 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God’s Two Wills in Openness – March 19 debate | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/5/2004 1:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
POW
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Again, STRUCTURE and DIRECTION replace the "two minds."
Story replaces System.
THAT markedly redirects the debate.
John
This kind of abstraction is a manmade philosophical construct never found in scripture. The Scripture was writtenby simple men in some cases--you know, fishermen and the like, and written for simple men. They all had two feet firmly plnted on the earth. Not in the Ivory tower contemplating a second will of God never stated in Scripture and never manifested in the life of Jesus. They just believed that Scripture means what it says, that there is for instance no "hidden" God who causes sin all the while revealing to men that he hates sin.
The "two wills" does not direct the debate. It IS the debate.
Blessings
John
Don't tell him -- respect the fact that he doesn't want to know -- but John has no idea what I posted. He didn't read it.
But, that God created the world and man good, and that men fell into sin and drew the world into fragmentation with him IS SCRIPTURE. (THAT's "structure and direction.")
And, that no neat philosophical construct can reduce reality to a system that our minds can master; but that the Gospel is ALIVE... (that is Story versus System -- the Westminster Confession has a totally different tone than the pastoral instinct of the Heidelberg Confession)
As to John's spiel: It sounded like stock complaint that could be thrown at anything at all. ("manmade philosophical construct". . ."written by simple men ... for simple men")
As to the part that I lined through, I have no idea why he tried to app;y that to my post. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/5/2004 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
Sorry Bro. This time, I was just baiting for a "rant"
(see BJS-page 11)
If only it were April Fools Day
Just having fun I was actually hoping for 4 or 5 links to voluminous articles. I guess volume could be my middle name too.)But I did get a nibble. Guess I just didn't put out enough bait.
Till we meet again...
God bless you brother,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/5/2004 3:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone and all,
quote:
FIH: It isn't a wave of the hand by which I dismiss what you have said.
I was only kidding. I may be serious (sometimes I am, really!), but usually I'm not (very) solemn. I know sometimes that doesn't come across clearly in the characters on the screen!
Alrighty. Thank you for your response...
quote:
simply asserting that God is the primary cause, yet is not responsible for sin is not going to work for me no matter how many bible verses you quote (given that, a)scholars who were/are dedicated Christians have disagreed over the nature of God's sovereighty and, therefore, b) I consider this a problem of logic, rationally and common sense, not a biblical problem), interpreted through what I consider a wrong view of God's sovereigty (I can NEVER spell that word right!).
"It's a poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word" (a former president)
I do say God is responsible for sinful actions, but not the source of them, and not guilty. That, I think is clear from Scripture:
JOB 1:22 Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.
EZR 9:15 O Lord, God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence.
DA 9:14 The Lord did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does.
I am quoting Scripture! Clear verses, that address this issue, I think.
quote:
I can say, for instance that
A) I made a robot to kill, yet B) I did not kill, the robot actually killed so I am not responsible. Yet no judge would accept this. You need to, A), show how this is possible logically, rationally, and with common sense, not simply quote another bible verse you interpret through a calvinistic paradigm (which I don't accept), or B) admit in reality you are arminian and use the word "allow" for how God deals with sin.
I do try to be very careful not to say "allow," you may take me to the woodshed on that one if I slip up. I did try and address this logically, though, with my water-hose analogy. We can control the flow of the water, and do with it what we wish, without being the source of the water.
quote:
Laika: Are there some things God can physically do but NOT legally do?
Not to speak for Spen, but yes, God cannot lie, for instance (Heb. 6:18). It's impossible...
quote:
Once He created a world of free moral agents governed by His moral laws, does He have to play by the rules of that world Himself?
That's your view, though, that's not my view! That's your decision to make...
quote:
Calvinists, to me, infantilely say, "God can do ANYTHING". They think ANY step down from that blanket statement, "limits God".
Waaah! Actually, I don't believe that God can do absolutely anything. He cannot change, either (Mal. 3:6). He can't sin, as you mention (Jas. 1:13).
quote:
John: a WAR that Scripture reveals that man is involved in must correlate with man’s concept and definition of the term (inspired by the Spirit) “WAR.” You submit a war that man is not “really” involved in a that rebuts not my comments, but Scripture.
