Good, they are bad to the bone.
ECT Open Theism debate
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Good, they are bad to the bone.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Nope, Adam had the same nature we do....human.
Good point. He just does what is right.
Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Adam was created with the capability to sin.
If he wasn't created with the capability to sin, then he could not have eaten the fruit and caused the fall.
But he did eat the fruit, and therefore we know he did have the capability to sin.
Adam was created with the capability to sin.
GOD's creation, including Adam, was called "good".
So there is no reason to doubt that GOD can have the capability to sin and still be called "good" because just having the capability does not mean you will.
They just thought they were bad till they shook their finger at GOD.
Wait till they get a load of Him.
My dad can whoop your dad is TRUE!
When GOD pulls his boots on, they'll be quaking in theirs, and there's gonna be a bunch of crying.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Boy, is that the truth. :thumb:
marhig
Well-known member
Well that's not the heart that Abraham had for the people of Sodom, he wanted to help save as many as he could, even down to ten if possible. And God was willing for him to try. And he's willing for us to try too through Christ.
Why would you say good when thinking that people may burn in a lake of fire? I can see you standing there warming your hands as they get chucked in! Would you say the same if it was your own family?
God wants us all back, and we are not to want others to burn in lakes of fire, but rather to help them through Christ and have hope that they will believe the truth and turn to God.
marhig
Well-known member
God have the capability to sin? What? No God can't sin, there is no capability for God to do wickedness whatsoever. God is love and there is no capability for God to sin. To say that, means that satan can tempt God, and God can't be tempted so God hasn't got the capability to sin.
We have the capability to sin because we are in flesh. This flesh is sinful, and we lust after it until God strengthens us through Christ to overcome.
Cross Reference
New member
How does He do that?
marhig
Well-known member
By the power of the Spirit
Cross Reference
New member
Unto what, coercion?
marhig
Well-known member
No by showing me where I'm going wrong by guiding, teaching me and prompting me to do what's right. Giving me a strong conscience and strengthening me, helping me daily.
Cross Reference
New member
Showing you? Guiding you? Teaching you? Prompting you? How? You are telling me you are a Pentecostal Christian. Are you?
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 (KJV)
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Indeed.
The ultimate ends for our creation by God was for God’s own glory.
In all of God’s actions, the one underlying objective is that He will be glorified. God’s unchanging purpose in everything He does is to exalt the honor of His name. God is infinitely jealous for His reputation. "For my own sake, for my own sake I act," says the Lord. "My glory I will not give to another!" (Isaiah 48:11) This is not some negative ego-centricity on God’s part. Instead it is a stunning truth—that God's passion for his glory is the measure of His commitment to our joy.
God's saving designs are penultimate, not ultimate. Redemption, salvation, and restoration are not God's ultimate goal. These he performs for the sake of something greater: namely, the enjoyment he has in glorifying himself.
If God were not infinitely devoted to the preservation, display, and enjoyment of His own glory, we could have no hope of finding happiness in him. But if he does employ all his sovereign power and infinite wisdom to maximize the enjoyment of his own glory, then we have a foundation on which to stand and rejoice.
Begin by noting that only God is self-reliant in the universe. God’s self-reliance is sometimes referred to as the aseity of God. It means that God has life in Himself and draws his unending energy from Himself. The word describes the truth of the Scriptures (see Exodus 3:14; Psalms 90:1-4; Psalms 102:25-27; Isaiah 40:28-31; John 5:26; Revelation 4:10). Unlike God, man should be God-reliant. We all know the effects that resulted from man seeking self-reliance in Eden.
The Scriptures use the word majesty to express the greatness of God, our Lord and Maker, e.g.,
“The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty…Your throne was established long ago’ (Psalms 93:1-2).
“They will speak of the glorious splendor of your majesty, and I will meditate on your wonderful works” (Psalms 145:5).
When Peter recalls his vision of the Transfiguration, he says, “We were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16)
In Hebrews we find that following the Ascension Christ sat down “at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven,” “at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3;8:1)
When the word majesty is applied to God we always find it being used declaring God’s greatness and as an invitation to worship, for “The LORD is the great God, the great King,…Come, let us bow down in worship” (Psalms 95:3,6).
Unfortunately, all too often today the Christian has small thoughts about God. When the churchgoer, not just the everyman in the streets, uses the word God, they are rarely, if ever, thinking about divine majesty. When we confess the faith of our forefathers, using their very words, we seldom realize how far apart we are from them. When I first began to formally study the masters, it was not long before I realized I had very little real acquaintance with the mighty and majestic God Almighty (El Shaddai) these men knew so intimately. For example, they described the God of the Scriptures who,
- delights in His sovereign freedom—He is in heaven and does all that He pleases (Psalms 135:6);
- rejoices over the work of His hands—daily they declare His glory (Psalms 104:31); and
- has pleasure in His fame—aiming to make and name for Himself in all the world, winning a reputation for the glory of His grace from every people, tribe, language, and nation (1 Samuel 12:22).
Two observations can be made about God’s majesty that recur in all the great writings of our forefathers:
1. Mankind was created for something nobler and deeper than self-contemplation. We were created for the contemplation and enjoyment of God. To do anything less would be idolatry towards God and disappointment for us. To not love and delight in God, the most majestic of all beings, is a tragic loss for us and a great insult to God.
2. Just as God is insulted by idolatry by us, God, too, cannot insult what is infinitely beautiful and glorious. Necessarily, God must love and delight in His own beauty and perfections above all things.
We may wrongfully stand in front of the mirror and dwell in our vanities; but for God to do so in front of His Son, is the essence of righteousness (placing supreme value on what is supremely valuable with all the just actions to follow). God delights in the glory of His own perfections reflected back to Him in the countenance of Christ. In this God-centered divine righteousness lies the greatest obstacle to our salvation. After all, how does a majestic, righteous God ever be moved to fix His affections on sinners who have scorned His perfections? Incredibly, the marvel of the Gospel is that in divine righteousness lies the foundation of our salvation.
I have just made two statements above that appear at direct odds with one another:
1. in divine righteousness lies the greatest obstacle to our salvation
2. in divine righteousness lies the foundation of our salvation
Here now comes the wonder and resolution of the matter. "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee" (John 17:1) The infinite regard that the Father has for the Son makes it possible for the wicked sinner to be loved and accepted in the Son. Why? Because in His death the Son vindicated the worth and glory of His Father.
God’s independence is defined as follows: God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation can glorify him and bring him joy. This attribute of God is sometimes called his self existence or his aseity (from the Latin words a se, which mean “from himself ”). The Scriptures in several places teach that in order to exist God does not need any part of creation for He is absolutely self-sufficient and independent.
In Acts 17:24-25, we find Paul proclaiming to the men of Athens, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything”. The verse teaches that God does not need anything from mankind.
In Job 41:11, God asks to Job, “Who has given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine”. Since God created all things, no creature has given to God anything that did not originally come from God.
In Psalms 50:10-12, we read, “every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the air, and all that moves in the field is mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world and all that is in it is mine”.
God was not lonely or in need of fellowship with other creatures. If true, God’s independence from creation is not true. If God needed to create, it would mean that God needed something else to be totally fulfilled in His own personal existence. Christ’s own words indicate the inaccuracy of this assumption.
In John 17:5, we find Christ praying, “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made.” Here we see glory shared between the Father and the Son before any creation existed.
In John 17:24, Christ indicates the love and communication between Father and Son before creation, “my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world.”
These verses and passages elsewhere related to the Trinity indicate that perfect love and fellowship existed for all eternity.
In Isaiah 43:7, we read that God created His people for His glory, “whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made”.
In Psalms 19:1-2 we find that even the entire created universe was intended to proclaim God’s glory, “The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge”.
In Revelations 4:11, there is the song of worship in heaven connecting creation of all things with the worthiness of God to receive glory from them:
“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you have created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you have created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”
As noted above, God is free, and His creation was a free act of God. Creation was a choice by God, “You created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11). God chose to create as a demonstration of His perfect excellence, for His creation is evidence of all the attributes of God.
AMR
So far I've listen to just shy of one hour of the debate. I'm struck by the Calvinist's inability to have a conversation in the English language. All the words have weird and apparently ineffable meanings inside his mind. Notice that he asks "in what sense" repeatedly but never offers any understandable meaning of the words Will uses in his questions other than what they seem to mean. He says that there is more than one sense of (fill in the blank) but never offers what the other sense is or even attempts to define or describe it. The words Will uses in his question a simply loaded with meanings other than their normal meanings that the Calvinist (i.e. all Calvinists) is unable to articulate. Notice also how in one sentence the Calvinist is content with not having the ability to understand something about how God works but wants to charge the the Open Theist with being fallacious on the very same subject! He wants to eat his cake and have it too! You can't hold doctrines that you tacitly admit are irrational and then object to someone else's doctrine on the basis of him having made an error of logic.
Maybe is isn't the way God works that the Calvinist doesn't understand, maybe its the meaning of simple English words like "decree" and "make" and "can" and "ability" and "choose" and "necessary", etc, etc that he doesn't understand! Every thought of that?! And how would he know which of the two errors he was making? (He couldn't!)
Clete
Maybe is isn't the way God works that the Calvinist doesn't understand, maybe its the meaning of simple English words like "decree" and "make" and "can" and "ability" and "choose" and "necessary", etc, etc that he doesn't understand! Every thought of that?! And how would he know which of the two errors he was making? (He couldn't!)
Clete
There is no authorized Calvinism or Open theism. Every Calvinist and OVer is their own magisterium. You're right to notice that these arguments boil down to homonymy and ambiguity. Nothing's ever solved or resolved or finalized. These things are pointless.
The following is not directed at you, Tambora. I'm not going to say anything you disagree with. I'm just using your post as a springboard here...
To say that God is good is a statement of morality. You aren't simply stating that God is pleasing in some aesthetic or superficial way but you are saying that God is MORALLY good which means that God acts in the best interests of others and does not do evil.
Morality, however requires choice. If God only does what He does because He cannot do otherwise then it is meaningless to attribute any morality to His actions. If He has no ability to do otherwise then there is no choice and therefore His actions would be outside the purview of morality. Machines are not moral. Cause and effect is not a moral issue. Only when one chooses does morality enter into it.
The question then is this. Does Calvinism believe that God is good?
They cannot answer the question without redefining the words in the question. Morality, in the mind of the Calvinist, is meaningless when applied to God. Don't believe me? Ask one! Ask them, "Is God good?". They'll say, "Yes, of course He is." then ask them if God could have done something opposite of what He did, like declaring revenge murder to be just for example. Either way they answer, they render the meaning of "good" meaningless when applied to God.
Resting in Him,
Clete
What?
There's no authorized Calvinism or Open Theism. You can say that the OV is definitely this or that, but I'll ask you to prove it, and you won't be able to, because there's no authorized Open View, just like there's no authorized Calvinism either. Debates between Calvinists and Open theists are like trying to pick up watermelon seeds by pinching them. Homonymy and ambiguity.
That's stupidity.
There is no authorized version of an apple. There is no authorized version of an orange. Can you tell the difference between an apple and an orange?
There is no authorized version of blue. In fact before a few hundred years ago what is called blue now was commonly called green. Can you tell the difference between blue and green?
Clete
I don't mind you using any post of mine.
Glad you joined the discussion.
Ahhh, the word "good" and morality.
In what sense are you using "morality"?
(ha! Had to throw that in there!)
But seriously, I even question if sin is moral at times (considering we have scripture that says breaking the law is sin).
For instance:
Was it moral for the priest to give David and his hungry men the temple shewbread to eat, since it would be breaking the law?
Was it moral for Rahab to lie and deceive the citizens of Jericho to keep the Israelite spies safe, since bearing false witness would be breaking the law?
Was it moral for GOD to not implement the same standard of conduct afforded to other men when He did not have David killed for adultery and murder, since adultery and murder would be breaking the law?
How does one decide when they should implement mercy or implement the keeping of the law in any given situation?
For we know there is a time for all things under the sun. - Ecc 3:1-8