Our Moral God

[Derf]

Whomever that was, it certainly was not the immutable god of Aristotle, Augustine and Calvin.

I hate to put myself at complete (g)odds with Augustine and Calvin, recognizing that I won't be perfect in my theology either.

What other alternative to do see?


I confess that I do not understand what you're saying here. The analogy doesn't seem to fit at all. How many bottom-dwelling sea creatures have been created by, and in the image of, eagles? And, by what standard are you implying that eagles are superior bottom-swelling sea creatures? Are they not both merely creatures both made by the same Creator? Is either more or less perfectly designed and suited to their environment and purpose than the other?

Clete

My point was that to have communion, two beings need to share some of the same space, at least in some way. God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. An eagle would have a hard time doing that with a bottom-dweller, whether one created the other or not.

 

[Clete]

I hate to put myself at complete (g)odds with Augustine and Calvin, recognizing that I won't be perfect in my theology either.

No one is looking for perfection, this side of Heaven. All one should expect and insist upon is a doctrine that is both biblically and rationally sound. Both of which criteria would preclude any doctrine which is based on the philosophy of a pagan who worshiped a modified version of Zeus.

My point was that to have communion, two beings need to share some of the same space, at least in some way. God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve. An eagle would have a hard time doing that with a bottom-dweller, whether one created the other or not.

So, are you agreeing with me or making a point in opposition to my comments? It feels like you could be doing either.

I'd say that it is undeniable that people have had "communion", to use your word, with God since righteous Abel walked the Earth. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't the greatest commandment to love God? Does that not presuppose that loving God is possible and wouldn't that in turn presuppose that we share some common ground with the God who issued that command?

Clete

 

[Lon]

Yet His scriptures describe changes in His plans for people and nations in some cases, and scripture says these things are in response to what that person/nation does/did.

That's mainly bluster on your part, since we're both trying to understand not so much about what God hasn't revealed, but what He has.

I don't have any trouble grasping that. Jesus affirmed that before Abraham existed, He existed as deity. The Pharisees had no trouble grasping it either.
John 8:59 KJV — Then took they up stones to cast at him


This is no doubt true that God is beyond our cognitive ability, but that doesn't mean we ignore or make mysterious those things which He reveals clearly to us.

Yet such doesn't offer that you or I in particular, have actually grasped the truth of it. If, for instance, your filter is 'that is tainted Greek philosophy' it will color your paradigm for all ensuing conversation, necessarily.

Says who?

I did but more later when you 'question my sincerity.'

That's because most people are practical Open Theists.

"As you understand it." I'm not. I pray according to His will. When I ask for a healing, I know He has a big picture in mind and 'if' He catered to my will, if in any way another would be negatively affected, I know He will say "No" Such is very much a part from Open Theism expectations. I fully believe God changes me, not me changing Him.

I don't see how that second one needs to be about impassibility. The first one is decidedly caveated in scripture.

Philosophically, right? since we don't understand infinite? Anytime you say we can't understand the infinite and then proceed to explain it to me makes me question your sincerity.

Because of an inability? If so, you are correct, some things are taken by faith but the 'attempt' is there to bring another beyond a block in reasoning. If not? Then yeah, I lament (so don't doubt the attempt or sincerity). I wrote a piece about the difference in basic math and algebra. There is never an 'ability' for the basic math kid to grasp algebra, until there is. This is the same.

I'm not sure that Open Theism denies any of that. But don't you think that if God can keep straight all the different requests, he can also keep straight the responses to them? Responses--that's an Open Theism concept, as you admitted above.

God meets you where you are at. "If" one is in basic math like understanding of God and theology, that is where God is at. I'm bringing Algebra to the discussion as it were.

I didn't realize jettisoning the Bible was even on the table.

In sincerity? Or is this just an incredulous and easy rebuttal?

How does that put a limit on things kings should be trying to understand?
Proverbs 25:2 KJV — It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

It is mostly a wrestling point between algebra and basic-math'ers. It is my observation that the discussion with Open Theists is akin. I do believe implicitly that a slight grasp of an eternal nonbeginning is one key to progressing toward algebra views of God's reality and nature.

