 |
| 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/28/2004 5:45 AM (GMT -6) |   | Waters of the Nile dry up?
Isaiah 19:5-7
And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry; and its canal will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, be driven away, and be no more.
Has the Nile become dried up? Is all that is sown by the Nile, no more?
Damascus removed from being a city?
Isaiah 17:1
The oracle concerning Damascus.
"Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city
And will become a fallen ruin."
Does Damascus remain as a city to this day?
Damascus is the world's oldest, continuously inhabited city.
Ahaz and Judah not conquered by Rezin and Pekah?
Isaiah 7:
1 Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it.
2 When it was reported to the house of David, saying, "The Arameans have camped in Ephraim," his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field,
4 and say to him, 'Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
5 'Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying,
6 "Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,"
7 thus says the Lord GOD: "It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.
But according to 2 Chronicles 28, Syria and Pekah did conquer Judah:
1 Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem; and he did not do right in the sight of the LORD as David his father had done.
2 But he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel; he also made molten images for the Baals.
3 Moreover, he burned incense in the valley of Ben-hinnom and burned his sons in fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had driven out before the sons of Israel.
4 He sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, on the hills and under every green tree.
5 Wherefore, the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Aram; and they defeated him and carried away from him a great number of captives and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who inflicted him with heavy casualties.
6 For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah 120,000 in one day, all valiant men, because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.
God explains why He changed the prophecy:
9 But a prophet of the LORD was there, whose name was Oded; and he went out to meet the army which came to Samaria and said to them, "Behold, because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, He has delivered them into your hand, and you have slain them in a rage which has even reached heaven.
GOd prophesized that Judah and Ahaz would be safe from Rezin and Pekah but changed His mind and punished them instead.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/28/2004 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Didn't Isaiah say Damascus would forever be desolate?
Bible verses in question:
Isaiah 17:1
The question:
Isaiah 17:1 says that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. But Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities and was never completely destroyed.
Our response:
Isaiah 17:1 (NIV) says: An oracle concerning Damascus: "See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.
It is not unreasonable for someone to see a city in ruins and then proclaim that this is "heap of ruins" is "no longer" a city. That, however, is not to say that the city would always be a heap of rubble. And I don't think that Isaiah 17 is making that claim, either. In fact, it seems clear that Isaiah 17:1-14 is strictly a prophecy about temporary desolation, given the fact that most of it is actually about Israel, which Isaiah often prophesied would eventually be restored from desolation. And nowhere in Isaiah 17 does it ever say that Damascus would never again be inhabited.
www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/q23.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/28/2004 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Maybe the Hal Lindsey definition of "prophesy" needs to be taken into the shop for an overhaul. Prophesy is what a Prophet says. The phrase "forth-telling" comes to mind from college biblical studies classes. Prophesy is a message from God, not a window into the future.
A difference in what you expect "prophesy" to be makes a huge difference.
Yawn! (ump, forgive me.)
Aaron was "Moses prophet," and Moses was YHMH's prophet. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/28/2004 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Q: In Isa 19:4-10, when would the Nile and other rivers dry up?
A: This is true in at least three ways.
1. The flow of the mighty Nile River came from the rains in central East Africa that fed Lake Victoria. Less rain in East central Africa would mean a year of famine for Egypt. 2. Long term, the land of Egypt and the Sahara has become more arid.
3. Metaphorically, the political power of Egypt would greatly diminish?
www.biblequery.org/ -
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/28/2004 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | |
I see water and crops, not "dried up and crops no more".
"Dried up" means, "no moisture", not "less rain that year".
Not what one would call "accurate".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/28/2004 8:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Maybe the Hal Lindsey definition of "prophesy" needs to be taken into the shop for an overhaul. Prophesy is what a Prophet says. The phrase "forth-telling" comes to mind from college biblical studies classes. Prophesy is a message from God, not a window into the future.
A difference in what you expect "prophesy" to be makes a huge difference.
I agree.
It's just fun to post the prophecies that never happened, were changed or were fulfilled less than 100% accurately. It shows the openess of the future and the unknowability of facts that don't exist yet. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/28/2004 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Well.
Maybe we should ask God instead of each other.
?? | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/28/2004 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | | billzbob: when God answers, let the rest of us know. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/28/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It's just fun to post the prophecies that never happened, were changed or were fulfilled less than 100% accurately. It shows the openess of the future and the unknowability of facts that don't exist yet.
Or is it rather possible Sis that you might be failing to sometimes rightly divide the word of truth. For instance posting about what God said through Jonah that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days and not appreciating that God likewise sent Jonah there to warn them so that they could repent so that he wouldn't have to bring judgement well forgive me but i'd have to say that's silly to suggest such was an unfullfilled prophecy. Forty is always known from scripture to be the number of change so God was saying im givng you 40 days to change. If not Nineveh will be destroyed...an unfullfilled prophecy, I hardly think so.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/29/2004 1:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, that's what alot of prophecy is. God declaring what He'll do in the future, yet able to change His mind before He does it.
Isaiah 48:3
"I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
What I'm demonstrating is what prophecy is NOT, God seeing a future that's already settled.
If prophecy were God seeing a future that's already settled, then all these prophecies would have been fulfilled 100% accurately.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/29/2004 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi SOC,
quote:
SOC: ... that's what alot of prophecy is. God declaring what He'll do in the future, yet able to change His mind before He does it.
Isaiah 48:3
"I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
What I'm demonstrating is what prophecy is NOT, God seeing a future that's already settled.
Isaiah 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him. I will bring him, and he will succeed in his mission.
That's settled! He will succeed...
quote:
If prophecy were God seeing a future that's already settled, then all these prophecies would have been fulfilled 100% accurately.
Well, they were. And that's God's claim to divinity:
Isaiah 41:21-23 "Present your case," says the Lord. "Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King. "Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods."
Now the fortune tellers claim to be able to tell the future, though sometimes they are wrong. How then can God's claim be distinguished from the fortune tellers', if he can be wrong just like they can?
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/31/2004 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Sisters,
quote:
Yes, that's what alot of prophecy is. God declaring what He'll do in the future, yet able to change His mind before He does it.
Isaiah 48:3
"I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
What I'm demonstrating is what prophecy is NOT, God seeing a future that's already settled.
If prophecy were God seeing a future that's already settled, then all these prophecies would have been fulfilled 100% accurately.
I agree that God can't predict all the future and that those prophecies that are unconditional will be fulfilled because God will "act." But the fact that a prophecy hasn't "already" been fulfilled doesn't rule out a future 100% fulfillment.
As I understand it, the burden of proof is on the anti-OV'ers to prove their case. It is not intuitive to believe that humans have no free will; nor is it intuitive to believe that God can foreknow TRUE free will actions. Thus, if they can't prove their case, they lose by default.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 8/1/2004 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
As I understand it, the burden of proof is on the anti-OV'ers to prove their case. It is not intuitive to believe that humans have no free will; nor is it intuitive to believe that God can foreknow TRUE free will actions. Thus, if they can't prove their case, they lose by default.
Prophecy addresses this, though! If God does make predictions, that involve human choices, that are 100% fulfilled, then he know future choices. And I believe that believers can really choose, though not unbelievers:
John 8:34-36 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/1/2004 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, the burden of proof is on the anti-OV'ers to prove their case. It is not intuitive to believe that humans have no free will; nor is it intuitive to believe that God can foreknow TRUE free will actions. Thus, if they can't prove their case, they lose by default.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prophecy addresses this, though! If God does make predictions, that involve human choices, that are 100% fulfilled, then he know future choices. And I believe that believers can really choose, though not unbelievers:
You have a different view of free-will than I do. Most of what we do is NOT an act of free-will. For the most part we are going on automatic obeying our strongest impulse. True LFW only comes to play when a person has to make a choice between 2 or more competing impulses. Since most men have very little self-control, it is not difficult at all for God to manipulate them without violating their LFW. I see it done by humans at work EVERYDAY!! Thus, prophecy is EASY for God to bring about without violating LFW - it's simply a wise application of providential acts to "lead the horse to water."
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/1/2004 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Knowledge or prophecy: "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD."? Romans 3:23
If KNOWLEDGE, then this verse is indicative of foreknowledge of all that ever has lived, and ever will live, in this world.
If PROPHECY, then you, I, or any one else, has lived or will live so as to disprove or show it false.
Which is it? Both maybe? Or, must we ask, "What is this sin that all have sinned that Paul could absolutely declare as a fact for every person past, present and future"?
And what does this sin imply? Is sinful man wise enough to determine the mind of God? Is not this sin such as when Satan deceived Eve concerning "God doth know..." So that Eve attained knowledge of or about God that she believed was factual!
Eve was not as we are, sinners by birth, yet we believe that somehow we attain a knowledge about God and are convinced it is factual by reasoning and philosophical argument.
Remember the reply God gave Adam about his knowledge of his nakedness? "WHO TOLD THEE?" WE are like the Laodicean Church, not knowing that we are...naked. WE have acquired knowledge about God from some outside source and are deceived like Eve. Sin tells us we are naked before a holy God--knowledge tells us we are above shame, and then clothe ourselves with learning and intelligence.
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD"...this means not simply His existence but any and all of His attributes. Open View denies God's attributes that identify our God as God of gods. Moreover, man by this doctrine elevates himself and devalues God. NOT indeed, but in the OV-ist mind only--a man made man in the image of man.
"GOD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS". What does sinful man know? Here proven.
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/2/2004 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark
quote:
Knowledge or prophecy: "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD."? Romans 3:23
If KNOWLEDGE, then this verse is indicative of foreknowledge of all that ever has lived, and ever will live, in this world.
Ron
Why couldn't Paul's statement mean all who presently or previously exist. I don't think he intended for his audience to apply speculative philosophical reasoning in order to understand what he meant. You don't have to look through a reformed theological lens in order understand Paul. Quite the contrary, a first century Judaic Palestine lens would probably yield better interpretations of scripture.
Mark
quote:
"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD"...this means not simply His existence but any and all of His attributes. Open View denies God's attributes that identify our God as God of gods. Moreover, man by this doctrine elevates himself and devalues God. NOT indeed, but in the OV-ist mind only--a man made man in the image of man.
"GOD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS". What does sinful man know? Here proven.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark
Ron
Mark, please provide a quote from any OV person that explicitly denies an attribute of God that is revealed in scripture or that the God we worship is less than the Almighty as revealed in Jesus. You are repeating what our critics have said and are using someones systematic theology as your ground instead of the texts in context. You will find OV statements that contradict some of the reformed or armenian conclusions formed from their speculations as to the attributes of God but I doubt you will find a quote that denies an explicit text of scripture in context.
This is from Dennis Bratcher's "Divine Foreknowledge...."
quote:
The kinds of questions asked in the early church, especially following Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries, were metaphysical ontological questions about ultimate reality. And those questions were rooted in the Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophies that saw God and human existence in absolute or idealistic terms. God was defined by asking logical questions, and reaching logical answers. Basically, a view of God was developed whereby God was defined in terms of what a god ought to be to be God. While the results may not be totally invalid, they are obviously limited, and a departure from Scripture and God’s own revelation about himself in human history.
3) From the perspective of Scripture: Invariably, of course, this is going to lead to a discussion of the nature of prophecy. And here is where people tend to get passionate when we start "messing with the Bible." The fact is, this whole scenario is also tied up with circular reasoning related to Scripture. The omni-doctrines were not developed from Scripture, but from logic. Yet, they have become near absolute statements of fact in approaching the interpretation of Scripture. The logical positions are assumed to be true, then assumed to be in Scripture, and then Scripture is interpreted through the lens of these doctrines. This is especially true in talking about Old Testament prophecy, which we commonly assume to be prediction of the future governed by the omni-doctrines, especially God’s foreknowledge usually reduced to a subcategory of omniscience (all-knowing).
Mark
quote:
]"THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD"...this means not simply His existence but any and all of His attributes.
Ron
What a politicized interpretation of scripture. Of course if one denies there is a God he also includes attributes.
Mark
quote:
"GOD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS". What does sinful man know? Here proven.
Ron
What does sinful man know? Do you exclude yourself from this statement?
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/2/2004 8:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Mark,
How is it that if the OV is true then God is not the God of gods? Why can't both be true?
If OV-ism is true, then it would be illogical for God to be God of gods, for both would have the same (supposed) lack of knowledge. In order for the God of the Bible to be The God of gods, He must be infinitly greater [however, "greater" is impossible with the Infinite] than all the gods, including man. The finite cannot comprehend the infinite outside of illumination by the Holy Spirit of God's Word; that revelation given, as God wills, is finite (given in increasing degrees of illumination), for man cannot contain the infinite.
To suppose God to be as the OV-ist claim produces confussion. This is nothing be the lack of man knowing the God of the Bible--possibly due to personal problems unresolved in one's mind or life, desparate for some answer to conflicting issues found in the Bible.
Why would one decide to believe in Open View unless there were some conflict between themselves and the Bible? What pursuaded you to embrace OV-ism?
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/2/2004 10:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
Please be patient with me Ron.
I am taking it that you are a sinner saved by God's grace in Christ Jesus as I have been. You are right about Paul's recipients, that they needed not "speculative philosophical reasoning in order to understand what he meant". This statement of Paul is all-conclusive and cannot be otherwise understood—can it? The only way to mis-understand it would be to question it by this Open View Theism—do away with it and you have no problem in understanding what Paul means. Only by changing a theistic view does a problem arise.
I understand OV-ism as "speculative philosophical reasoning" because there must have been some reason for this theism to surface in men’s (or, some man’s) minds of late. To deny that our God knows all things is to deny His characteristically personal attribute of Infinity, and therefore His infinite knowledge. How can One be Infinite and finite at the same time?
Ron, I have read very little ancient philosophy, and do not attribute any one philosophical view to my understanding of our Savior. I understand HIM through His Word. However, if I have a problem with understanding, I do not try to figure it out with the mind of flesh . To me, this is exactly what has happened to one who accepts OV–ism—-that one has some controversy with the Word of God and so works out some doctrine to give that one some mental peace, some answer to his question, that is humanly reasonable and that gives his comfort in the mind.
As to "please provide a quote from any OV person that explicitly denies an attribute of God that is revealed in scripture..." Mr. Boyd denies that God Knows how man will respond or act due to his reasoning that man is truly free and has freedom to act or choose. Is this not what he surmises? I understand that he teaches that God cannot, or chooses to not, know all of the future due to the freedom HE has given man, and the infinite choices man may make. Do I misunderstand Mr. Boyd's doctrine? To me, Mr. Boyd is employing the philosophy of modern Existentialism--because it deals with man and his freedom to choose and act and his resultant responsibility.
If God cannot fulfill all prophecy then He is found to be a liar. Remember Christ saying concerning His ability to call on His Father, that He would send twelve legions of angles to rescue Him,..."But how then will the Scriptures be fulfilled", say Jesus. Explain that statement! How can you? How can man explain God? This is what OV-ism attemps--to explain God to the mind of man.
Ron, you said that I had a "politicized interpretation of scripture" concerning the fool. I ask again, does God know infinitely according to His nature, or does He lack the attribute of infinite knowledge? Is infinity not an attribute of our God? Either He IS, or he is not, not both.
"What does sinful man know?" NO! I do not exclude myself, but include all of man. We are by nature, i.e. our original state by birth, sinners AND flesh, both. The Bible says, "No flesh has seen God."..."Only the Son". These are absolute statements. By the fact that we are created--infinite, and moreover, fallen sinful man--also clothed with sinful flesh, we cannot know God or about God outside of Jesus Christ; outside of the new birth of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. We know God or of God as He reveals Himself to us thru the indwelling Spirit. WE cannot know anything more than He permits. We have a flesh nature that knows by investigation, but what can man know by searching out with his own created/fallen mind? To say "I know" such and such is foolishness unless our lives show forth the operation of God in us as confirmed in Scripture. I am sure you know this also!
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 8/3/2004 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. But Mark, go back and read your post. Don't you see you are steeped in philosophy, your reply is full of speculation.
Mark says
quote:
I understand OV-ism as "speculative philosophical reasoning" because there must have been some reason for this theism to surface in men’s (or, some man’s) minds of late. To deny that our God knows all things is to deny His characteristically personal attribute of Infinity, and therefore His infinite knowledge. How can One be Infinite and finite at the same time?
Now, tell me those are not philosophical statements.
Mark, again please provide a direct quote, from Boyd's work in context. You have characterized his teaching with someone elses incorrect summation of what he is saying. You are wrong and they are wrong. My challenge stands, provide a direct quote in context of any OV teacher that denies an explicit statement in scripture in context pertaining to the attributes of God. Again, meditate a bit on what you posted. Ask yourself what is the ground for that statement. Such as quote:
To deny that our God knows all things is to deny His characteristically personal attribute of Infinity, and therefore His infinite knowledge.
God does know all things, it is your concept of what all things consist of that is the contention point.
I did not embrace the open view through study of philosophy, metaphysics, or an OV theologian. While in prayer I received a word of knowledge that said "the future does not exist". I then looked around for anyone who believed this, ect. Sure, that confession makes me a target for cessationists, but so what.
If you would read the OV books with your bible open and quit bouncing it off the authors you have embraced you might at least concede to having had a prejudiced perspective in handling the open view.
Keep posting your views Mark and listen to the other side. We are saved by grace also and belong to the same Lord Jesus Christ.
Peace
Ron
PS Sister of Cain, I hope we are not hijacking your thread, just tell us to move on if so.
POW saw your comment on the other thread, I will read the link later and the one below. Peace
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/3/2004 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mark C.
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 8/3/2004 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | "How can man know God?"
A lost person can find no meaning in the Bible relative to his situation or compatible with his thinking. To the one who has never experienced the grace of God in salvation the Bible is foolishness.
Ron, to have a logical reason does not mean I am making philosophical arguments. Some reasoning is necessary to learn, being absurd is lunacy.
Does Open View mean that God does not know, or chooses to not know, what a created free agent may decide to do at some time in the future? What you received during prayer can be considered un-biblical—truth must issue from the Word of God. How is one to know the things he receives is from the Holy Spirit or of another spirit, or of his own mind? I am not belittling your experience only questioning your conclusion, or attained understanding. What criteria do you use to know for certain some knowledge received is of God?
Does OV change Gods promises given as prophecy on any point or level? If it does not, then there is no problem and never has been one. But OV has declared that some things God does not know and that prophecy is ‘up in the air’ till fulfilled. If I understand wrongly, please give a definitive outline of OV-ism.
To me OV is just a way to define God in the image (imagination) of man. If the Church has been wrong for two centuries what makes us now to know the truth? Either truth began with the Church at her birth (Acts) or it has never known the truth about God in the first place. This is reason and logic but not a philosophical teaching, just as 2 and 2 equal 4 and nothing else. To say we do math according to it’s laws cannot mean we develop a particular system of thought, can we?
Is Christ truly living within each believer? But how can He and be at the right hand of God also? Man cannot comprehend God but in finite ways.
(My posts show my finite [beggarly] use of the English language. I am nothing outside of Christ within, absolutly nothing! and my arguments should be understood in that light. How can I say something about God! I am a fool to think I know anything--but I speak in respect of the Savior and love for Him, due to His love for me.)
Can we destroy faith with reason? Faith accepts God at His Word. Our right standing with God is by faith, not by reason. The act of Baptism is one of faith--we died with Christ two thousand years ago and have been raised to newness of life in fact. Reason cannot grasp that concept, but faith believes and receives a new life indeed.
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:24 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 |
|
|