ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

• Originally posted by God Is Truth
  
  'before i formed you in the womb' is what it says. not before you existed in the womb. surely there could be a period in the womb where God has yet to begin forming him?

notice i said that it was while in the womb, but before God had formed him. that's very distinct from "before he existed".

If God said He had sanctified Jeremiah and was going to make him a prophet, but never did, then God is a liar.

no, that is incorrect. if God is planning to make Jeremiah a prophet and have him sanctified and then Jeremiah rejects that purpose, God is not a liar for not having him become a prophet.

it is only a lie if the future is settled and God knows exactly how things will turn out. but if it's open, then God is not held accountable since he is only declaring his purpose for Jeremiah which is not contingent on foreknowledge.

If I tell you that I will come over and fix your car, but never do, then I lied.

not necessarily. it's only a lie if you are not really planning to come over and fix it when you say it.

If I tell you that I will not eat anything for lunch so that I would have room to eat dinner with you, but eat lunch anyways, and never make it to dinner with you, I lied. If I tell you I will do anything, but don't do it, I LIED!

no, circumstances change and so can statements truth values. it's only a lie if you don't mean what you say and are intentionally deceiving the other party into believing something with no truth value.

Purpose and ordain are two totally different terms. God said He had sanctified and ordained that Jeremiah would be a prophet. Nothing could change that. If Jeremiah never became a prophet, then God would of been a liar.

to ordain something is to declare it right? thus, God had declared Jeremiah to be sanctified and to be a prophet. it was God's decree, his purpose for him. it was saying "i choose you, jeremiah, to be sanctified and a prophet". there is no reason it cannot be rejected and God would not be made out a liar if it in fact was rejected.

God's purposes for our lives is to live happily in Him. Not everyone does so. Those who do not know God reject His 'purposes' for them everyday.

yes, but don't you say God ordained those things? wouldn't that mean God ordains things directly contrary to his purposes?

Luke 7:30 shows us that there MUST be two wills of God, since there are also numerous verses in Scripture that teach us NO ONE can thwart God's will and purposes for our lives. I expounded on Luke 7:30 and the others that seem to contridict in Post #882 of the thread 'Does Calvinism Limit God?'.

i believe that there is one will of God, that which is good, perfect and pleasing. the reason the world is full of things which are contrary to that is not because of some secret will but because of that which is in the first will. love, freedom and choice are all good, perfect and pleasing and for them to be brough to pass, the opposite must be allowed. one must be allowed to choose away from God, to not love and to do evil in order for there to be freedom, love and choice.

Close. You're close to agreeing with me about the truth of God possessing two wills - will of decree and will of command. See above link.

see above.

no, it's not that simple, God would not have been a liar. God's purpose for Jeremiah would simply have been rejected, like that of the pharisees.

did God ordain that the pharisees reject him?

It was not only God's purpose that Jeremiah be a prophet - HE ORDAINED IT.

3 entries found for ordain.
or·dain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

1.To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
To authorize as a rabbi.
2.To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3.To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.

i use the 2nd definition when i use the word "ordain". are you using the third one?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

notice i said that it was while in the womb, but before God had formed him. that's very distinct from "before he existed".

Um, yeah.. whatever.

no, that is incorrect. if God is planning to make Jeremiah a prophet and have him sanctified and then Jeremiah rejects that purpose, God is not a liar for not having him become a prophet.

But the verse tells us God ordained and sanctified Jeremiah BEFORE HE WAS BORN!!! God didn't just 'plan' that oneday Jeremiah become a prophet; it was already done before he was even born! God ordained it - enacted it - before Jeremiah came into this world. There was nothing Jeremiah could do to thwart that. It was in God's control. Therefor, if it never came to pass that Jeremiah did become a prophet, then God lied.

The ordination that Jeremiah become a prophet was God's doing, not Jeremiah's. God directly made Jeremiah a prophet. It was decreed before Jeremiah was even born.

it is only a lie if the future is settled and God knows exactly how things will turn out. but if it's open, then God is not held accountable since he is only declaring his purpose for Jeremiah which is not contingent on foreknowledge.

That part where God says 'before you were born' is your stumbling block...

not necessarily. it's only a lie if you are not really planning to come over and fix it when you say it.

no, circumstances change and so can statements truth values. it's only a lie if you don't mean what you say and are intentionally deceiving the other party into believing something with no truth value.

So now you're re-defining what a lie means? Why wouldn't it be a lie if I really meant what I said, but never did it? What circumstances would alleviate me from being guilty of lying?

to ordain something is to declare it right? thus, God had declared Jeremiah to be sanctified and to be a prophet. it was God's decree, his purpose for him. it was saying "i choose you, jeremiah, to be sanctified and a prophet". there is no reason it cannot be rejected and God would not be made out a liar if it in fact was rejected.

Jeremiah 1:5 emphasizes that 'God knew Jeremiah before he was even born' for a reason. This tells us that God does indeed know the future. Therefor, God had decreed/ordained/predestined that Jeremiah would be sanctified and become His prophet. It was going to happen because God decreed/enacted it, even before Jeremiah was born. God wasn't just saying that He thought Jeremiah would make a fine prophet oneday and that He desired to see him make the right choices and choose to become His prophet. On the contrary, God said He had sanctified and ordained him already, before he was born, to become a prophet. God made him a prophet already. Jeremiah was born as God's prophet. He could not 'reject it', or escape it. It was decreed for him before he was born.

yes, but don't you say God ordained those things? wouldn't that mean God ordains things directly contrary to his purposes?

Two wills. He has two wills.

i believe that there is one will of God, that which is good, perfect and pleasing. the reason the world is full of things which are contrary to that is not because of some secret will but because of that which is in the first will. love, freedom and choice are all good, perfect and pleasing and for them to be brough to pass, the opposite must be allowed. one must be allowed to choose away from God, to not love and to do evil in order for there to be freedom, love and choice.

It's impossible to believe God has only one will without seeing that the Bible contridicts itself. You pointed it out yourself with Luke 7:30. How do you reconcile that verse with the following?

Job 42:1-2
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted (*this verse speaks for itself*)."

Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand (*no one can thwart His will*) or say to Him, "What are you doing?"

Psalm 33:10-11
The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He frustrates the plans of the peoples (*not the other way around*). The counsel of the LORD stands forever (*meaning no one can change it*), the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

did God ordain that the pharisees reject him?

Of course.

3 entries found for ordain.
or·dain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôr-dn)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

1.To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
To authorize as a rabbi.
2.To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3.To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.

i use the 2nd definition when i use the word "ordain". are you using the third one?

What does it matter? They're the same. The point is, Jeremiah was ordained to be a prophet BEFORE HE WAS BORN. In other words, he was 'ordered by virtue of superior authority (GOD) , or decreed/ENACTED' to become a prophet. God made it a done deal before Jeremiah was even created.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

:Luke 7:30 shows us that there MUST be two wills of God, since there are also numerous verses in Scripture that teach us NO ONE can thwart God's will and purposes for our lives. I expounded on Luke 7:30 and the others that seem to contridict in Post #882 of the thread 'Does Calvinism Limit God?'.

Close. You're close to agreeing with me about the truth of God possessing two wills - will of decree and will of command. See above link.

MUST? This is a Calvinistic attempt to resolve the issue and support a preconceived idea that God's will and purposes cannot be thwarted. Your wrong assumption leads to wrong conclusions. God's will and purposes can be thwarted. This is evidenced in the warfare ministry of Jesus. If you accept this premise, there is no need to make a complicated doctrine about decrees and willS that is not explicit in Scripture.

Forster and Marston in "God's Strategy in Human History" (Bethany House Publishers) deals from Scripture and grammar with your wrong assumption. Even F.F. Bruce, the great scholar and Calvinist forwarded this book and said the arguments merit careful consideration (they challenged his assumptions effectively).

 

[daniel]

Two wills. He has two wills.

What do you mean by "will"?

In the normal definition of a person's "will" it means the motivations, the disposition to act in a certain way. Are you positing that God has contradictory dispositions and motivations existing within Him at the same time? It seems to be your point.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by daniel

What do you mean by "will"?

In the normal definition of a person's "will" it means the motivations, the disposition to act in a certain way. Are you positing that God has contradictory dispositions and motivations existing within Him at the same time? It seems to be your point.

I really don't have the time to explain, nor do I believe that I could express to you what I believe in this manner as well as John Piper has already done. If you're up for it, here is a link to what he has to say about God having two wills that I would say I agree with.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Resorting to 'ad hominem', eh? Always the desperate move of an argueless man...

It was not ad hominem, I wasn't trying to make the point that you were wrong because you are evil but the reverse, you are evil because you are so unbelievably wrong and obviously so to anyone without an axe to grind.

Geez man. Shooting the gun are we? We haven't completely come to a conclusion based upon Jonah yet. Why the rush? Out of support for your view, perhaps? Time to move on so you can avoid the 'heat'?

I suspect that it is you who is attempting to avoid the heat with this nonsense.
No I'm not "shooting the gun", whatever the crap that's supposed to mean. I simply presented a different passage that flies directly in the face of the argument you just attempted to use to wiggle around the Jonah passage. And if you find a way to wiggle around this one, I have more. Pretty soon, you'll have to wiggle around practically the whole Bible or openly admit that God is indeed a liar. My argument was on point and valid, the fact that it flew right over your head is your problem, not mine. So answer the question...

Jos 3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and [that] he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

This is another prophecy that did not come to pass as stated. And this one states very emphatically what God will do "WITHOUT FAIL" and yet it didn't happen. Please explain how according to your test that God is not a liar.

Of course you do. Anyone who believes that the Bible is better studied deductively will always have support for their fanatical views, no matter how 'un-Scriptural' they truly are, given the overall context (which one will see if they study inductively).

I never said either was better or worse. They both have their place and deduction is the means by which you yourself came to the conclusion that inductive Bible study is superior. A point that I can see was lost on you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Poly]

Zman, when I was a Calvinist I would have been humiliated to have had you argue my side. It had enough holes in it without the complete embarrassment that you bring to it.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Poly

Zman, when I was a Calvinist I would have been humiliated to have had you argue my side. It had enough holes in it without the complete embarrassment that you bring to it.

Guess that's why you're not a Calvinist today; can't handle the truth.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Z Man

Guess that's why you're not a Calvinist today; can't handle the truth.

:blabla: :blabla: :blabla: :blabla:


:yawn:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Inductive Bible study is basing certain theological conclusions solely on what is taught to us through Scriptures. For example, I read several passages that state God is holy. Therefor, I conclude that God must be holy.

This is not induction Z Man, it is deduction.

Premise A: The Bible is true.
Premise B: The Bible teaches that God is Holy.

Conclusion: God is Holy

Deductive Bible study would be me declaring God is holy, then searching the Scriptures to prove that conclusion.

No that would not be deduction at all.

A deductive argument offers two or more assertions (premises) that lead automatically to a conclusion. Though they are not always phrased in syllogistic form, deductive arguments can usually be phrased as "syllogisms," in which the premises lead inexorably to the conclusion.

Induction occurs when we gather bits of specific information together and use our own knowledge and experience in order to make an observation about what must be true. Inductive reasoning does not use syllogisms, but series of observations, in order to reach a conclusion. Consider the following chains of observations:

• Observation: John came to class late this morning.
  Observation: John’s hair was uncombed.
  Prior experience: John is very fussy about his hair.
  Conclusion: John overslept

The reasoning process here is directly opposite to that used in deductive syllogisms. Rather than beginning with a general principle (People who comb their hair wake up on time), the chain of evidence begins with an observation and then combines it with the strength of previous observations in order to arrive at a conclusion.

This is the same error I encountered with my friend at church! It's incredible that this is happened to me twice! It makes me wonder whether or not there is some quasi formalized "method of Bible study" that somone called the "Inductive Method" for some reason but then proceeded to actually use deductive reasoning within the method itself. Either way, I'm glad I ask the question. Defining terms is always helpful.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Everyone's wrong but you Clete.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man
But the verse tells us God ordained and sanctified Jeremiah BEFORE HE WAS BORN!!!

Jeremiah 1
4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,


5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

God clearly set Jeremiah apart before he was born. i agree!

God didn't just 'plan' that oneday Jeremiah become a prophet; it was already done before he was even born!

the words "set you apart" and "appointed" clearly indicate planning, not actuality.

God ordained it - enacted it - before Jeremiah came into this world. There was nothing Jeremiah could do to thwart that.

i agree that Jeremiah could not change God's mind to appoint him a prophet. but to say that Jeremiah was in fact a prophet before God actually made him one is reading past the text. the verses say God appointed him to be a prophet before he was born, not that it had already come to pass.

It was in God's control. Therefor, if it never came to pass that Jeremiah did become a prophet, then God lied.

if Jeremiah rejects God's plan and appointment then God is not a liar at all. he is only a liar if you insist that his declaration is dependent on foreknowlege, which i am denying. the passage is declaring what God's purpose and plan for Jeremiah was and when it was started. there is no need for foreknowledge for the verses to be true.

The ordination that Jeremiah become a prophet was God's doing, not Jeremiah's. God directly made Jeremiah a prophet. It was decreed before Jeremiah was even born.

i completely agree!

That part where God says 'before you were born' is your stumbling block...

i don't have any problem with it. i just have a problem with your insisting that it's dependent on foreknowledge.

So now you're re-defining what a lie means? Why wouldn't it be a lie if I really meant what I said, but never did it? What circumstances would alleviate me from being guilty of lying?

i am not redefining anything. i am simply using the rest of the definition, a more complete one. if you really meant something when you said it and it did not come to pass, it is not a lie. any number of things can happen in between the time your statement and the time it should come to pass. the first of which is i can change my mind, secondly the circumstances could change, thirdly i may become unable to perform what was originally stated (although this is not an option for God, strictly speaking). all of these are viable things which may occur which prevent my earlier statement (which i really meant) from coming to pass. i am not a liar if i change my mind, if circumstances change or if i am rendered unable to perform my statement.

Jeremiah 1:5 emphasizes that 'God knew Jeremiah before he was even born' for a reason. This tells us that God does indeed know the future.

how in the world do you get that? if God knows the future then he would know Jeremiah in the future but not before he was born! you would have to argue that Jeremiah had pre-existed prior to his birth if the "knew" in the verses means a intimate and personal sense of knowledge. much more likely is that God knew the person in the womb and what he was planning to do with them, namely to make them a prophet.

Therefor, God had decreed/ordained/predestined that Jeremiah would be sanctified and become His prophet. It was going to happen because God decreed/enacted it, even before Jeremiah was born.

so now it's not based on foreknowlege? is that what you are saying? if you are saying it's because God was purposing it to come to pass, then i agree! but it was also contingent on Jeremiahs response to the calling.

God wasn't just saying that He thought Jeremiah would make a fine prophet oneday and that He desired to see him make the right choices and choose to become His prophet.

no one chooses to be a prophet and no where have i suggested such a thing. i agree that God called Jeremiah and ordained him to be a prophet before he was born.

On the contrary, God said He had sanctified and ordained him already, before he was born, to become a prophet. God made him a prophet already. Jeremiah was born as God's prophet. He could not 'reject it', or escape it. It was decreed for him before he was born.

there is no indication that Jeremiah could not reject it.

Two wills. He has two wills.

that doesn't answer the question really.

It's impossible to believe God has only one will without seeing that the Bible contridicts itself. You pointed it out yourself with Luke 7:30. How do you reconcile that verse with the following?

Job 42:1-2
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted (*this verse speaks for itself*)."

Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand (*no one can thwart His will*) or say to Him, "What are you doing?"

Psalm 33:10-11
The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He frustrates the plans of the peoples (*not the other way around*). The counsel of the LORD stands forever (*meaning no one can change it*), the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

if God wants to bring something to pass then he is fully capable/able/competent to do so. the idea that he is unable to let something come to pass contrary to his will is what you don't seem to be able to accept.

Of course.

was that not directly contrary to the purpose of God? wasn't Israel supposed to accept their messiah? wasn't he supposed to be king? wouldn't ordaining the pharisees to reject him be directly contrary to that?

What does it matter? They're the same. The point is, Jeremiah was ordained to be a prophet BEFORE HE WAS BORN. In other words, he was 'ordered by virtue of superior authority (GOD) , or decreed/ENACTED' to become a prophet. God made it a done deal before Jeremiah was even created.

ah, but the definitions are not the same. one is planning and involves purpose that may not come to pass whereas the other is about bringing something to pass directly with no ability to not come about. if we cannot agree on a definition of ordain, then we won't get very far in our conversation.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

Everyone's wrong but you Clete.

I'm not opinionated, I'm just always right!

And don't you forget it!

At least I can site my source, Z Man. I gave links to articles that go into some detail about the difference between inductive vs. deductive reasoning and quoted from those articles in my last post.
Further, I alluded to the fact that there may be some school of thought out there that I'm not familiar with that is calling something "Inductive Bible study" that isn't really what the name would seem to suggest it is (in other words, I COULD BE WRONG!).
All you've done is shoot from the hip and give a clearly erroneous definition off the top of your head. You know, you are on the Internet. The least you could do is do a Google search and come up with something reasonably accurate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

God said (prophecied) that He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days and that did not happen. Does that make God a liar?

He did overthrow them! But by repentance, and not by destruction.

God does have authority over them and every thing else and so He is absolutely sovereign. Again, sovereignty is not about control, it is about authority.

No, authority in Scripture means control:

Mark 1:27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching-- and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him."

Not "he has a right to give evil spirits orders"!

Matthew 8:9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it.

He wasn't saying Jesus had a title! He was saying "You have the control":

Matthew 8:8 But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

Are you seriously suggesting (of course you are) that God was in complete control of that animal and caused it to trample someone's grandmother while she was walking her groceries to the car?

If God is not in control, then believers cannot be superconquering (continuous present tense!), "in all these things." Yes, God is in control of all events, even sinful ones, how is it better, if he is not, and real harm can come to someone who trusts in him?

Psalm 56:11 In God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?

And that's not just an Old Testament perspective!

Hebrews 13:6 So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"

Lee: Being loved by God is a necessary and sufficient condition, for us to love. God's love, in and of itself, causes love.

Clete: That is not what the verse means. God's love gives us the opportunity to love Him.

Well, the problem is that your interpretation here is not what the verse says! We do not read, "We have an opportunity to love, because God loved us." It says "we love" because of that, plain and simple, God's love causes love in response. Now love becomes more free! But takes some time, the more love there is, the more freedom there is, too.

Song of Solomon 2:7 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.

Lee: So don't love even in this human way by your own choice!

Clete: We are not talking about biological infatuation or lustful sorts of love but real love, the sort of love that is an act of the will not the whim of one's emotional state of mind.

Really now, is Song of Solomon talking about lust and infatuation? I don't think it is. So then is this prescription wrong? I don't think that's the case, either...

And again, Don't we even have this in our language expressions? "Falling in love," "A match made in heaven," "They were meant for each other." This is not a foreign concept to people, I would say.

Lee: If "love is as strong as death," human love, then what about God's love?

Clete: You have totally ripped the verse completely out of its intended context and used it to support your pretext of predestination. The verse not talking about predestination not does it have any proper application to it.

I wasn't talking about predestination, though. I was talking about the strength of the love of God, which is, apparently, stronger than death, which, with "love never fails [or falls]," implies that God's love is indeed not mere trying, it is successful.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

if Jeremiah rejects God's plan and appointment then God is not a liar at all. he is only a liar if you insist that his declaration is dependent on foreknowlege, which i am denying. the passage is declaring what God's purpose and plan for Jeremiah was and when it was started. there is no need for foreknowledge for the verses to be true.

Where does the passage say 'I appointed you a prophet, but only if you accept my terms'?

i don't have any problem with it. i just have a problem with your insisting that it's dependent on foreknowledge.

Listen carefully. If God states that He knew Jeremiah before He even created him - before he was ever born - then the future MUST exist. God sees Jeremiah and already appoints him to be a prophet before he exists, or was even created by God Himself. This implies that God KNOWS, without a shadow of a doubt, that a person by the name of Jeremiah was going to be born and become His prophet. In order to know this, God must see the future, a.k.a., have forknowledge. And to see the future, it must exist. Therefore, the saying 'before you were born' severely becomes your stumbling block.

i am not redefining anything. i am simply using the rest of the definition, a more complete one. if you really meant something when you said it and it did not come to pass, it is not a lie. any number of things can happen in between the time your statement and the time it should come to pass. the first of which is i can change my mind, secondly the circumstances could change, thirdly i may become unable to perform what was originally stated (although this is not an option for God, strictly speaking). all of these are viable things which may occur which prevent my earlier statement (which i really meant) from coming to pass. i am not a liar if i change my mind, if circumstances change or if i am rendered unable to perform my statement.

So what you are saying is that if God says He will do one thing, and yet another thing comes to pass, then God is not a liar because there could of been something that happened beyond His control, correct?

Where in the world does the Bible tell us about anything or anyone who has the power to frustrate the plans and purposes of God?

if God knows the future then he would know Jeremiah in the future but not before he was born!

That's exactly what I believe! And that's exactly what the Bible teaches! Thus, we can conclude - we MUST conclude - that the future exists and God lives in it, just as much as He lives in the past and the present all at once.

so now it's not based on foreknowlege? is that what you are saying? if you are saying it's because God was purposing it to come to pass, then i agree! but it was also contingent on Jeremiahs response to the calling.

But where does it say that in Jeremiah? Where does God literally state, 'Before you were born I sanctified you and ordained you a prophet, but you must respond to my calling and give me permission before I can execute my plans for your life'?

there is no indication that Jeremiah could not reject it.

There is no indication that Jeremiah could reject it! And if he could, then man has the power to frustrate God's plans, a teaching not seen anywhere in the Bible. In fact, Job states otherwise, and so does many more passages. Psalms 33 tells us the exact opposite; that God frustrates our plans!

if God wants to bring something to pass then he is fully capable/able/competent to do so. the idea that he is unable to let something come to pass contrary to his will is what you don't seem to be able to accept.

That's a near definition of God's two seperate wills! He does bring to pass what He wishes, and He does allow things to come to pass contrary to His will. Every time a lost person takes a breath, it is an example of God allowing things to come to pass contrary to His will. And yet, everytime He saves someone, it shows us that He is able and competent to bring His will to pass no matter what!

was that not directly contrary to the purpose of God? wasn't Israel supposed to accept their messiah? wasn't he supposed to be king? wouldn't ordaining the pharisees to reject him be directly contrary to that?

Luke 10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

Matthew 13:10-15
And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

Romans 11: 1 - 5, 8-10
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day." And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, And bow down their back always."

ah, but the definitions are not the same. one is planning and involves purpose that may not come to pass...

The only way God's plans and pursposes could not come to pass is if there was someone or something more powerful than Him.

Care to make a brave guess at who or what that is? I wouldn't...

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi Clete,

:wave2:

He did overthrow them! But by repentance, and not by destruction.

AH! You got me! You win the debate!

Knight! Better close things down around here. Open Theism is wrong after all! Dang! And just when I thought things figured out, too!


Okay, okay. I know, I shouldn't be so sarcastic. But did you really expect for me to take such a statement seriously?
Is that really what you think God meant by "Nineveh will be overthrown"? Come on now, let's take this just a bit more seriously.
I think it's pretty plainly obvious that God would have destroyed Nineveh had they not repented in accordance with the principles laid down in Jeremiah 18. There is no need for such linguistic gymnastics. God meant what He said and then changed His mind in reaction to the changed circumstances.

No, authority in Scripture means control:

Mark 1:27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching-- and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him."

Not "he has a right to give evil spirits orders"!

What! It doesn't say that they obeyed against their will, it simply says that they obeyed.
'Obey' wouldn't even be the right word had they not done it of their own will. If you tell someone to shoot themselves in the head but then have to go put the gun in their hand and force them to pull the trigger by sending electric current through their hand, have they obeyed your command? No! You controlled them but they did not obey you.

Matthew 8:9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me [i.e. under my authority]. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it.

He wasn't saying Jesus had a title! He was saying "You have the control":

Again, obedience requires a will. A general does not control his troops by his own might, they voluntarily follow his command. They submit to his authority.

Matthew 8:8 But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.

Now this is admitedly an example of control. God does have control over nature. God can heal you because He can control by the force of His might that which is causing your illness. This is, in part, the power by which He is able to enforce His soveriegn authority.

If God is not in control, then believers cannot be superconquering (continuous present tense!), "in all these things."

This is not so. You have an incorrect understanding of what it means to be more than conquerors in Christ Jesus. That's an issue for another thread.

Yes, God is in control of all events, even sinful ones, how is it better, if he is not, and real harm can come to someone who trusts in him?

That depends on what you mean by real harm, doesn't it?
What can the unbeliever do to me? What? Each day, and each event brings me that much closer to being present with my Lord in heaven.
Want to starve me to death? Terrific! It'll suck, but in the end, I will be better off in the presence of Jesus and you will answer to God the Father for your action?
Want to burn me at the stake? Wow! That'll hurt! But not as bad as Hell's eternal flames which you will endure forever. (Not you Lee, I mean whoever would endeavor to burn a believer at the stake )

Psalm 56:11 In God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?

You should try to apply this text in this way in the presence of someone who's grandmother died of starvation in a Nazi Death Camp during WWII.
The simple fact is that bad things, sometimes very bad things, happen to really good people, and God is not to blame for it. In fact, it is God who mitigates the evil of mankind on the Earth.

And that's not just an Old Testament perspective!

Hebrews 13:6 So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?"

I quoted this one separate just so I could take the opportunity to say that of course it not just an Old Testament perspective. God did not go to anger management classes during the 400 years in between the old and new testaments. God is the same vengeful, wrathful, jealous, loving, kind and forgiving God today, that He has always been.
Not that you were saying otherwise. I just take every opportunity I can to express that.

Well, the problem is that your interpretation here is not what the verse says! We do not read, "We have an opportunity to love, because God loved us." It says "we love" because of that, plain and simple, God's love causes love in response. Now love becomes more free! But takes some time, the more love there is, the more freedom there is, too.

Our country is being overrun by illegal Mexican immigrant BECAUSE our government won't secure our southern border.
Now is the lack of a secure border, forcing Mexicans to break the law or is it simply giving them the opportunity?
Remember, I used the word "because" in my sentence, not "opportunity" so the answer should be obvious.

Really now, is Song of Solomon talking about lust and infatuation? I don't think it is. So then is this prescription wrong? I don't think that's the case, either...

And again, Don't we even have this in our language expressions? "Falling in love," "A match made in heaven," "They were meant for each other." This is not a foreign concept to people, I would say.

Of course we do. But the Bible is not telling us to not love people! It is telling us not to allow our emotions to control what we do or who we love. True love is an act of the will not of the emotions. Emotions may follow, and usually do, but they are not to be the basis of our love. That's all that this is saying. It is not talking about predestination or God's sovereignty. That just is not what it is talking about!

I wasn't talking about predestination, though. I was talking about the strength of the love of God, which is, apparently, stronger than death, which, with "love never fails [or falls]," implies that God's love is indeed not mere trying, it is successful.

But it isn't always successful!
Which Bible are you reading?
How many times did God repent from destroying Israel because nothing He did or said sunk in with them at all?
He performed daily, undeniable miracles for 40 years while Israel was in the wilderness and what was the result? Their dead carcasses fell to the desert floor in unbelief. God spent all that time and energy and the whole generation (practically speaking) that came out of Egypt went to Hell.
Practically the whole Old Testament is about Israel, God's own chosen people, rebelling against Him.

• Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
  A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
  
  My Well-beloved has a vineyard
  On a very fruitful hill.
  2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
  And planted it with the choicest vine.
  He built a tower in its midst,
  And also made a winepress in it;
  So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
  But it brought forth wild grapes.
  
  3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
  Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
  4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
  That I have not done in it?
  Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
  Did it bring forth wild grapes?
  5 And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
  I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
  And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
  6 I will lay it waste;
  It shall not be pruned or dug,
  But there shall come up briers and thorns.
  I will also command the clouds
  That they rain no rain on it."
  
  7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel,
  And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
  He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
  For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.
  
  Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,
  
  John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
  Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

I could go on multiplying quotes upon quotes but I trust the point is made. God loves each and every single human being and most of them return that love with hatred and rebellion. Your application of I Cor. 13:8 is erroneous in the extreme.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

At least I can site my source, Z Man. I gave links to articles that go into some detail about the difference between inductive vs. deductive reasoning and quoted from those articles in my last post.
Further, I alluded to the fact that there may be some school of thought out there that I'm not familiar with that is calling something "Inductive Bible study" that isn't really what the name would seem to suggest it is (in other words, I COULD BE WRONG!).
All you've done is shoot from the hip and give a clearly erroneous definition off the top of your head. You know, you are on the Internet. The least you could do is do a Google search and come up with something reasonably accurate.

Clete,

You assume too much. You asked what my take on inductive vs deductive reasoning was - how I defined it. I gave a CORRECT definition, albeit a simple one. But you went ahead and said I was wrong anyway and decided to instruct me in the ways of 'philosophy' by giving me the longest, most boring and unneccessary definition to prove your point ever to be posted on this site.

Just so you won't think I'm some idiot who comes on here with no intelligence or educated insight whatsoever, I'll have you know that I am currently taking a course in Philosophy at East Carolina University, and we JUST went over the differences between induction and deduction reasoning. I know what I'm talking about Clete. Don't assume that you are the only correct and smartest kid on the block.

This is a direct link to my source (you must have PowerPoint to view), which happened to be the very first handout we recieved in class. And below is a picture of my Spring semester schedule, so you will not continue to think I make this stuff up.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

Where does the passage say 'I appointed you a prophet, but only if you accept my terms'?

Why would it have to? Appointing someone to something they haven’t accepted makes no sense really. It amounts to just a statement with no practical purpose or value.

Listen carefully. If God states that He knew Jeremiah before He even created him - before he was ever born - then the future MUST exist.

I’m still not seeing the connection there. Perhaps we are disagree on what we mean by “he knew Jeremiah”.

God sees Jeremiah and already appoints him to be a prophet before he exists, or was even created by God Himself.

Does God see Jeremiah first or ordain him first? What exactly is he seeing if he has already ordained everything? He is seeing his own works, with which I would agree. The difference is that you include everything in what’s ordained and I do not.

This implies that God KNOWS, without a shadow of a doubt, that a person by the name of Jeremiah was going to be born and become His prophet. In order to know this, God must see the future, a.k.a., have forknowledge.

Here we have some agreement and some disagreement. While I agree that God knew Jeremiah would be born, I see no indication that he knew he would become a prophet. All we see in the text is that Jeremiah was the one chosen by God to become a prophet. That’s it, nothing more; and anything else comes not from the text itself, but from what we read into it.

And to see the future, it must exist.

Actually it doesn’t have to.

Therefore, the saying 'before you were born' severely becomes your stumbling block.

I see no problem with it at all nor do any open theists I’ve heard on it.

So what you are saying is that if God says He will do one thing, and yet another thing comes to pass, then God is not a liar because there could of been something that happened beyond His control, correct?

Not beyond his “control” but beyond what he has decided to control. It could simply be that circumstances have changed and thus what was originally going to pass is no longer needed (like destruction on Ninevah after repentance).

Where in the world does the Bible tell us about anything or anyone who has the power to frustrate the plans and purposes of God?

Well, Luke 7:30 comes to mind again. Clete also gave some verses.

That's exactly what I believe! And that's exactly what the Bible teaches! Thus, we can conclude - we MUST conclude - that the future exists and God lives in it, just as much as He lives in the past and the present all at once.

No no, you are missing the point. If God says he knew Jeremiah before he was born, then he isn’t saying he knows him in the future. He would be saying he literally knew him before he was born i.e. pre-existence, like what Mormons believe. That is why I don’t believe the words speaking of knowing Jeremiah before he was born speak to a literal intimate knowledge of Jeremiah. For if they did, they would be declaring pre-existence. But there is nothing in the words that leads us to foreknowledge. Either pre-existence or the purpose/planning of God, but not foreknowledge.

But where does it say that in Jeremiah? Where does God literally state, 'Before you were born I sanctified you and ordained you a prophet, but you must respond to my calling and give me permission before I can execute my plans for your life'?

It is in the word “appointed”. You can appoint someone to something all day long if you want but unless they accept their appointed state it becomes meaningless. Jeremiah was appointed a prophet, but did not become one until he accepted what he was appointed to.

There is no indication that Jeremiah could reject it!

There is no indication that Jeremiah could not reject it either.

And if he could, then man has the power to frustrate God's plans, a teaching not seen anywhere in the Bible.

God’s plan was for us to always live in fellowship with him depending fully on him for our sense of self worth and being filled up with the love he abounds in. obviously that didn’t happen. We frustrated it. God should never have to curse anything if his plans are never frustrated. The truth is that man frustrates the plans of God all the time. Now this isn’t because God is weak, or lacks power of some sort. But it is because God has allowed us to do as we please in this lifetime and that includes frustrating the plans that he has for us.

In fact, Job states otherwise,

I wouldn’t recommend Job as the place to get your doctrine.

and so does many more passages. Psalms 33 tells us the exact opposite; that God frustrates our plans!

Certainly God frustrates our plans! I agree!

That's a near definition of God's two seperate wills! He does bring to pass what He wishes, and He does allow things to come to pass contrary to His will. Every time a lost person takes a breath, it is an example of God allowing things to come to pass contrary to His will. And yet, everytime He saves someone, it shows us that He is able and competent to bring His will to pass no matter what!

But there is a subtle difference. When God allows something to pass it’s not that he wills it to pass in some sort of secret will, it’s that it is under the realm of what is allowed in accordance with the only will of God. This may be semantics more than anything really.

Luke 10:21
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

Matthew 13:10-15
And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

Romans 11: 1 - 5, 8-10
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day." And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, And bow down their back always."

I assume your verses posted are to show that God in fact didn’t want them to accept their messiah as King. Am I right? Do you believe that the plan was for Israel to accept the Messiah or would that be incorrect?

The only way God's plans and pursposes could not come to pass is if there was someone or something more powerful than Him.

No, not so. If God plans to destroy Ninevah in 40 days and the people repent and God changes his mind about destroying them, then certainly his plan did not come to pass. What he hoped for certainly did (their repentance) come to pass, but that is distinct from the plan. So you have a false statement here.

Care to make a brave guess at who or what that is? I wouldn't...

By definition, nothing is more powerful than God.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

When I clicked on your link it asked me for a password. Can you just quote from it, so I can get where you are coming from on this?
My basic point was that it sounds like you and I are basically saying the same thing, which is why it is helpful to define terms. It was not my intention to suggest that you didn’t know what you were talking about. On the contrary, it was my intention to see whether or not I knew what you were talking about.
What you called induction looks exactly like deduction to me. (A conclusion, which follows naturally from two or more premises.)
It seems that there is a difference between inductive Bible study and inductive logic. If so, it wouldn't be the first time that Christianity has turned the meaning of a something on its head and if not, then show me how they are the same.
I know that induction is reasoning from the specific to the general or universal and conversely, deduction is reasoning from the universal or general to the specific. BOTH have a major roll to play in Bible study.
I will ask you the same question I asked Godrulz. Why is one better than the other? It seems to me like saying that a Phillips Head screwdriver is superior to a flat head. It's not superior its just different. One has a different application than the other to be sure but one should use the proper tool for the job at hand.
If induction is superior in your view then tell me why? I'll be interested to see if you can do so without employing deductive reasoning to make your case.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[daniel]

I really don't have the time to explain, nor do I believe that I could express to you what I believe in this manner as well as John Piper has already done. If you're up for it, here is a link to what he has to say about God having two wills that I would say I agree with.

Well, I guess it was just too much to ask to expect a simple answer. All I wanted to know is if you think God has contradictory sources of motivation within Him, as a person's "will" comes from their inner motivation.

You have God willing the existence of both moral good and moral evil so I wanted to know if you think both evil and good exist at the same time inside of God.

Is God both good and evil?