I would think we need to be at least as careful when we dodge something due to the infiniteness of the answer, since we don't understand it well enough to know whether we need to dodge.

It ties back into the difference of basic math, algebraic paradigms. Whenever you see someone not an Open Theist discussing this, it is not to limit but to move beyond the simple answer. They are trying to get you to appreciate an algebraic equation. Algebra IS higher math. It introduces the unknown and gives you MUCH better tools for doing higher math. Without it, your window for discussion will always be 'basic.' For the most part, that will always be the sense of the attempt. If you miss it, it'll always be seen as not connecting or even 'dumbing down' that is not at all the attempt. In a very real and tangible way, logic is done on a basic and/or algebraic frame. Most people are seeing Open Theism as 'basic math.' Insistence on basic math is okay, but trying to get someone to understand the infinite past of God 'that is still going' by algebraic necessity, is difficult with one that only grasps 'past is past so over.' Algebra is essential because infinite requires a variable placement holder. No # can qualify it so "past is past" is stuck in numerals.

Is someone doing that? How would you know? Is it because you can tell the difference between conceiving God on a human level versus conceiving Him on some other level?

Scripture is a great start point. When God gives us terms for Himself in Algebraic terms, we should listen to Him. Isaiah 55:8,9 "Thoughts AND ways are so much higher..." Thus, you can do simple math and figure some, grasp some, or you can use algebraic terms that leave a variable. Variables eventually will/can be applied but scripture is clear we are living in algebraic terms.

Yet, when you draw your hand out, you don't suddenly see what your fish were doing yesterday

This doesn't even fit in an Open Paradigm. Open Theists believe God knows what we were doing yesterday. I need a better analogy to describe or dispel a truth you are trying to convey.

Isn't the Bible written in terms that we understand, which would normally not include infinitely unconstrained theology, or whatever the opposite would be.

Yes, both in basic AND algebraic terms. I don't want to rock Open Theists in their theology, simply intimate that there are algebraic equations God gives clearly about Himself.

Again, I think this is merely bluster. Do you really think all open theists have God constraint to be a passenger? Why do you think that?

It is the end to the logical direction. It is a way of saying: Your ideas, taken to their conclusion, lead here. It doesn't mean you believe God is a passenger but it does mean that the theology 'uses' God that way, at least in portrayal, and that it ends that way if it is followed to conclusion. It might help to do a bit of theology digging on what Mormons believe about God. They 'think' logically, like Open Theists.

Ok. Why is that important here in this discussion? I would suggest that it is merely a way to end the conversation without having to address the points being made.

Because (continuing from just above), if God has to change to me (Open Paradigm) and "I'm" the one who is imperfect, what does it profit for God to 'meet me' as it were if He doesn't bring me back to where He is? I've NO comfort in a God who meets me where I am without the caveat: "to bring me back to Him." The first part is great: He saves me but if not to make me more like Him, to be with Him, then am I really saved or just building a theology that is stuck exactly where He found me? Christlikeness is my desire, a desire I find disturbingly lacking in some individuals on TOL AND I believe, due to exactly this theology, a theology that doesn't have them wanting anything to do with Jesus nor to be anything like Him. Who CARES if I'm saved if I'm the same exact punk I always used to be? It isn't just a future in heaven. I'm not into life-insurance policies lest He say "depart, I never knew you." Rather, I want to 'be' like Jesus today. I want to be 'with' Jesus today. For Christ, I've been saved, He is my focus. That at least, is basic enough. Summary: If the best Open Theism can do is make me "realize God meets me at my need," it tends to convey 'what I, a man needs and wants' and leaves me there. I do not need comfort that God moves to my desires as the end of the story. I want the part where I am brought from/to, thus a God who is constant, stable, Holy, unchanging in nature, etc. etc. is of greater promise and hope than a god who merely caters and comes to meet me. When I am raised daily to meet Him. When I am promised to be changed to His glory. Those are earmarks of my faith that are subdued in Open discussion and circles. Show me the thread on TOL that was started by an Open Theist "Why I love Jesus!" or "I cannot wait to be like Him and see Him for Who He is!" Our theology forces our discussion. If after the service we immediately talk about football, what was on our minds the whole sermon? How our theology changes US is huge in giving indicators of the focus of our theology. One main point of my theology is "Dear Lord Jesus, I want to be like you today and bless others." Your theology shapes who you are. Open Theology has a lot of God coming to me and catering to me but I NEED "Lord make me like You today, fill me, give me strength, grace, love and mercy to reach others and serve."

