pastor. And there are many other things I could critique of my own tradition, but I will save those for now, seeing how I was simply responding in kind to your absurd question about Catholic leaders being single.

Peace,
Michael

I don't care if a pastor is single or not. Paul was single. Peter wasn't. As you can see, God didn't care. And neither should we.

 

[seekinganswers]

Either way Christ was referring to Himself as the Petras on which the church would be built, not Peter.

That's interesting, but what is your support for such an interpretation? Jesus gives no indication that he is speaking of himself at this point. You have a nice theory but no support for that theory.

Knock knock, sa. Christ is the High Priest. There is no succession. There is only the downward authority. And the Pope has no role, because the papacy is treated as though it were the role of God Himself. It isn't. Only God has the authority to make rules and regulations, and to recant His word. No one else has that authority, especially not the Pope.

There is a hierarchy of authority in the church whether you like it or not. We do not have Christ who sits on his earthly throne to sit over us and tell us what to do (and if you are going to proclaim an invisible Christ in Heaven who rules over each one individually I just have to laugh, because there is a different Christ for each person, and people will make Christ into whomever they want him to be). Christ does not reign invisibly but in the visible witness of the church (leaders and all). The Pope rules over a gathering of people who follow Christ in this world and that gives him an authority over them (along with the bishops and cardinals and priests under the pope). And I can assure you that he and they are probably more faithful to the gathering than many pastors are within the evangelical tradition. But the pope and those under him are not the visible rulers of the invisible body; they are the rulers of those who gather with them. Since I do not gather with the pope or those under him I am subject to a different authority (that authority being the chain of leadership in the Nazarene Church). That leadership is ordained of God just as the pope and those under him are called to orders. And they have authority from Christ to rule over us. The pope is not God (and has never made any such claim). The pope speaks for the church (to give it a catholic [i.e. universal] sense) so that the church might be protected from heresy and division. The pope only loses that authority when he tries to use it for a different end. The problem with evangelicals is that they have lost any sense of catholicity, so that instead of listening to the pope who enforces his rule with the coercive powers of the state, they, instead, listen to George Barna with his capitalistic marketing strategies for the church. Both are extremes, and both are quite distorted.

And what are you smoking that made you think I thought church leadership should be by birthright? As you can see below, God doesn't care whether church leaders are single or married, and neither should we. I don't care if a pastor is single or not. Paul was single. Peter wasn't. As you can see, God didn't care. And neither should we.

Just because say it is this way does not mean that it is this way!

Peace,
Michael

 

[docrob57]

Why?

Because God has perfect knowledge of the past and present, and, as Creator, perfect knowledge of causality, accordingly, by definition, he must have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. If you would rather think of this as a perfect ability to predict the future, I have no problem with that, I would argue that the 2 are the same.

The Bible is filled with stories that describe a conditional future.

The Bible is filled with stories of God displaying He knows everything knowable.

The Bible is filled with stories of God knowing our intentions.

The Bible does not describe or define God as having exhaustive foreknowledge.

On the contrary... it is us that are flawed! God simply reacts to our flaws in a perfect and majestic way.

I hate to do this but I must hold your feet to the fire.... I asked you if you believed in a conditional future and you haven't answered.

Is the future conditional for God? (in any way whatsoever)

I would think so. I would only argue that God knows how to act in such a way as to guide the course of human events in the direction He desires.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I would think so. I would only argue that God knows how to act in such a way as to guide the course of human events in the direction He desires.

Are you actually arguing that the future is BOTH settled and conditional from God's perspective? :shocked:

 

[docrob57]

Are you actually arguing that the future is BOTH settled and conditional from God's perspective? :shocked:

I am not arguing that the future is settled. I have no idea, and truthfully don't care. I am arguing that God knows what the future is regardless of whether or not it is settled.

I do think that time is more complex than we think. I am studying that a bit.