Oh, we're involved all right! I agree with that! But it's not a war like the world fights:
2CO 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
quote:
Not only did God rebuke Job’s friends. He rebuked Job. Both of their “theologies” were wrong.
God did rebuke Job. But he also approved him at the same time:
JOB 42:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
So we have to sift what Job said! There's some wheat there, as well as chaff.
quote:
From your previous post (I did look it up): A major point of the story and the foundation of God’s confidence in Job was God’s expectation that Job would not assume God was behind His calamity and curse God—EVEN DESPITE JOB’S IGNORANCE of who was really behind the calamity (Satan) as per the heavenly prologue!!!
But how can you say God was not behind his calamity? This is very clear:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away...
JOB 2:3 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
JOB 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him.
quote:
So, would you punish your child if he was born with Down’s Syndrome (i.e., a slave to a disease he was born with) if he could not score 1300 on the S.A.T.?
Not at all. But I would punish them if they misbehaved. Oftentimes, when a child disobeys, they are just trying to find out what you will do. Should you punish them, then? It wasn't *really* disobedience. It was kind of a question. Yes, I think you should still punish them.
quote:
Well, I ask you “Where’s the power?” Fill in the blank…”To know Him and the POWER of His R____________n.
I agree! And there is power in the cross, too:
1CO 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
No, this is not just hair-splitting, this is important.
quote:
Universalism is unjust which would also frustrate God.
Not sure what you mean here, how would God be frustrated if all are saved? Though this is not the forum for this, as you mention a bit later. Not sure also why you consider your position very far from mine, as you seem willing to both hope that all will be saved, and fear that some will not be. That's where I come down on this...
quote:
John, from another thread:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good."
Here, God is simply RESPONDING to the [evil] situation at hand—an evil situation according to James that God had nothing to do with. God "meant" the evil now in existence for good.
You seem to be saying that God allows the evil, and still means it. I would disagree, God meant it, and he planned it, I think "meant" implies planned it, too. God showed Joseph the end of his plan in a dream, I think God already had it all mapped out then.
quote:
If God reveals in Scripture that He grieves when His children go astray (and He does) and he punishes them then He is being disingenuous in in both his grief and punishment if He is the one who caused His child to do that which He says grieved Him. You see how contorted that is?
It's not contorted if he bears the suffering, too. Actually, it's God's suffering that we share, and not the other way around:
PHP 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...
You don't put a man in jail for injuring himself. He may be insane, but he's not guilty. So the remaining question is, is God reasonable when he bears suffering that he inflicts? Paul wanted to be like him in this, he called it fellowship, even.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/5/2004 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee, We've got to stop meeting like this
John: a WAR that Scripture reveals that man is involved in must correlate with man’s concept and definition of the term (inspired by the Spirit) “WAR.” You submit a war that man is not “really” involved in a that rebuts not my comments, but Scripture.
Lee
Oh, we're involved all right! I agree with that! But it's not a war like the world fights:
2CO 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
John
Well it depends on what the meaning of IS is…Did you vote for Clinton?
Words have consistent meaning. God does not redefine a new meaning of "war' for us in the Scripture. Why do you insist on doing so? I do agree that you conjure up a concept of war that has no correlation with the "WAR" that has been revealed to man by definition and experienced by man in reality. Words with different meanings are actually DIFFERENT WORDS! That is how we communicate with each other and that is how God communicates with man through Scripture-Not by arbitrarily redefing terms which have no correlation to reality or man's experience.
WAR IS WAR.
John
Not only did God rebuke Job’s friends. He rebuked Job. Both of their “theologies” were wrong.
Lee
God did rebuke Job. But he also approved him at the same time:
JOB 42:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
So we have to sift what Job said! There's some wheat there, as well as chaff.
John
The "wheat" was Job’s testimony to faithfulness not his contorted theology. Job said some pretty nasty things about God and they are recorded in Scripture. However, just because they are recorded in Scripture does not mean they are correct when we are told by the Almighty Himself that His counsel has been darkened. God only endorsed Job's faithfulness.
Lee
From your previous post (I did look it up):
John
A major point of the story and the foundation of God’s confidence in Job was God’s expectation that Job would not assume God was behind His calamity and curse God—EVEN DESPITE JOB’S IGNORANCE of who was really behind the calamity (Satan) as per the heavenly prologue!!!
Lee
But how can you say God was not behind his calamity? This is very clear:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away...
JOB 2:3 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
JOB 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him.
John
This is your best citation so far Lee.
It is “very clear to me” that Satan was ultimately behind the calamity-Not God. The question as you understand is what is penultimate. That I believe we are clear on. That is the point of the prologue. The character of Satan is introduced to provide real contrast with God and also to describe the situation as it happened. Satan challenged God, and God sent His best soldier at the time into a very real battle to prove the point that it is indeed possible to for a man to remain faithful and maintain integrity even in the face of the unmitigated evil. Satan incited…God was confident He would not fail. In Job 42:11 God simply sent His faithful servant into battle. But it does not have to follow that this means God is penultimate in causing evil
Job 2:3 indicates that it is Satan who did the inciting. Satan is the penultimate cause. Your position makes the narrative disingenuous and blurs the authors inspired contrast between God and Satan.
Whatever we conjure up in exegesis, surely we do not come full circle and bite ourselves in the butt and end up with an interpretation where God and Satan cannot be differentiated.
John
So, would you punish your child if he was born with Down’s Syndrome (i.e., a slave to a disease he was born with) if he could not score 1300 on the S.A.T.?
Lee
Not at all. But I would punish them if they misbehaved. Oftentimes, when a child disobeys, they are just trying to find out what you will do. Should you punish them, then? It wasn't *really* disobedience. It was kind of a question. Yes, I think you should still punish them.
John
Again, stick with me here. The question is would you punish them if you directly caused them to misbehave???
Are you married? My wife would have my hide if I was throwing a ball in the house with the children and one broke a lamp and then I turned around and spanked them for breaking the lamp when I was the one who instigated and was participating in the activity. That would be unjust.
John
quote:
Well, I ask you “Where’s the power?” Fill in the blank…”To know Him and the POWER of His R____________n.
Lee
I agree! And there is power in the cross, too:
1CO 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
No, this is not just hair-splitting, this is important.
John
Yes, there is power in the cross, But BECAUSE of the Resurrection not independent of the Resurrection. Jesus could have been stoned and after He was raised from the stoning the passage could just as well read lest the “stoning” of Christ be emptied of its power. Paul is not writing in a vacuum. The Corinthians knew full well of the Resurrection.
John
Universalism is unjust which would also frustrate God.
Lee
Not sure what you mean here, how would God be frustrated if all are saved? Though this is not the forum for this, as you mention a bit later. Not sure also why you consider your position very far from mine, as you seem willing to both hope that all will be saved, and fear that some will not be. That's where I come down on this...
John
Garden variety Universalism maintains that All will just be saved in the end. God will simply make it turn out that way, which of course makes the present command to evangelize a hoax. It is unjust for God to declare that those who reject His Son will be cast into the Lake of Fire and arbitrary for God to decide to break the rules at the He had previously declared. Why even bother to reveal the existence of Hell much less command your followers to fight in earnest to share the gospel to inform men how they can avoid going there. God would be “frustrated” (because He is just) to participate in this kind of injustice.
Sure, God hopes all will be saved by declaring allegiance to His Son Jesus. He is frustrated every time some goes into eternal peril.
John, from another thread:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good."
Here, God is simply RESPONDING to the [evil] situation at hand—an evil situation according to James that God had nothing to do with. God "meant" the evil now in existence for good.
Lee
You seem to be saying that God allows the evil, and still means it. I would disagree, God meant it, and he planned it, I think "meant" implies planned it, too. God showed Joseph the end of his plan in a dream, I think God already had it all mapped out then.
John
Let me rephrase:
Joseph is now in an evil situation (that God had nothing to do with bringing about). Now that Joseph is in this situation—because Joseph has remained faithful—God will “mean” the present situation (which happens to be an evil situation) for good.
John
If God reveals in Scripture that He grieves when His children go astray (and He does) and he punishes them then He is being disingenuous in in both his grief and punishment if He is the one who caused His child to do that which He says grieved Him. You see how contorted that is?
Lee
It's not contorted if he bears the suffering, too. Actually, it's God's suffering that we share, and not the other way around:
John
Do you envision God in chains and leather? It is masochistic to bear suffering that one’s own self causes
Lee sites
PHP 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...
You don't put a man in jail for injuring himself. He may be insane, but he's not guilty. So the remaining question is, is God reasonable when he bears suffering that he inflicts? Paul wanted to be like him in this, he called it fellowship, even.
John
Does God need Prozac? You are right. You don’t put Him in jail you put Him on an Antidepressant or in an insane asylum. Your analogy is kind of unbecoming for Deity don’t you think? Even for an Apostle.
I do agree. God suffers. However, you are extrapolating not only beyond the verse but beyond the binding if you are drawing from this verse that God “inflicts His own suffering.” That is far different from volunteering to suffer on behalf of others which is the virtue Paul wishes to ascend.
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2004 4:35 AM (GMT -6) | | From history:
S's condemnation was from outside Schwitzerland.
"From 1541 to 1553 he lived in the palace of the archbishop of Vienne as his confidential physician." "On 4 April 1553 he was imprisond in Vienne. Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities.
And in Geneva, "after a long trial," although "Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake."
......................
That's completely off topic. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2004 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
From history:
S's condemnation was from outside Schwitzerland.
"From 1541 to 1553 he lived in the palace of the archbishop of Vienne as his confidential physician." "On 4 April 1553 he was imprisond in Vienne. Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities.
And in Geneva, "after a long trial," although "Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake."
......................
That's completely off topic.
(In Vienne) "Servetus, arrested, tried, and condemned . . ."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Servetus.asp | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/6/2004 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | POW posted
And in Geneva, "after a long trial," although "Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake."
John
Now that's what I call going to bat for the sake of mercy and the Gospel...As they say, "No gretaer love hath any man ...than he 'take off His head.'" Sort of like Sadaam's "mercy." "Feed him into the shredder head first instead of feet first."
No need to respond (unless you want). Just jiving.
Blessings
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/6/2004 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
From history:
S's condemnation was from outside Schwitzerland.
"From 1541 to 1553 he lived in the palace of the archbishop of Vienne as his confidential physician." "On 4 April 1553 he was imprisond in Vienne. Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities.
And in Geneva, "after a long trial," although "Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake."
LOL
http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mbn1/calvin.htm
"Calvin's attitude toward dissent is evident in his treatment of Michael Servetus. Servetus was a Spanish physician and free-thinker who discovered the pulmonary circulation of blood. He questioned the formulation of the trinity in the Nicene Creed and corresponded with Calvin about his beliefs. Calvin sent Servetus a copy of his Institutes. Servetus returned the book with his criticisms written in the margins. Thereafter, Calvin vowed that if Servetus ever came to Geneva, "I will never let him depart alive, if I have any authority." Unfortunately for Servetus, in 1553, on a trip to Italy, he stopped in Geneva to hear Calvin preach. Calvin had him arrested and tried for heresy. On October 27, 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake."
Returned the book with criticisms written in the margins??????
POW, quiz question, Who had Servetus arrested and tried?
*Junior Administrative Librarian Action Required!!!
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/6/2004 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
POW, quiz question, Who had Servetus arrested and tried?
mmmmm, I know, the Sr. Administrative Librarian. Everyone knows you can’t write in the books, you can get hung for something like that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2004 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
In the debate it became clear that both the Reformers and Dr. Boyd agree on the following points:
1. God is good and not the author of evil.
2. The revealed will of God in Scriptures is only good.
3. Evil exists and we live in and experience an evil world
4. God has a “second will” that allows evil
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/6/2004 8:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
[So show us where His "hidden" will is, POWy, er, echo.
God's other “will” is not hidden; I’m an Heir to it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/6/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/6/2004 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Number 4 is clear to Spen, not to Doctor Boyd. On the other hand, since they know about the "hidden" will of God, it isn't inconceivable that they know what Doctor Boyd "secretly" (in the hidden) believes. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/6/2004 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
quote:
Lee, We've got to stop meeting like this.
I appreciate the discussion, actually! "It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how" (The Cat in the Hat).
quote:
Lee: it's not a war like the world fights:
2CO 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
John
Well it depends on what the meaning of IS is…Did you vote for Clinton?
Not me, nosirree! Though I do want to be a friend of publicans and sinners, not a friend of Republicans and Senators.
quote:
Words have consistent meaning. God does not redefine a new meaning of "war' for us in the Scripture. Why do you insist on doing so?
I didn't do that! You have to argue with Paul  . It's not war like the world does it...
quote:
WAR IS WAR.
JN 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
So it's different! And the outcome is certain, we have overcome because God is in us, and not because we are such skillful fighters:
1JN 4:4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
quote:
Lee: So we have to sift what Job said! There's some wheat there, as well as chaff.
John
The "wheat" was Job’s testimony to faithfulness not his contorted theology. Job said some pretty nasty things about God and they are recorded in Scripture. However, just because they are recorded in Scripture does not mean they are correct when we are told by the Almighty Himself that His counsel has been darkened. God only endorsed Job's faithfulness.
He did more, though, he approved some of what Job said:
JOB 42:8 "You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."
quote:
It is “very clear to me” that Satan was ultimately behind [Job's] calamity-Not God. The question as you understand is what is penultimate. That I believe we are clear on. That is the point of the prologue. The character of Satan is introduced to provide real contrast with God and also to describe the situation as it happened. Satan challenged God
God made the first move here, though:
JOB 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
quote:
... and God sent His best soldier at the time into a very real battle to prove the point that it is indeed possible to for a man to remain faithful and maintain integrity even in the face of the unmitigated evil. Satan incited…God was confident He would not fail. In Job 42:11 God simply sent His faithful servant into battle. But it does not have to follow that this means God is penultimate in causing evil
Job 2:3 indicates that it is Satan who did the inciting. Satan is the penultimate cause. Your position makes the narrative disingenuous and blurs the authors inspired contrast between God and Satan.
Certainly they God and Satan are different! Satan incited, that is true. But God got the ball rolling. I think God was the primary cause, and Satan (or the Sabeans etc.) the secondary cause (or penultimate cause). God and Satan are not both the penultimate cause, I would say.
quote:
Again, stick with me here. The question is would you punish them if you directly caused them to misbehave???
Are you married? My wife would have my hide if I was throwing a ball in the house with the children and one broke a lamp and then I turned around and spanked them for breaking the lamp when I was the one who instigated and was participating in the activity. That would be unjust.
I'm not married, actually, so "all I know is what I read in the newspapers" (Will Rogers). Paul asks this very question in Romans 9:
RO 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
And Paul doesn't say that "men freely choose to disobey, and therefore God is just in punishing them." Certainly men have a fallen human will, which gets involved in sin and increases the guilt. But God's justice is based on his decision, not on man's decision:
RO 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
You let your children learn the hard way sometimes, and you are not guilty for doing so. Sometimes you might even plan something painful for them, such as running for exercise, or even surgery when required. Similarly, God plans suffering, even sinful actions are part of his plan for good. He sees the result, and makes his plan accordingly:
ISA 53:11 As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see and be satisfied...
quote:
Yes, there is power in the cross, But BECAUSE of the Resurrection not independent of the Resurrection.
I agree! "How good and pleasant"...
quote:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good."
Joseph is now in an evil situation (that God had nothing to do with bringing about). Now that Joseph is in this situation—because Joseph has remained faithful—God will “mean” the present situation (which happens to be an evil situation) for good.
Well, I think "meant it" refers to the same events both times in this verse. Joseph's brothers meant to sell him, thus God meant him to be sold, and meant it for good. And he showed the final result to Joseph in a dream, too, before it all got started.
quote:
Lee: It's not contorted if he bears the suffering, too. Actually, it's God's suffering that we share, and not the other way around.
John: It is masochistic to bear suffering that one’s own self causes
No, God is not a masochist, though:
HEB 12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
And we may view our suffering, too, with a good result:
HEB 12:10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.
If there were no suffering, what would there be to reward?
quote:
I do agree. God suffers. However, you are extrapolating not only beyond the verse but beyond the binding if you are drawing from this verse that God “inflicts His own suffering.” That is far different from volunteering to suffer on behalf of others which is the virtue Paul wishes to ascend.
I don't actually see much difference between your view and mine here. Certainly God knew about potential suffering when he planned the world (with either view). So he stepped up to it ahead of time, I think.
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. There's something wrong with the HTML. I didn't mean for all the last part to be in bold, but I can't seem to get the bold to turn off. I'm not shouting...
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/6/2004 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee
It's been fun.
By necessity of my schedule for the next couple of weeks, as O'Reily says, I'll give you the last word.
Maybe some else will address the issues you raise inyour last post from an OT and/or Arminian perspective. You could do a seach on the passages you site. I recall that several of the passages have been exegesed on other threads from "both" perspectives and have appeal based on one's assumptions about Scripture, logic, nature of man and God, etc. Much of what I would do would just be reiteration of that and really has more to do with the issue of "evil" per se' than OT which is where my real interest lies.
How 'bout it Laika, do you want to mop up?
God bless you brother,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2004 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
So because...
I'm not addressing that, and don't intend to. Either way, whether the six "bodies" you listed can be solved as actions of the Government--whom Calvin understood to have a sword in its hand by God's ordination (Chicago has a police department and the US an army too.), or whether there is no justification for those "bodies" at all -- either way I'm not interested in way-laying the discussion. I do'nt know whether there is much point in looking for two or three of you to actually discuss the issues of this thread.
As for me, what I DID do was post a "third way." I did so several pages back. The diversity-in-unity of "structure" and "direction" paints a bullseye on what I was pointing out. And I outlined that there is a difference between the Scholastic calcifications of later Calvinism and the Kuyperian revival of Calvin's emphasis on the Story of Creation/Fall/Redemption.
Several of us here--not all--agree that TULIP has problems. I know at least one Calvin Seminary prof. who will tell you that the TULIP version of at least on of the Canons of Dort they are supposedly based on is askew. Case-in-point, which I mentioned, is that "total depravity" does NOT denote total destruction of what God created. It indicates, rather, the total-pervasiveness of sin's influence and debilitation. Structure is intact, yet sick/"poluted." But this is due to the fragmentation caused by the self-absorbed fragmentations of sin.
What "litter" has been put on this poor thread would be fine IF it wer accompanied by arguement. I've got you all beat when it comes to visual barrages!!!!!! But when I was plopping Baptismal Fonts on a thread to combat a guy who said being Baptised was sinful idolotry, I did BOTH a barrage and arguement. What I've seen here is lame. UNLESS you also are willing to step to the plate, now, and pair your blotches with ideas.
There's my ideas. Show me yours!
(Prove it!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/6/2004 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
So because...
I'm not addressing that, and don't intend to.
I realize that. I did not post it for your benefit.
To those who have ears to hear, let's make it clear precisely what Calvin had Servetus executed FOR: A denial of the trinitarian concept of God (Servetus was a Socinian), and a denial of infant baptism.
The argument that PoW refuses to address strikes at the very root of Calvin's integrity as a theologian and as a Christian, but of course, PoW refuses to see that for some reason (probably it's in the hidden purpose of God).
PoW's lame response that "Chicago has police too" is simply laughable. Yeah, and when is da last tahm da Chicago P.D. put someone to det for heresy? 
As to determinism per se, that has been dealt with quite ably by johnmd, Laika, and many, many others on this board in the past. I have engaged in that particular discussion in the past here as well, but (obviously) my primary interest in this thread has been to question the morality and integrity of John Calvin, not to debate determinism per se.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/6/2004 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Former Jesuit theologian Peter de Rosa describes the groundwork that Catholic theology laid for Hitler and the Nazis: "[Catholicism’s] disastrous theology had prepared the way for Hitler and his ‘final solution.’ [The Church published] over a hundred anti-Semitic documents. Not one conciliar decree, not one papal encyclical, bull, or pastoral directive suggest that Jesus’s command, ‘love your neighbor as yourself,' applied to Jews."
It is not surprising, then, that Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He proclaimed essentially the same thing in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.
Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church's Index of Forbidden Books.
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/7/2004 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
Oh, and by the way, the reader should not be misled to think that there were only six people put to death by Calvin. In one instance that rivals Ted Bundy for outright cruelty and insane viciousness, Calvin had twenty women burned at the stake after accusing them of causing a plague that had swept through Geneva in 1545."
I don't defend Calvin for his physical attacks on those he considered wrong, but I think that you miss the point of why Calvin was wrong and the nature of his sin in your statement above. I believe Calvin's actions were wrong not necessarily because they were vicious, cruel, or insane. I believe Calvin was wrong because He was claiming a jurisdiction that wasn't his - only God's. If the story you recount is true, then the sin was that someone was claiming to speak for God and by "revelation" had discerned the cause of the plague. Somewhere there is a false prophet and blasphemy.
The issue is more fundamentally one of jurisdiction and "who speaks for God" than one of cruelty. Another example as I am more familiar with is the Salem witch trials. We find men and women condemned to death for being witches because of the revelations of "witnesses." I believe that Christians can and should speak against witchcraft as part of the message of the gospel. What I don't believe is that God has given men His sword to exercise His government and judgment of witches.
The fact is that in the kingdom of God the witches will be put to death forever in Revelation 21:8 which says all sorcerers will be burned in the lake of fire by God. Thus, burning witches is not necessarioly cruel, just terrible.
In the Old Testament we find that all those who practice divination and sorcery were to be killed without mercy. In Deut 18:10 God's people are commanded to purge all sorcerers and any who practice divination from their midst. This same concept is reiterated in Deut 13:6-8. God commands even family members to show no pity in the exercise of His commands. When God's kingdom appears then this will be put in effect as well. God will clear the world from witches and sorcerers and be much more thorough than Calvin. It is neither cruel, insane, or vicious. It is God's Law and all who break it are subject to His punishment.
The problem with Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England and the Puritan's Salem is that men claimed jurisdiction that belongs to God and claimed to speak authoritatively for Him. Many of the "judgments" were made on the basis of "revelation." This same problem has existed for many many more years with the Pope and Catholic Church. Frankly, this is what disturbs me about the concept of a establishing a tangible Christian kingdom before the return of Christ. The civil sword of the kingdom of God was taken from the line of David to be exercised by Babylon and its descendents until the physical return of Christ. At the time of His return, it will be exceedingly bad to be a sorcerer of a witch. It will not be insane or cruel, just sad.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/10/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Either way, whether...can be solved as actions of the Government..., or whether there is no justification ... either way ... I DID...post a "third way." ... the Story of Creation/Fall/Redemption.
I remember from "math operations" (and my kids computer games) that the "logic switch" of "OR" means that if EITHER of two indications is positive THEN the switch treats the whole thing as positive. I wrote: "whether...or...either way..." This would be represented in my grade school kids games with the logic: If A-is-true OR B-is-true THEN C-is-true.
John says that the first "whether" (A) isn't true. Plugged in, you get: If A-is-false AND B-is-true THEN C-is-true. And this is the case. John agrees with my "B", that "there is no justification" -- making A false and B true. So proceeding to C is in order: "either way...I DID...post a "third way"... the Story of Creation/Fall/Redemption."
Set Calvin aside. I was refering to his commentary on Genesis.
Just pick up the book of Genesis. You get Creation/Fall/Redemption.
That's all.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
| 262 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:06 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 |
|
|