If something we "know" of God's character/being is ever wrong, doesn't some damage need to be done to it?

To us, and our concept (and how this ties in to the thread) If, according to this thread, God is moral, it is 'higher' and algebraic in connection with our 'basic' understanding so the algebraic term is necessary. It isn't 'as simple as that' afterall. The subject of God's morality:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

1) "Human" God isn't subject to 'human' morality. He was subject to humanity, but for a short time.
In this context, and to answer the thread: God supersedes morality. He is 'more' than so 'moral' by human standards would be seen as a limitation.
2) Exhibiting Goodness Yes, in this sense, God is moral, but the point of my entrance in thread, was to discuss the difference as well as question whether 'morality' is the best descriptor. "Good" and 'Correct" may have been better terms for starting a thread.
3)"Conforming" Is God having to 'conform'? Can He? Isn't he already THE standard? In a larger sense, I agree with Clete God is good and moral, but man is not the yardstick to measure or ascertain God's goodness. 1) Rule #1 God is moral as an absolute. 2) Rule #2 If it looks like God has done something immoral, refer to rule #1 because a)I'm not the standard nor b)have the standard. God is good, I am not but for Christ in me.

Agreed.

But we should also determine which of our ideas aren't quite as well supported by scripture and allow the damage to be done to them.

Yes, our ideas need to be assailable.

Lon, I haven't really reviewed the conversation that went before, and some time has passed, so I hope I haven't just reiterated stuff in attempting to address your post.

I believe you did well and ty.

 

[Derf]

Yet such doesn't offer that you or I in particular, have actually grasped the truth of it. If, for instance, your filter is 'that is tainted Greek philosophy' it will color your paradigm for all ensuing conversation, necessarily.

Which filters are ok by you? Are there any except the bible itself?

I did but more later when you 'question my sincerity.'

Ok.

"As you understand it." I'm not. I pray according to His will. When I ask for a healing, I know He has a big picture in mind and 'if' He catered to my will, if in any way another would be negatively affected, I know He will say "No" Such is very much a part from Open Theism expectations.

I don't see how. Open Theists believe God says No sometimes when No is the better answer. And Open Theists also "pray according to His will," like one famous Open Theist said: [Luk 22:42 KJV] 42 ...Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

I fully believe God changes me, not me changing Him.

Ok. I ask God to change me. Do you think He answers that prayer, or is the prayer superfluous? I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to change God. I may be trying to change your view of God, but that seems a stretch, maybe even blasphemous, to equate the two.

Because of an inability? If so, you are correct, some things are taken by faith but the 'attempt' is there to bring another beyond a block in reasoning. If not? Then yeah, I lament (so don't doubt the attempt or sincerity). I wrote a piece about the difference in basic math and algebra. There is never an 'ability' for the basic math kid to grasp algebra, until there is. This is the same.

What I think you are saying is that I'm not grasping your algebraic theology because it is well beyond me at this time. I don't see it that way. I'm actually questioning your algebraic theology in favor of biblical simplicity. The problem I've run into is that algebraic theology tends to lead people to say the bible means something different from what it says. That's not really algebraic...that's deceptive.

God meets you where you are at. "If" one is in basic math like understanding of God and theology, that is where God is at. I'm bringing Algebra to the discussion as it were.

Please see algebra discussion above.

In sincerity? Or is this just an incredulous and easy rebuttal?

Well, for me it's not on the table. Is it for you? If not, then aren't you questioning MY sincerity by bringing it up?

It is mostly a wrestling point between algebra and basic-math'ers. It is my observation that the discussion with Open Theists is akin. I do believe implicitly that a slight grasp of an eternal nonbeginning is one key to progressing toward algebra views of God's reality and nature.

That might seem to be helpful for you. But is it the best way to proceed?

It ties back into the difference of basic math, algebraic paradigms. Whenever you see someone not an Open Theist discussing this, it is not to limit but to move beyond the simple answer.

You are assuming the simple answer is incorrect, or at least incomplete. I'm not ready to do that yet.

They are trying to get you to appreciate an algebraic equation. Algebra IS higher math. It introduces the unknown and gives you MUCH better tools for doing higher math. Without it, your window for discussion will always be 'basic.' For the most part, that will always be the sense of the attempt. If you miss it, it'll always be seen as not connecting or even 'dumbing down' that is not at all the attempt. In a very real and tangible way, logic is done on a basic and/or algebraic frame. Most people are seeing Open Theism as 'basic math.' Insistence on basic math is okay, but trying to get someone to understand the infinite past of God 'that is still going' by algebraic necessity, is difficult with one that only grasps 'past is past so over.'

Can you name a couple things in God's past that are "still going on", so I can understand what you mean by this?

Algebra is essential because infinite requires a variable placement holder. No # can qualify it so "past is past" is stuck in numerals.

Scripture is a great start point. When God gives us terms for Himself in Algebraic terms, we should listen to Him. Isaiah 55:8,9 "Thoughts AND ways are so much higher..." Thus, you can do simple math and figure some, grasp some, or you can use algebraic terms that leave a variable. Variables eventually will/can be applied but scripture is clear we are living in algebraic terms.

Maybe you can help me understand why "my thoughts/ways are not your thoughts and ways" equals "past is NOT past".

This doesn't even fit in an Open Paradigm. Open Theists believe God knows what we were doing yesterday. I need a better analogy to describe or dispel a truth you are trying to convey.

I was trying to understand YOUR paradigm. It was your illustration. I agree you need a better analogy.

Yes, both in basic AND algebraic terms. I don't want to rock Open Theists in their theology, simply intimate that there are algebraic equations God gives clearly about Himself.

But I DO want to "rock" you in your theology...because I think you are wrong. And I think you think I am wrong, and are being disingenuous in saying you don't want to "rock Open Theists in their theology".

It is the end to the logical direction. It is a way of saying: Your ideas, taken to their conclusion, lead here. It doesn't mean you believe God is a passenger but it does mean that the theology 'uses' God that way, at least in portrayal, and that it ends that way if it is followed to conclusion.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. And I could say the same about ANY theology I think is wrong.

It might help to do a bit of theology digging on what Mormons believe about God. They 'think' logically, like Open Theists.

That's an odd thing to suggest. Let's say for just a moment that what OTers believe about lined up with what Mormons believe about God in an area are two? Would that make OTers wrong? Let's confine it to one particular belief from Mormonism, say, that Jesus is God the Father's son. Should I now NOT believe that Jesus is God's son because Mormon's believe it? Are you now going to stop believing that?

I didn't think so. If you want to explain how Mormon's and OTers believe alike and wrongly, I'd like to hear it. Until then, let's minimize the superfluous guilt by association, shall we?

Because (continuing from just above), if God has to change to me (Open Paradigm) and "I'm" the one who is imperfect, what does it profit for God to 'meet me' as it were if He doesn't bring me back to where He is?

Is that the Open Paradigm? Can you quote someone (with adequate context) who says that?

But is it even wrong to suggest that God has to "meet me"? Didn't Jesus actually become a man to "meet us" where we are? And only then could He bring us back to where He is?

I've NO comfort in a God who meets me where I am without the caveat: "to bring me back to Him." The first part is great: He saves me but if not to make me more like Him, to be with Him, then am I really saved or just building a theology that is stuck exactly where He found me? Christlikeness is my desire, a desire I find disturbingly lacking in some individuals on TOL AND I believe, due to exactly this theology, a theology that doesn't have them wanting anything to do with Jesus nor to be anything like Him. Who CARES if I'm saved if I'm the same exact punk I always used to be? It isn't just a future in heaven. I'm not into life-insurance policies lest He say "depart, I never knew you." Rather, I want to 'be' like Jesus today. I want to be 'with' Jesus today. For Christ, I've been saved, He is my focus. That at least, is basic enough. Summary: If the best Open Theism can do is make me "realize God meets me at my need," it tends to convey 'what I, a man needs and wants' and leaves me there.

If you're saying you won't believe any theology that is ascribed to by a person who acts like he isn't really saved, then you're going to have to ditch all theologies, including your own.

I do not need comfort that God moves to my desires as the end of the story. I want the part where I am brought from/to, thus a God who is constant, stable, Holy, unchanging in nature, etc. etc. is of greater promise and hope than a god who merely caters and comes to meet me. When I am raised daily to meet Him. When I am promised to be changed to His glory. Those are earmarks of my faith that are subdued in Open discussion and circles. Show me the thread on TOL that was started by an Open Theist "Why I love Jesus!" or "I cannot wait to be like Him and see Him for Who He is!" Our theology forces our discussion. If after the service we immediately talk about football, what was on our minds the whole sermon? How our theology changes US is huge in giving indicators of the focus of our theology. One main point of my theology is "Dear Lord Jesus, I want to be like you today and bless others." Your theology shapes who you are. Open Theology has a lot of God coming to me and catering to me but I NEED "Lord make me like You today, fill me, give me strength, grace, love and mercy to reach others and serve."

You sound very "I" oriented. Why do we base our theology on anything but what the bible describes about God? Why do your needs drive anyone's theology, including your own? Don't we understand God by what He reveals to us, not by what we think or feel? If this is your algebraic theology, you need to go back to basic math.

To us, and our concept (and how this ties in to the thread)

Good job getting us back on topic!

If, according to this thread, God is moral, it is 'higher' and algebraic in connection with our 'basic' understanding so the algebraic term is necessary. It isn't 'as simple as that' afterall. The subject of God's morality:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

1) "Human" God isn't subject to 'human' morality. He was subject to humanity, but for a short time.
In this context, and to answer the thread: God supersedes morality. He is 'more' than so 'moral' by human standards would be seen as a limitation.
2) Exhibiting Goodness Yes, in this sense, God is moral, but the point of my entrance in thread, was to discuss the difference as well as question whether 'morality' is the best descriptor. "Good" and 'Correct" may have been better terms for starting a thread.
3)"Conforming" Is God having to 'conform'? Can He? Isn't he already THE standard? In a larger sense, I agree with Clete God is good and moral, but man is not the yardstick to measure or ascertain God's goodness. 1) Rule #1 God is moral as an absolute. 2) Rule #2 If it looks like God has done something immoral, refer to rule #1 because a)I'm not the standard nor b)have the standard. God is good, I am not but for Christ in me.

God holds Himself to standards. Can we not do the same? Abraham did:
[Gen 18:25 KJV] 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?

If God sets the standard, then does God need to obey the standard He Himself set? In most things, the standard doesn't make sense for Him. He can't really murder humans, because He created humans. He can destroy His creation if He wants to, but why would He want to, if they are righteous (Abraham's argument). He can't commit adultery or disobey His parents or steal. The one thing God might possibly be able to do is lie, and He sets Himself above lying.

Yes, our ideas need to be assailable.

ok.

I believe you did well and ty.

Blessings, Lon.

Derf

 

[Clete]

To us, and our concept (and how this ties in to the thread) If, according to this thread, God is moral, it is 'higher' and algebraic in connection with our 'basic' understanding so the algebraic term is necessary. It isn't 'as simple as that' afterall.

Lon,

Algebra is logic. It is not "higher logic" it's just logic. It works BECAUSE its logic. Yes, algebra is more complex than simple counting but so is adding and subtracting. Multiplication and division are still more complex than adding and subtracting but its all still math and math is nothing at all other than sound reason. It is simply one form of logic. The point here being that "higher math" is not "supra-mathmatical" and by the same token, just as there are some aspects of reason that are more complex than others, it's all still logic. There isn't any such thing as "super-logic". A concept is either consistent with reality (i.e. true) or it isn't.

The subject of God's morality:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous.

1) "Human" God isn't subject to 'human' morality. He was subject to humanity, but for a short time.
In this context, and to answer the thread: God supersedes morality. He is 'more' than so 'moral' by human standards would be seen as a limitation.

As for your proposed definition of morality, by what authority do you (or whomever) add the word "human" in the first definition and why is it excluded in definitions two and three? I reject its use outright and I do so on the basis, not only of sound reason but on the basis of God's own word, as described in the opening post. Thus, morality is "Of, or concerned with, the judgment of right or wrong of a person's action and character."

You do accept the idea that God is a Person, don't you?

2) Exhibiting Goodness Yes, in this sense, God is moral, but the point of my entrance in thread, was to discuss the difference as well as question whether 'morality' is the best descriptor. "Good" and 'Correct" may have been better terms for starting a thread.

What other sense is there?

Don't think that question to be trite or trivial, it is not. It is a question that you cannot answer without rendering the meaning of morality meaningless when applied to God. The result of which would be to tacitly state that God is amoral.

3)"Conforming" Is God having to 'conform'? Can He? Isn't he already THE standard?

No, God is not THE standard. At least, not in the sense that you mean it. It's a very ancient issue that people have grappled with for millennia. I invite you to read the following....

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma​

In a larger sense, I agree with Clete God is good and moral, but man is not the yardstick to measure or ascertain God's goodness.

Who in the world ever suggested that man was the yardstick?
If you think that I've suggested any such thing, you've very badly misunderstood.

1) Rule #1 God is moral as an absolute.

This seems to contradict your assertion that God's morality equates to some undefined variable akin to something one would encounter in an algebraic equation.

Indeed, I cannot imagine what you mean by this. What does it mean for "God is moral" to be an absolute?

Do you mean that it is a presupposition? If so, why? There are some things that we are indeed required to accept as presuppositions and that the bible itself presupposes. Things like God's existence, for example. But we can understand WHY such things must be presupposed. We don't presuppose them just because we decide we want to. There's good reason why doing so is required (i.e. rationally necessary). Do you know of any such reason that God being moral is such a rationally necessary presuppositional concept?

2) Rule #2 If it looks like God has done something immoral, refer to rule #1 because a)I'm not the standard nor b)have the standard. God is good, I am not but for Christ in me.

If this is your rule number two, then why don't you follow it?

Or do you mean that when you see something that "looks like God has done something immoral", that you're supposed to turn off your brain?

Wouldn't the correct way to follow rule #2 be to reject the notion that God did whatever immoral thing that He's being accused of?

Put another way, if you have a thought process that leads to the conclusion that God is immoral, shouldn't you do more than simply reject the conclusion? Shouldn't you question the premises upon which the conclusion is based? If not, then it isn't merely the conclusion that you're rejecting, it is reason itself that is being rejected. If you reject the conclusion but cling to the doctrines that lead to that conclusion then you are tacitly accepting that your doctrine does not have to be rational. In which case, there isn't any doctrine that is out of bounds, including one that says that God does immoral things and your own two rules go flying out the window.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The one thing God might possibly be able to do is lie, and He sets Himself above lying.

This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​

​

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

@Derf

Titus 1:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

[Derf]

This is a rabbit trail but I can't resist....

Given your statement above, what do you do with the following passage...

I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”​

​

Clete

@Derf

Titus 1:2 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Do you boys need to take this outside?