I will say this, and hopefully this will not make you mad, because I do not intend it too. But I think all of this focus on the sellted/unsettled etc. does not do much to further the cause of Christ. I used to enjoy the BEL TV show much more than the more recent programming (though I often like that too) because he would not deal with theological issues and instead concentrated on winning the lost. I would like to see that emphasis restored.

 

[Sozo]

I am not arguing that the future is settled. I have no idea, and truthfully don't care. I am arguing that God knows what the future is regardless of whether or not it is settled.

Based on that statement, it would have to be settled to God, even if it is not for you.

Would you agree?

 

[docrob57]

Based on that statement, it would have to be settled to God, even if it is not for you.

Would you agree?

It depends on what you mean by "settled."

 

[Sozo]

It depends on what you mean by "settled."

What did you mean by it when you said it?

 

[docrob57]

What did you mean by it when you said it?

My understanding is that the term means that things must happen a certain way, or that the future events actually have happened, or are happening now, which I think is argued by some.

The future could be settled from God's standpoint, but I truthfully don't have an opinion on it. I do beleive that God knows who will be saved and who will not, from before their birth. I don't know if this is the same as "predestination," I tend to think that it is not.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I am not arguing that the future is settled. I have no idea, and truthfully don't care. I am arguing that God knows what the future is regardless of whether or not it is settled.

If God knows the future exhaustively how can it not be settled?

In this case "settled" would mean that there is nothing in God's foreknowledge about the future that isn't settled, He knows it all (exhaustively) isn't that what you believe?

I do think that time is more complex than we think. I am studying that a bit.

I will say this, and hopefully this will not make you mad, because I do not intend it too. But I think all of this focus on the sellted/unsettled etc. does not do much to further the cause of Christ. I used to enjoy the BEL TV show much more than the more recent programming (though I often like that too) because he would not deal with theological issues and instead concentrated on winning the lost. I would like to see that emphasis restored.

With all due respect I didn't start this thread.

Please don't challenge me in a thread and then later tell me all of this doesn't help the cause of Christ when you struggle to defend yourself.

I am not mad, I love talking about this stuff, but I do get a bit testy when you say stuff like you have now.

 

[docrob57]

If God knows the future exhaustively how can it not be settled?

In this case "settled" would mean that there is nothing in God's foreknowledge about the future that isn't settled, He knows it all (exhaustively) isn't that what you believe?

With all due respect I didn't start this thread.

Please don't challenge me in a thread and then later tell me all of this doesn't help the cause of Christ when you struggle to defend yourself.

I am not mad, I love talking about this stuff, but I do get a bit testy when you say stuff like you have now.

I don't struggle to defend myself at all. I and numerous others have explained numerous times why foreknowledge is necessarily not the same as settled, at least, as Sozo suggests, from our perspective. I guess I keep trying to deal with this issue in hopes that I will understand why it is important. As yet I have not. But you are right, I did start the thread, so my remark was not appropriate.

Do you feel that you and the other DBC members have perfect understanding of God and Christian theology?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't struggle to defend myself at all. I and numerous others have explained numerous times why foreknowledge is necessarily not the same as settled, at least, as Sozo suggests, from our perspective. I guess I keep trying to deal with this issue in hopes that I will understand why it is important. As yet I have not. But you are right, I did start the thread, so my remark was not appropriate.

I have been clear all along that I am referring to the future from God's persepctive (not ours).

Is the future settled from God's perspective OR is the future unsettled and conditional. It cannot logically be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

Do you feel that you and the other DBC members have perfect understanding of God and Christian theology?

No.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Let's keep in mind that this entire line of questioning started when docrob said...

This states quite clearly that prophecies such as that you quote are conditional, they will occur only in the absense of repentance. You either are incapable of understanding this, which I don't beleive to be true, or you simply don't want to see the implication here. The ONLY way God's prohesy through Jonah could be unfulfilled is if the people did not repent and they were not destroyed.

Clearly doc you were appealing to an unsettled - conditional future when you typed the above paragraph.

