 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 9/29/2004 8:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | Greetings, Lock:
.
You wrote:
quote:
All is of God, so there is a purpose for the decrease in money coming in.....
If "All is of God," do you feel that God has a 'purpose' (divine plan), for ALL events -- even if we may not understand His plan?
If "All is of God," wouldn't this also mean that God is also complicit -- in evil?
IMHO,
this would contradict "God is LOVE."
Peace & blessings,
<><
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/29/2004 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | |
Matt. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
It is not clear to me at least, how the omnicausal God depicted by Lock and other determinists is not, as Christ says, "A kingdom divided against itself."
Luke 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
Here we have clear evidence from Christ himself that there are some who rejected the purpose of God for themselves. How this fits with the omnicausal God that lock ascribes to is unintelligible.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 9/29/2004 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Romans 8:28 We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.
(So it is definitely not the case that Lock is "only quoting the Bible" when he claims that "all is of God.")
The converse of Rom. 8:28 is also true--all things work (eventually) together for the BAD of those who hate God.
But it should be obvious (even to Lock) that this verse in no way supports his contention that "all is of God," nor even that all things work together for good for everyone.
John-
I used Rom. 8:28 in the context of the North Heights discussion, making the assumption that the leadership and members of North Heights love God.
quote:
1) Does everything that happens come from God (this is what I took as you meaning of "all is of God")
2) You said that you established this principle from Romans 8:28, so maybe you only mean that "those who love God" should have the principle that "all is of God" apply to them. Is that what you were meaning?
Ross-
Rom. 11:36 "seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all..."
1 Cor. 8:6 "nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, out of Whom all is..."
1 Cor. 11:12 "For even as the woman is out of the man, thus the man also is through the woman, yet all is of God."
2 Cor. 5:18 "Yet all is of God, Who conciliates us to Himself through Christ..."
The above passages refer to all mankind and then some. Rom. 8:28 is relative to the elect.
quote:
3) as a realted question, do you believe that God loves everyone?
Yes, I believe that God loves everyone.
John 3:16 "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."
I John 4:9 "...God is love."
quote:
If "All is of God," do you feel that God has a 'purpose' (divine plan), for ALL events -- even if we may not understand His plan?
If "All is of God," wouldn't this also mean that God is also complicit -- in evil?
IMHO,
this would contradict "God is LOVE."
The bible speaks of God bringing about evil to suit His purposes. The judgments upon Egypt are described as great and "sore" (raa, evil). No one denies that this was justifiable. Saul was tormented by an "evil" spirit from the Lord. The judgments upon Israel were brought about by God. Isa 45:7 "I create evil". God can bring about evil according to His purposes without sinning. In the example of Job, Satan was the instrument of the evil brought on Job and yet Job knew Who alone was in charge, "Shall we recieve good at the hand of God and shall we not recieve evil? (Job 2:10b)" 1 Chronicles 21:1-14 states that Satan stood against Israel and provoked David to number Israel which brought a judgment of pestilence which killed 70,000 men. 2 Samuel 24:1-17 records the same event and states that the anger of the Lord was against Israel and He moved David to number Israel and Judah.
God does not take pleasure in evil. God does not take pleasure in judgment. God is love. These are instuments used to complete His divine purposes. God has put together a backdrop of evil; put in contrast of His kindness. This evil experience that He gives mankind during this life, in no way compares to the future glories to come. Once God has completed His purpose for evil, it will be taken away, done away with, not last eternally in the form of hell fires.
quote:
Luke 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
This not evidence, because even John made the distinction between his baptism and Christ's. Christ would baptise with fire and spirit and Jesus explained this to Nicodemus in John 3.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/29/2004 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Romans 8:28 We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.
(So it is definitely not the case that Lock is "only quoting the Bible" when he claims that "all is of God.")
The converse of Rom. 8:28 is also true--all things work (eventually) together for the BAD of those who hate God.
But it should be obvious (even to Lock) that this verse in no way supports his contention that "all is of God," nor even that all things work together for good for everyone.
John-
I used Rom. 8:28 in the context of the North Heights discussion, making the assumption that the leadership and members of North Heights love God.
My point still stands, as your original assertion was that "ALL was of God," without reference to whether a person loved God or not. (I'm glad to see you apparently agree now).
quote:
1) Does everything that happens come from God (this is what I took as you meaning of "all is of God")
2) You said that you established this principle from Romans 8:28, so maybe you only mean that "those who love God" should have the principle that "all is of God" apply to them. Is that what you were meaning?
"All is of God" still does not accurately reflect Romans 8:28, which says God works in all things for the good of those who love God:
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. NIV
quote:
Luke 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; 30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
quote:
This not evidence, because even John made the distinction between his baptism and Christ's. Christ would baptise with fire and spirit and Jesus explained this to Nicodemus in John 3.
Your reason for rejecting this as evidence is amazingly absurd, even for you, lock. The point of the verse as it relates to our present discussion is whether anyone can reject the purpose of God for themselves, which this verse clearly says they can. John's baptism vs. Jesus' baptism is beside the point.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/1/2004 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Your reason for rejecting this as evidence is amazingly absurd, even for you, lock. The point of the verse as it relates to our present discussion is whether anyone can reject the purpose of God for themselves, which this verse clearly says they can. John's baptism vs. Jesus' baptism is beside the point.
As I mentioned in the other discussion, John's baptism was the "call" to repentance. Jesus stated that "many are called, but few are chosen." Rejecting the call (John's baptism) is within God's purposes.
The problem with your explanation is that the passage itself says plainly that these men rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not, "rejecting the call is within God's purposes."
It was within God's purposes for the Pharisees and lawyers to reject the His own counsel. The people of Israel rejected the message of the prophets, they rejected the message of John, they rejected their Messiah, at the end of Acts they finally reject the final plea from Paul. This is all a part of God's purposes. Paul states that the gospel will go to the gentiles and they will hear it. The purpose for the rejection and setting aside of Israel was to bring in the body of Christ which was designated beforehand by God. Why did they reject? It wasn't given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They were calloused, given a spirit of stupor, eyes not observing, and ears not to hear (Rom. 11:8).
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/1/2004 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | lock,
quote:
It was within God's purposes for the Pharisees and lawyers to reject the His own counsel. The people of Israel rejected the message of the prophets, they rejected the message of John, they rejected their Messiah, at the end of Acts they finally reject the final plea from Paul. This is all a part of God's purposes.
It's just as logical to say that the disobedience/unpersuasion of the non-elect in no way frustrates the providential purposes of God. This way, we are not making God the author of evil as your view does. And it still leaves intact the obvious fact that God PREFERS that all men seek Him. In other words, there are some purposes of God whose origin is POST-FALL.
This is part of what the open view is all about, and this is why the open view can recognize purposes that are made IN TIME, GIVEN the fact that the vast majority of the human race will reject God. Prior to the Fall, this was not assumed. This fact was recognized by God (at least formally) after the Flood, when God said:
"I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; ALTHOUGH the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/1/2004 2:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Your reason for rejecting this as evidence is amazingly absurd, even for you, lock. The point of the verse as it relates to our present discussion is whether anyone can reject the purpose of God for themselves, which this verse clearly says they can. John's baptism vs. Jesus' baptism is beside the point.
As I mentioned in the other discussion, John's baptism was the "call" to repentance. Jesus stated that "many are called, but few are chosen." Rejecting the call (John's baptism) is within God's purposes.
The problem with your explanation is that the passage itself says plainly that these men rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not, "rejecting the call is within God's purposes."
It was within God's purposes for the Pharisees and lawyers to reject the His own counsel. The people of Israel rejected the message of the prophets, they rejected the message of John, they rejected their Messiah, at the end of Acts they finally reject the final plea from Paul. This is all a part of God's purposes. Paul states that the gospel will go to the gentiles and they will hear it. The purpose for the rejection and setting aside of Israel was to bring in the body of Christ which was designated beforehand by God. Why did they reject? It wasn't given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They were calloused, given a spirit of stupor, eyes not observing, and ears not to hear (Rom. 11:8).
(sigh) The passage itself plainly states that these men REJECTED God's purpose for themselves, NOT as you claim, "their rejection of God's purpose was really God's purpose for them."
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/2/2004 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
(sigh) The passage itself plainly states that these men REJECTED God's purpose for themselves, NOT as you claim, "their rejection of God's purpose was really God's purpose for them."
John-
The confusion lies in the translation you are using. The KJV translates Luke 7:29 "..rejected the counsel of God" using counsel, not purpose. The Greek word for "counsel" is boule. Now in Romans 8:28 "and we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose." The Greek translated "purpose" in Rom. 8:28 is prothesis. It is entirely possible for a person to reject the counsel (boule) of God, and that is what the pharisees and lawyers did. As for God's purpose (prothesis), Paul clearly sets out the order in the next verses; Whom He foreknew, He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son; He predestinates, then calls, then justifies, then glorifies (Rom. 8:29-30).
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/4/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Jefscott-
quote:
The only verse I'm aware of that even seems like it is saying that redemption may have been planned before the Fall is the one in Ephesians 1 where Paul speaks of having been chosen before the "katabole" of the "kosmos." What do you think the phrase "katabole ton kosmos" means?
I believe that "katabole" speaks of a "disruption". Gen 1:1 tells us God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:2 tells us that the earth become "without form" or tohuw in Hebrew. Isa. 45:18 tells us that God did not create the earth "tohuw". The earth became tohuw. I believe that katabole speakes of this "disruption" of the world (kosmos), which took place prior to Gen 1:2.
quote:
And do you know of other verses that seem to indicate a pre-Fall purpose for redemption? If not, some of God's purposes can be post-Fall and THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
2 Timothy 1:9 "...Who saves us and calls us with a holy calling, not in accord with our acts, but in accord with His own purpose and the grace which is given to us in Christ Jesus before times eonian."
Titus 1:1-3 "Paul, a slave of God, yet an apostle of Jesus Christ, in accord with the faith of God's chosen, and a realization of the truth, which accords with devoutness, in expexctation of life eonian, which God, Who does not lie, promises before times eonian..."
1 Pet. 1:19-20 "...but the precious blood of Christ, as a flawless and unspotted lamb, foreknown, indeed, before the disruption of the world, yet maifested in the last times because of you..."
I would agree that some of God's purposes have been Post-katabole.
The evangel of the Circumsicion and the kingdom of priest or the kingdom of the Messiah, in which Israel will rule with Christ here on earth, has been determined "from the disruption" but, still before "the Fall".
Matt. 25:24 "...Enjoy the allotment of the kingdom made ready for you from the disruption of the world..."
Rev. 17:8 "...names not written in the book of life from the disruption of the world..."
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/4/2004 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
(sigh) The passage itself plainly states that these men REJECTED God's purpose for themselves, NOT as you claim, "their rejection of God's purpose was really God's purpose for them."
John-
The confusion lies in the translation you are using. The KJV translates Luke 7:29 "..rejected the counsel of God" using counsel, not purpose. The Greek word for "counsel" is boule. Now in Romans 8:28 "and we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to His purpose." The Greek translated "purpose" in Rom. 8:28 is prothesis. It is entirely possible for a person to reject the counsel (boule) of God, and that is what the pharisees and lawyers did. As for God's purpose (prothesis), Paul clearly sets out the order in the next verses; Whom He foreknew, He predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son; He predestinates, then calls, then justifies, then glorifies (Rom. 8:29-30).
Hi Lock,
I consulted Thayers', Vine's, Vincent's Word Studies, Robertson's _Word Pictures in the NT_, and Strong's, and found that the distinction you seem sure exists is not recognized by these noted authorities in biblical Greek.
In any case, your supposed distinction really makes no difference, for it still requires us to say that someone rejected God's purpose/counsel/will but that it was God's purpose/counsel/will that this would in fact happen. You are simply reading INTO the text your own presupposition, and thus reject the very purpose for which God inspired these words to be written in the first place.
As Peter said, some folks "twist the scriptures to their own destruction."
BTW, I agree with the understanding of "katabole" as disintegration/dissolution. However, your admission that God can have post-katabole resolutions (which admission I compeletely agree with) directly contradicts your deterministic worldview.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/4/2004 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I honestly get worne out from debating this stuff over and over again. You guys have more energy than I do!
I was just wondering, however, what determinists make of James' claim that "Every good and perfect gift is from above, from the Father...." It just seems to me that if James believed what theological determinists believe, namely, that everything without exception, good and evil, comes equally from the one unconditional and efficacious decree of God, he could have no reason for singling out good and perfect gifts as "coming from God." One could simply reply, "Well, sure they come from God. Everything comes from God, evil included." But if all is unconditionally decreed by God, then nothing unique is said about the good and perfect gifts in claiming these come from God. The fact would be that everything comes from God's own determination. It doesn't seem to make sense to say "good and perfect gifts" come from God if one also believes everything NOT good and perfect also comes from God.
I gotta see the spin you guys put on this one. Work your magic!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 10/4/2004 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
You are simply reading INTO the text your own presupposition, and thus reject the very purpose for which God inspired these words to be written in the first place.
Could this possibly apply to you also, John?
If the bible says in one spot that man can reject God's counsel, but then in another spot say that God's purpose is not influenced by the acts of man, tells me that there is a difference.
quote:
BTW, I agree with the understanding of "katabole" as disintegration/dissolution. However, your admission that God can have post-katabole resolutions (which admission I compeletely agree with) directly contradicts your deterministic worldview.
Matt. 25:24 "...Enjoy the allotment of the kingdom made ready for you from the disruption of the world..."
Rev. 17:8 "...names not written in the book of life from the disruption of the world..."
Man does not come onto the scene until after the katabole, so I do not see the statement that the allotment of the kingdom was made ready from the disruption of the world or the fact that names were written in the book of life since the katabole as contradicting with my view.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/4/2004 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Lock: If the bible says in one spot that man can reject God's counsel, but then in another spot say that God's purpose is not influenced by the acts of man, tells me that there is a difference.
Tom: My immediate response would be to assume that God has purposes the fulfillment of which is contingent upon factors other than God's own will and he also has purposes the fulfillment of which is not contingent upon factors other than his own will. It's when you absolutize either one that you run into problems.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|