 |
| 
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/7/2005 6:15 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Sahid said...In the Bible, God is likened to a wild animal, abusive husband (by modern standards), warrior, fire, and a storm. I recognize that this is not exactly your point. But "wild" behavior is not below God.
What a ridiculous abomination of a paragraph! I decline comment. 
Sahid said...More to the point, what was Jesus doing in the garden? Acting? If the blood-sweating, prayers of Jesus in the garden are not the perfect example of "moral restraint," then I must not understand the term. Rebelling against the Father would be evil. It wasn't a choice between good and better.
If anyone should be in a position to understand what the words "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me", surely it would be sombody looking at the universe from the "Open View".
Given the established Biblical fact that prophecy can be fullfilled to the satisfaction of God in more than one manner, (people praising or rocks praising for example) it would seem to me that there might have been something of "that understanding" in Christ's request to His Father.
I will tread no further on that holy ground. 
To suggest that Christ was fighting to morally restrain Himself from rebellion against His Father's will, is a wretched, wretched thing to say or think. Shame, shame, shame on you! 
A father's house is on fire. His young son cries to him from an upstairs window. Is there any other way to save his boy other than to rush headlong into the flames himself? No there is not. There is not a firetruck or ladder in sight anywhere.
The father sweating great welling tears of passion, says a final word to his wife, and then bolts inside the burning house to his ultimate death. He does manage to get his boy out of the upstairs window before the flames engulf him.
Moral restraint? I think not. I see love, love, love that was stronger than death. That's what I see in the "garden of Gethsemmane" as well.
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/7/2005 6:34 AM (GMT -6) | |
Paul M. Blackmore said...
What a ridiculous abomination of a paragraph! I decline comment. How ridiculous to write a comment and then say that you are not commenting. You definitely did comment. What you declined to do was back up your accusation.
Paul M. Blackmore said...To suggest that Christ was fighting to morally restrain Himself from rebellion against His Father's will, is a wretched, wretched thing to say or think. Shame, shame, shame on you! Says you (with no apparent reason). Why is it a wretched thing to say? I have little patience for those who make accusations without stating a reason. This "no thinking about that" attitude drives more away from Christ than it wins.
Paul M. Blackmore said...
The father sweating great welling tears of passion, says a final word to his wife, and then bolts inside the burning house to his ultimate death. He does manage to get his boy out of the upstairs window before the flames engulf him.
That very well could be what happened in the garden. But to offer an alternate hypothesis in no way discredits mine (despite the shame shame you've placed on me). How am I supposed to respond? "I'm rubber; you're glue?"
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/7/2005 6:39:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/7/2005 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | |
Paul M. Blackmore said...
Dear Laika:
You are confused. I simply used the "pet" example to show what a nature singularly disposed to good or malvolence, might look like. I was not trying to put God, man or the devil in the place of an animal. Your pet example only shows an instinctual animal bonding that has no relation to the moral image that God and man share.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 7/7/2005 6:52:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/7/2005 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | Job 10:16 - God hunts like a lion.
Hosea 5:14 - God will tear his people apart like a lion.
13:7 - like a lion or leopard
Hosea 2:1-7 - God will strip his bride naked and leave her in the wilderness. He will keep water from her. He will surround her with thorns and walls and neglect her children.
Warrior passages are a dime a dozen in the Bible. Pick a prophetic book.
Matt 3:11 - baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Deut 5:24,25 - God is in the dangerous fire.
Acts 2:2 - The Spirit comes with the noise of a violent wind
It's ridiculous.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/7/2005 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/7/2005 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/7/2005 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Laika said...Furthermore, my dead dog illustration is very apt
Laika said...Your pet example only shows an instinctual animal bonding that has no relation to the moral image that God and man share.
Really? 
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/7/2005 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...He's right. All animal illustrations are the same. 
Sahid said...Job 10:16 - God hunts like a lion.
Hosea 5:14 - God will tear his people apart like a lion.
13:7 - like a lion or leopard
Really?
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/8/2005 12:06 AM (GMT -6) | |
John said...From my perspective, God has the ability to choose between good and evil; what He lacks is the *willingness* and *utter stupidity* to ever choose evil. His CHARACTER is perfectly loving and faithful in all cases, and always will be.
I have added the bold emphasis to what is true in the quote above. The rest must be discarded.
John, if you really believe the highlighted part of your quote, then logically you must abandon the false notion that "God could sin". Here's why.
If you allow for the possibility of God choosing sin, you cannot logically eliminate on the basis of your personal preference alone, the potential sins of "failing to love perfectly", "breaking faith", "unwillingness to always choose good", "utter stupidity" etc. etc.
Your whole scheme depends upon God never failing in those areas prescribed by you! Who are you to say that God might sin in one area but not another? This is a very wicked mind trap that you are ensnared in.
If you allow for impeccability in certain areas, why then don't you just follow through and allow for universal impeccability "yesterday, today and forever"? There are many, many good Bible verses to butteress that correct view. 
Here's one of the many.
Titus 1:2In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
If God ever fell as Adam did ( which thing cannot ever happen praise be to God), then heaven becomes hell, Satan becomes vindicated, the cross becomes meaningless, and all the promises of eternal love, joy and peace go up in smoke! 
If you allow for the possibility of that ever happening (however remote), then you put God in the place of uttering falsehood every single time He tells about ETERNAL LIFE in the Holy scriptures. The word "ETERNAL" can no longer be fully vouchsafed by a God who retains "the possibilty" (however remote), of blowing it all away at some point in the future.
What happens then to the verse I quoted above? It must be found to be in error then! If Eternal life has even the remotest possibility of failing, then so do all of God's "forever promises".
The "possiblity" of God's failure in the future = the "impossibilty" of God making 100 % trustworthy, promises of eternity here in the present! 
Think about it deeply John. You don't want go there I'm sure.
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/8/2005 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...He's right. All animal illustrations are the same.
Actually our illustrations are not the same. I could substitute a dead person for my dead dog.
Or a rock. "Sit rock, stay! Good rock"
The point illustrated is that you don't attribute virtue to a being that does what it cannot do otherwise. Inability is not a virtue.
Substituting a human being with LFW with a dog that only bonds instinctually changes Paul's illustration. An analogy of animal instinctual bonding does not illustrate how God and us share a mirror moral image.
What we're looking at (hopefully) is whether we share the moral image of God and if that entails the ability to choose. Else we're not made in the moral image of God.
everytime i think of you i get a shot right through like a bolt of blue Post Edited (Laika) : 7/8/2005 7:47:36 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/8/2005 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...Hi everyone,
Laika said...
What we're looking at (hopefully) is whether we share the moral image of God and if that entails the ability to choose. Else we're not made in the moral image of God. Then I must ask again, is the probability that God will choose evil zero, not not zero? Then either way, a counter-point to this view can be made...
This is an interesting argument yet one which is inapplicable, methinks.
Probability involves events that are random and unpredictable.
If I flip a coin, I have a .5 chance of it landing tails and yet it could land heads and I flip no more. Thus, despite a .5 chance of it landing tails, it doesn't HAVE to land tails. It's not necessary. It's only probable. Big difference. You seem to be saying that with one flip, it's NECESSARY that it land tails, not just a POSSIBILITY.
Possibility (which is what probability is about) does not equal necessity.
I could flip it 1000 times and while I could expect it to land tails 500 times, it doesn't necessarily have to. The probability is still .5 for each subsequent flip.
Thus, probability does not entail necessity.
Probability also involves events over which one has no control.
That's why you bet against someone else over an event neither of you have control over. If you bet someone else over an event they have control of....... you'd be a fool.
And if you bet someone that the clock hand won't come this way again, you'd be a fool as a clock hand is predictable and not random.
Unless you can demonstrate God as being random in His choices, probability theory is inapplicable in this context.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 7/8/2005 12:30:13 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/8/2005 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Paul,
I deny that God will ever sin, and therefore that God "could" ever sin, to. I affirm that God cannot lie; all the point I'm trying to make is the REASON why God cannot lie, which reason those who deny God's moral freedom simply must assert on grounds of God's supposed *physical* inability to sin. On my view, the REASON God cannot lie is, in light of His absolutely perfect perception of every possible choice, motive, etc., for and against benevolence, and because He is NOTHING if not most eminently reasonable and benevolent in ALL He does, and because He is in PERFECT CONTROL of all His faculties at all times, He can truthfully be said to never be "able" to ever sin.
It is not the case that I affirm God will never sin on the basis of my "personal preference alone." I am curious as to what gives you the impression I do.
I affirm that in ALL cases/areas, God will ALWAYS choose benevolently/righteously, so I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you say, "Who are you to say that God might sin in one area but not another?"
I certainly agree (strictly theoretically speaking) that IF God ever sinned, utter chaos would be the result. We can praise God all the more for His faithfulness, as it is not guaranteed on the grounds of some kind of "holy robotics," by which God lacks the ABILITY to sin, but is instead grounded in GOD'S perfectly stable holy CHARACTER. It is not clear to me how a being can be morally good OR evil if he lacks the ABILITY to do otherwise.
It is not the case that my view puts "God in the place of uttering falsehood every single time He tells about ETERNAL LIFE in the Holy scriptures." Why don't you believe God has the moral RESOLVE/FORTITUDE to follow through on all of His promises? I certainly believe He is fully able to accomplish whatsoever He promises.
Finally, a queston for you, if I may: If God commands us to "be holy as I (God) am holy" and God's holiness is due to something beyond His control (His nature), while our nature is inherently UNholy, then how is God's word not directly contradicting itself, in commanding holiness of those who lack the proper equipment to be holy (a holy NATURE) ?
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 7/8/2005 4:00:16 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/8/2005 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
John said...Finally, a queston for you, if I may: If God commands us to "be holy as I (God) am holy" and God's holiness is due to something beyond His control (His nature), while our nature is inherently UNholy, then how is God's word not directly contradicting itself, in commanding holiness of those who lack the proper equipment to be holy (a holy NATURE) ?
1 John 3:9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
God cannot sin. That which is born of God cannot sin either! End of story.
Romans 8:2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
2 Peter 1:3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
No lack of equipment here "pastor". 
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/9/2005 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | |
Paul M. Blackmore said...
John said...Finally, a queston for you, if I may: If God commands us to "be holy as I (God) am holy" and God's holiness is due to something beyond His control (His nature), while our nature is inherently UNholy, then how is God's word not directly contradicting itself, in commanding holiness of those who lack the proper equipment to be holy (a holy NATURE) ?
1 John 3:9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
God cannot sin. That which is born of God cannot sin either! End of story.
Romans 8:2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
2 Peter 1:3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
No lack of equipment here "pastor".
Hi Paul,
I affirm all the verses you have cited. However, none of them refers to an inherent, inevitable nature/equipment, which necessitates holy living, as if man somehow loses his ability to sin once regenerated. All these verses refer to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit (which is a persuasive influence, not a coercive mechanical thing of some kind) dwelling within the believer, which of course I affirm with scripture as genuine.
As to whether or not I am qualified to be called "pastor," God is the judge of all of us. If I feared the judgment of men, I certainly wouldn't embrace Open Theism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/9/2005 3:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
John said...If I feared the judgment of men, I certainly wouldn't embrace Open Theism.
I hear you loud and clear on that one brother!
I could comment further in response to your latest remarks, and I could add a comment or two for "Laika" as well ......................but I think I shall just give it a rest instead. I've said my piece and I am satisfied with the clarity of my posts.
Untill next time,
Many blessings in Christ
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:29 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 |
|
|