And that is why we are where we are in this thread.

You have appealed to a unsettled - conditional future from God's perspective YET your theology relies entirely on a NON-conditional, settled future from God's perspective.

It's time to jump off that fence docrob, what's it gonna be?

 

[docrob57]

Let's keep in mind that this entire line of questioning started when docrob said...Clearly doc you were appealing to an unsettled - conditional future when you typed the above paragraph.

And that is why we are where we are in this thread.

You have appealed to a unsettled - conditional future from God's perspective YET your theology relies entirely on a NON-conditional, settled future from God's perspective.

It's time to jump off that fence docrob, what's it gonna be?

No time for a thorough response now. I have seen nothing whatsoever, including the Battle Royale, that would lead me to accept the open view. So I am not on the fence with respect to that. Beyond that, I will have to reply more later.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have seen nothing whatsoever, including the Battle Royale, that would lead me to accept the open view.

That isn't really the topic is it?

Can you please try to stay on track?

When you have time....

Please directly respond to my question I asked earlier....

Is the future settled from God's perspective OR is the future unsettled and conditional. It cannot logically be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

 

[docrob57]

That isn't really the topic is it?

Can you please try to stay on track?

When you have time....

Please directly respond to my question I asked earlier....

Is the future settled from God's perspective OR is the future unsettled and conditional. It cannot logically be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

Actually it can, but I will get to that later. In the meantime, since we are asking for reponses, please render your opinion on this:

Because God has perfect knowledge of the past and present, and, as Creator, perfect knowledge of causality, accordingly, by definition, he must have perfect exhaustive foreknowledge. If you would rather think of this as a perfect ability to predict the future, I have no problem with that, I would argue that the 2 are the same.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Actually it can, but I will get to that later.

I have been waiting for some time now for you to take a stab at this. When do you think your going to take a shot at it? And why are you waiting so long to respond to it?

....since we are asking for reponses, please render your opinion on this:

It seems to be a bit of a non-statement if you ask me.

What would you like me to comment on?

Assuming God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge it doesn't matter how He gets it i.e., through perfect knowledge of causality or whatever, the bottom line is IF God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge the future is settled and NOT conditional. How can you possibly argue against that?

Now... I seem to keep responding directly to you but you seem to never respond directly to me. :think:

Please respond directly to...

Is the future settled from God's perspective? OR is the future unsettled and conditional? Logically it cannot be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

 

[docrob57]

I have been waiting for some time now for you to take a stab at this. When do you think your going to take a shot at it? And why are you waiting so long to respond to it?

It seems to be a bit of a non-statement if you ask me.

What would you like me to comment on?

Assuming God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge it doesn't matter how He gets it i.e., through perfect knowledge of causality or whatever, the bottom line is IF God has perfect exhaustive foreknowledge the future is settled and NOT conditional. How can you possibly argue against that?

Now... I seem to keep responding directly to you but you seem to never respond directly to me. :think:

Please respond directly to...

Is the future settled from God's perspective? OR is the future unsettled and conditional? Logically it cannot be both. So please tell me which it is in your best estimation based on what you believe.

God knows the future perfectly. If that makes it settled so be it. I contend that God knows what the future will be, but that it is a future that could have been worked out differently had different choices been made.

I do not think that settled vs. conditional is a legitimate set of opposites. In fact, I am really not sure that the question "is the future conditional" is a legitimate question? Conditioned on what? is a question that I think that would need to be answered before proceding along that line.

You folks always like to resort to "how could you possibly believe that" as if that demonstrates something. The question really is not whether the future is settled, but whether people have a free will. To this I would say yes, though I am sure you don't know how I could possibly think that since I contend and have pretty well demonstrated to those capable of understanding the demonstration that God has perfect foreknowledge.

 

[Lighthouse]

Let me get this straight...
Those who believe God knows exactly what is going to happen in the future say that OVers are limiting God, all the while believing God to be impotent to stop bad things from happening.:think: