 |
| 
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/28/2006 10:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi everyone,
In many instances, the Open View holds God changed his mind. Now would this indicate in some of these, that God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it?
Exodus 32:10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.
God changed his mind here, we are told by the Open View, so then "leave me alone" did not accomplish God's purpose.
Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Here again, the Open View says God changed his mind, when Hezekiah prayed (why does God so continually not think people will pray when judgment is threatened? but that's another topic). And then God's word here also does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.
Jonah 3:1-2 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you."
And again we are told God changed his mind, and so then yet again, God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.
This verse, we must erase it now?
Isaiah 55:10-11 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
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 | | |
 |
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/29/2006 8:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Lee,
In many instances, Calvinism (and similar theological views) holds that God does not change His mind. Now would this indicate that we should erase the following verses?
Exodus 32:14 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 "At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it."
Jeremiah 26:3 It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
Jeremiah 26:13 Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God, and the LORD will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
Jeremiah 26:19 Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and did not the LORD change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"
Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.
The knife of your false dichotomy cuts both ways, friend. To take the Scripture seriously, we must not force one theme to over-ride another, or cause one motif to cancel out another. The Scripture also contains the following:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
1st Samuel 15:29 "Moreover the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind."
Calvinism chooses to ignore the biblical truth which demonstrates that God does in certain contexts change His mind, to over-emphasize passages which state that in certain other contexts God will not change His mind - over-extending such passages to say that He never changes His mind, which then contradicts the plain words of other passages of Scripture.
Open theism is all about recognizing and admitting 2 seemingly disparate biblical themes, and finding a way to take both seriously without forcing 1 to crowd out the other. Does the Bible say that His word accomplishes the purpose for which He sends it? Yes. Does it say that He does not change His mind? Yes. Does it also say that He changes His mind? Yes. Does it demonstrate instances in which He genuinely changed His mind? Yes. Does this mean the Bible is hopelessly self-contradictory? No, because the contexts of both themes are different. Do such seemingly disparate themes mean we need to ignore 1 theme in order to overemphasize the other? Who are the biblical characters who demonstrated this tendency? >
Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone."
So, Lee, should we then erase all biblical passages which say that God changes His mind?
Lee Merrill said...
Hi everyone,
In many instances, the Open View holds God changed his mind. Now would this indicate in some of these, that God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it?
Exodus 32:10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.
God changed his mind here, we are told by the Open View, so then "leave me alone" did not accomplish God's purpose.
Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Here again, the Open View says God changed his mind, when Hezekiah prayed (why does God so continually not think people will pray when judgment is threatened? but that's another topic). And then God's word here also does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.
Jonah 3:1-2 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you."
And again we are told God changed his mind, and so then yet again, God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.
This verse, we must erase it now?
Isaiah 55:10-11 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Blessings,
Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/29/2006 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | John N. Darby said...
Now would this indicate that we should erase the following verses?
Exodus 32:14 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
Jeremiah 26:13 Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God, and the LORD will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
Jeremiah 26:19 Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and did not the LORD change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"
Jonah 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.
The knife of your false dichotomy cuts both ways, friend.
So then which is it? Did God change his mind, in the sense the Open View means this, or not? Did God's word accomplish its purpose, or not? These are not false dichotomies...
John N. Darby said...
To take the Scripture seriously, we must not force one theme to over-ride another, or cause one motif to cancel out another.
I agree! "My verse erases your verse" is not a valid argument.
John N. Darby said...
Does this mean the Bible is hopelessly self-contradictory? No, because the contexts of both themes are different.
Then are these not general statements? God's word accomplishes its purpose sometimes? Well, my word does too! Why does this need stating, then, may I ask?
John N. Darby said...
So, Lee, should we then erase all biblical passages which say that God changes His mind?
No, but we can read them as God being grieved ("nacham" can also have that meaning), or that he changed his response, but not his plan, and not his purpose.
Yet the Open View must say that sometimes God's word does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it, it will sometimes return to him empty, and this is indeed erasing a general statement, and making it essentially meaningless.
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 | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 5/29/2006 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...
Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."
Here again, the Open View says God changed his mind, when Hezekiah prayed (why does God so continually not think people will pray when judgment is threatened? but that's another topic). And then God's word here also does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.
Actually that's forcing the Calvinist position to mix with the Open View. It doesn't say it was God's plan to have Hezekiah die, so the only purpose of God mentioned was to save him, which of course succeeded. Pay better attention.
Lee Merrill said...
Jonah 3:1-2 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: "Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you." And again we are told God changed his mind, and so then yet again, God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it. Please explain. Jonah went to Nineveh, and preached the word of God and caused them to repent, just as God indecated was His plan. How does any of that demonstrate a changing mind?
Lee Merrill said...
Isaiah 55:10-11 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Could it be, or am I just crazy, maybe, just maybe, this is refering to the
prophecies being made in the chapter? Could it be it does not mean every single word the Lord ever said, past, present, future and in all demensions flew back at Him now weighing a ton? Just demonstrating the rediculousness of taking verses out of context and hyper literally to the point that they stop making sense.
Let me ask you, is the word of God without err? Then why does it say time and time again, that the sun rises and sets? Does the sun really rise and set, or isn't that an optical illusion?
It would sure be nice of us to go through one verse after another supporting your view (though, to be honest you've only produced two sentences anyway) to demonstrate they do not contradict ours or really help yours. I'm sure my friends will do that, but it would be much appriciated if you would explain the verses we've brought up and that you have brought up, rather than just trying to bait us into saying the Bible contradicts.
Is your purpose here only to prove us wrong? What about proving yourself right? Or are you just here to sit in the seat of a scoffer?
At least say what your position is!
Post Edited (Torkuda) : 5/29/2006 1:08:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/30/2006 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | to Lee, from Ricco:
My last response was crafted primarily to see how you would respond. Seeing your continued insistence, as I anticipated, I will now go back and answer your original question:
Lee: In many instances, the Open View holds God changed his mind. Now would this indicate in some of these, that God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it?
Ricco: The answer would be "No". Since the Bible reveals that God accomplishes His purposes, and since it reveals that He also changes His mind, open theism (indeed, any genuinely biblical theology) accepts both as true. All one needs to recognize is that, if God changes His mind, such a course of action is included in His purposes, as His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge accounts for all possible contingencies and thus gives Him the flexibility to change His mind in order to accomplish His purposes. To rephrase, His purpose always includes the possibility of Him changing His mind, for the sake of accomplishing His purposes. To pose a false dichotomy between "God's word always accomplishes His purpose" and "God can change His mind" is, to my reasoning, short-sighted and inflexible on the part of those who posit such, as well as their interpretation of God's ability to manage and cope.
Lee: Yet the Open View must say that sometimes God's word does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it, it will sometimes return to him empty, and this is indeed erasing a general statement, and making it essentially meaningless.
Ricco: Your statment, "Yet the Open View must say that sometimes God's word does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it", is false. Can you produce a quotation from a work of Gregory Boyd, or another prominent open-theist (who holds to a partly-open-future rather than the idea that God deliberately "forgets" the future), to support this contention? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/30/2006 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
various folks said...
Lee: Here again, the Open View says God changed his mind, when Hezekiah prayed (why does God so continually not think people will pray when judgment is threatened? but that's another topic). And then God's word here also does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it.
Torkuda: It doesn't say it was God's plan to have Hezekiah die, so the only purpose of God mentioned was to save him, which of course succeeded.
So then God did not change his mind? Yes, I agree, but the Open View quotes this incident as a proof of God changing his mind. Many are the discussions I have had about this with the Open View people!
various folks said...
Torkuda: Jonah went to Nineveh, and preached the word of God and caused them to repent, just as God indecated was His plan. How does any of that demonstrate a changing mind?
Agreed again! Yes, this is the view I hold that God did not change his mind. But do look for threads on Jonah in this forum!
various folks said...
Torkuda: … maybe, just maybe, this is refering to the
prophecies being made in the chapter? Could it be it does not mean every single word the Lord ever said, past, present, future and in all demensions flew back at Him now weighing a ton?
But I am not saying that “not empty” means having weight like on a scale! This is a straw man here. I am saying God’s word does accomplish its purpose in every case, for this is clearly a general statement, and not just a statement about the predictions in this chapter.
Isaiah 55:9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Only in this chapter? No…
various folks said...
Lee: In many instances, the Open View holds God changed his mind. Now would this indicate in some of these, that God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it?
Ricco: The answer would be "No". Since the Bible reveals that God accomplishes His purposes, and since it reveals that He also changes His mind, open theism (indeed, any genuinely biblical theology) accepts both as true.
Yet if these two propositions entail a contradiction, we must adjust one of them.
Ricco said...
His purpose always includes the possibility of Him changing His mind, for the sake of accomplishing His purposes.
So then God never has any purpose, in any intent where he sees he may change his mind? When God says “now leave me alone,” this is with no purpose for Moses to leave God alone this time? What does the statement mean, then? “Now leave me alone or don’t leave me alone”?
Ricco said...
Ricco: Your statment, "Yet the Open View must say that sometimes God's word does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it", is false. Can you produce a quotation from a work of Gregory Boyd, or another prominent open-theist (who holds to a partly-open-future rather than the idea that God deliberately "forgets" the future), to support this contention?
But by saying “The Open View must say” I meant to say that this is an implication in the Open View, not that anyone would actually come out and say this! That would be quite awkward, for Isa. 55:11 is exceptionally clear.
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 | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/31/2006 12:56 AM (GMT -6) | | various folks said...
Lee: In many instances, the Open View holds God changed his mind. Now would this indicate in some of these, that God's word did not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it?
Ricco: The answer would be "No". Since the Bible reveals that God accomplishes His purposes, and since it reveals that He also changes His mind, open theism (indeed, any genuinely biblical theology) accepts both as true.
Lee: Yet if these two propositions entail a contradiction, we must adjust one of them.
Ricco: My view is that they do not entail a contradiction. I don't see how I'm miscommunicating on this. For what reason do you feel that a certainty of accomplishing His purposes means that God must be incapable of changing His mind? It would seem to me that an incapability of changing His mind would result in a hindrance in accomplishing His purposes.
Ricco said...
His purpose always includes the possibility of Him changing His mind, for the sake of accomplishing His purposes.
Lee: So then God never has any purpose, in any intent where he sees he may change his mind? When God says “now leave me alone,” this is with no purpose for Moses to leave God alone this time? What does the statement mean, then? “Now leave me alone or don’t leave me alone”?
Ricco: There's some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding going on here. Perhaps an illustration will help. Let's say I want to drive from Hayward to Fremont. I get on the freeway, using 880 in my purpose of getting from Hayward to Fremont. But while on 880, a traffic jam develops due to a car accident. I know that, if I stay on 880, eventually I will make it to Fremont, but it could take an hour or longer more than I had anticipated. So I change my mind, take the next exit, and instead use Mission Blvd, fulfilling my purpose of getting from Hayward to Fremont. I think this should suffice to illustrate how the ability to change your mind does not entail an inability to fulfill one's purposes. If, for some reason, I had been incapable of changing my mind, and remained on 880, my purpose would still have been fulfilled, but with more difficulty. But either way, my purpose is fulfilled. Now, if such things are possible for a mere human like me, how much more possible are they for the almighty Creator, who shapes and directs events and influences humans and nations?
Ricco said...
Ricco: Your statment, "Yet the Open View must say that sometimes God's word does not accomplish the purpose for which he sent it", is false. Can you produce a quotation from a work of Gregory Boyd, or another prominent open-theist (who holds to a partly-open-future rather than the idea that God deliberately "forgets" the future), to support this contention?
Lee: But by saying “The Open View must say” I meant to say that this is an implication in the Open View, not that anyone would actually come out and say this! That would be quite awkward, for Isa. 55:11 is exceptionally clear.
Ricco: I disagree that such is an implication of the Open View; if it were, and if it were a necessary implication, I wouldn't be able to take the Open View seriously, and I doubt many biblically literate Christians would remain (or become) open theists. At best it seems a spurious charge, and certainly nothing compared to the vast differences between Calvinism and biblical Christianity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/2/2006 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Trying to form a consistent argument based on the Bible is very tricky business. The Bible is not one internally consistent document. You cannot always say, "The Bible says _____." Nearly anything you put in that blank can be contradicted by the Bible itself.
Someone records the story of God changing his mind when speaking to Moses. Then, many years later, someone writes a poem about the power of God. Technically, the two contradict. Any argument on the matter of the universal effectiveness of God's word can be logical or biblical, but never both. Taking the Bible as a unified document is like binding Huck Finn, East of Eden, The Constitution, Smells Like Teen Spirit, and Death of a Salesman all into one book, and then being astounded when American thought is seemingly inconsistent.
Furthermore, even if we posit some statement as "true" or "biblical," we still must read the Bible with some common sense. Isaiah was a poet. When he talks about God's nostrils, he is saying absolutely nothing about anatomy. Isaiah seems to be fairly intelligent and knowledgable of Israelite tradition. When he says God's word will achieve its purpose, he already knows the story of Moses. He alrready knows the story of the garden of Eden. He already knows the story of Noah. He already knows the story of Saul. Against this backdrop of God's repeated frustration Isaiah says that God will not be frustrated. Of course this is contradictory, but Isaiah wasn't stupid. He wasn't writing a syllogism. Odds are he didn't know what a syllogism was. He was writing poetry. The truth he wrote is not to be found in the literal meaning of his words.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/2/2006 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, Sahid, but to me, this just seems to be a very low view to take of the Bible. Where is the awe, honor, and reverence we see accorded to the Scripture by Christ, His apostles, and the early church? I feel that we should be able to say, along with Paul, "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." Acts 24:14. When Christ corrected the Sadducees, He said to them "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29). Along with Christ, I feel we should believe that, if it seems to us that something is in "error" or in "contradiction" in the Scripture, we should give God and His word the benefit of the doubt, and judge ourselves rather than His word, because like the Sadducees we "are mistaken, not knowing the Scripture, nor the power of God."
Sahid said...
Trying to form a consistent argument based on the Bible is very tricky business. The Bible is not one internally consistent document. You cannot always say, "The Bible says _____." Nearly anything you put in that blank can be contradicted by the Bible itself.
Someone records the story of God changing his mind when speaking to Moses. Then, many years later, someone writes a poem about the power of God. Technically, the two contradict. Any argument on the matter of the universal effectiveness of God's word can be logical or biblical, but never both. Taking the Bible as a unified document is like binding Huck Finn, East of Eden, The Constitution, Smells Like Teen Spirit, and Death of a Salesman all into one book, and then being astounded when American thought is seemingly inconsistent.
Furthermore, even if we posit some statement as "true" or "biblical," we still must read the Bible with some common sense. Isaiah was a poet. When he talks about God's nostrils, he is saying absolutely nothing about anatomy. Isaiah seems to be fairly intelligent and knowledgable of Israelite tradition. When he says God's word will achieve its purpose, he already knows the story of Moses. He alrready knows the story of the garden of Eden. He already knows the story of Noah. He already knows the story of Saul. Against this backdrop of God's repeated frustration Isaiah says that God will not be frustrated. Of course this is contradictory, but Isaiah wasn't stupid. He wasn't writing a syllogism. Odds are he didn't know what a syllogism was. He was writing poetry. The truth he wrote is not to be found in the literal meaning of his words. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/3/2006 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Ricco said...
My view is that they do not entail a contradiction.
Then my job is to convince you that there is one!
Ricco said...
For what reason do you feel that a certainty of accomplishing His purposes means that God must be incapable of changing His mind?
That is not a problem, the problem is only if God sends his word to accomplish his original purpose, and then that purpose does not come to fruition.
Ricco said...
It would seem to me that an incapability of changing His mind would result in a hindrance in accomplishing His purposes.
It would be for us, fallible as we are…
various folks said...
Lee: When God says “now leave me alone,” this is with no purpose for Moses to leave God alone this time? What does the statement mean…
Ricco: … But either way, my purpose is fulfilled.
But did God have no purpose for Moses to leave him alone, when he said “Now leave me alone …”? Certainly some other purposes God had could have been accomplished either way, but I am not focusing on those purposes.
I am focusing on whether God ever sent his word to accomplish a purpose, and that purpose (not some other purpose) failed.
Sahid said...
Taking the Bible as a unified document is like binding Huck Finn, East of Eden, The Constitution, Smells Like Teen Spirit, and Death of a Salesman all into one book, and then being astounded when American thought is seemingly inconsistent.
Are our posts here then potentially on a level with Scripture? Why should we not have a ratings system, “Psalm 12: 8.5, Sahid’s post: 9.2”?
Sahid said...
Isaiah was a poet. When he talks about God's nostrils, he is saying absolutely nothing about anatomy.
Then nothing he said was objectively true? Instead, it was flowery speech and noble flourishes? But I think Isaiah was a prophet.
Sahid said...
Against this backdrop of God's repeated frustration Isaiah says that God will not be frustrated.
Yes, and time and again the Open View will take an ambiguous example, to overturn a clear general statement.
Sahid said...
He was writing poetry. The truth he wrote is not to be found in the literal meaning of his words.
Then what would you say that this means?
Ricco said...
I feel that we should be able to say, along with Paul, "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets." Acts 24:14.
Yes, and may we hope that what is meant is not to fish out an obscure and poetic meaning? I think Paul meant more than this.
Acts 24:15 … and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.
Which will be splendid, and also very concrete, he means something objective and clear by this.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/3/2006 3:01:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Torkuda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 6/3/2006 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...
various folks said...
Torkuda: … maybe, just maybe, this is referring to the
prophecies being made in the chapter? Could it be it does not mean every single word the Lord ever said, past, present, future and in all dimensions flew back at Him now weighing a ton? But I am not saying that “not empty” means having weight like on a scale! This is a straw man here. I am saying God’s word does accomplish its purpose in every case, for this is clearly a general statement, and not just a statement about the predictions in this chapter. Isaiah 55:9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
But I am saying you completely missed the point I was trying to make. Both of the passages you quote are NOT speaking literally. It's apparent from just the way they are written.
When I read Genesis 18 and see an account of God and Abraham negotiating the fate of cities, I see no indication of non literal language. It seems the writer in that case had every intention of being taken seriously.
So here's what I have, two small non-literal passages that could infer that God never has to think nor consider nor change His mind, against one half page long passage that gives a literal account of Him conducting negotiations. What am I to say? Was God deceiving Abraham? Even to make a point, is that the God we know, a deceiver?
To read the Bible without reading it thoroughly is disrespecting it. To not consider the language formats, (no you don't have to speak Hebrew or the lost languages of Genesis, I mean poetry, metaphor, expressive, song) the times, the speakers, the purposes of the writings, its all very disrespectful.
I guess this is where one of my larger problems is with modern Bible studies. Who here has memorized John 3:16? Ah, but also, who here has memorized enough of the surrounding text to tell me what it means, its purpose, its reason for being there? What was going on when it was said?
Honestly, I'd prefer in vacation Bible school that they taught kids how to look things up in the Bible, and placed greater emphasis on WHERE certain stories are, rather than just rattling off watered down versions of real Bible stories. (If a story is too grotesque for a child to hear at a young age... is it? To be serious, we shelter our kids an awful lot these days, but to be honest, I do not think reading the real story of the holy wars will traumatize them. It will raise some questions that will need to be answered... but its not like they don't see violence these days anyway, only difference is, until they're about 13, they're usually shown violence with no consequences. They think gun fights are recreational activities!)
A child... for that matter anyone of any age, really should carry a Bible with him if he intends on using it to talk to his friends. Rattling off memorized verses is quite an empty gesture if you don't know what those verses are talking about.
I see this: God great and mighty, no one can stand in His path, but children, and those of like minds, will inherit His kingdom. God is the first of all creation, above it, beyond it, from whence it came, but desired to become the servant of all. His wrath knows no end, but His mercy abounds to the worst of sinners. God can pummel a kingdom from existence with a thought, but when the thoughts of that nations people and king turn from their wickedness, He will relent. God is the creator of Hell, but also the creator of Heaven. His wisdom and knowledge are vast, but His messages can be understood by children. He whom created the universe in six days, hung from a cross constructed by the hands of mortal men (the same mortal hands that didn't build Rome in a day). He who had no sin, bore the sins of the world.
Is God a walking paradox? You tell me, can these things exist in harmony?
To Sahid:
You have a good point, similar to mine in fact. But I must say, you have a bad way of putting it. Actually the Bible is consistent, it just takes commitment to understand it. With any enduring piece of literature, declaring a passage you don't understand to be in error, generally is a cowards way out of good study. This is why I get such a chuckle out of the skeptics annotated Bible. If the people devoting themselves to those so called refutations only knew how utterly stupid they looked! Lucky for us, I think they really are as dumb as they look.
However, not read properly, the Bible can look like a befuddled mess!
Course, I imagine if I took any book, and memorized sentences out of it at random, it to would never make much sense. Just a wild guess there!
Lee Merrill said...
Ricco said...
My view is that they do not entail a contradiction. Then my job is to convince you that there is one!
It continues to seem that your job is only to make us doubt our position. For crying out loud, what is yours? That God can't change His mind? That He just doesn't? That all scriptures that say He does are in error? What?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/5/2006 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...Hi everyone, Ricco said...
My view is that they do not entail a contradiction. Then my job is to convince you that there is one! Lee
Ricco wrote: Or, perhaps, maybe - just maybe - your job is to prayerfully consider what we're teaching you and examine it with a heart open to God and His word (in its entirety, not just select portions); maybe, just maybe, He's trying to teach you something through us Arminians and open theists. Ever consider that? Or are you so absolutely convinced of your rightness that you feel there is not even the slightest possibility that you might be mistaken in some aspect of your understanding? Do you consider yourself teachable, or unteachable? It seems to me that you're in danger of a form of theological tunnel vision, inasmuch as you seem unwittingly heading in the direction of finding it necessary to convince someone else that the Bible is self-contradictory.
How about this. Are you a 5-point Calvinist? If not, then what are you? I'm assuming you're probably a 5-point Calvinist. If so, then we can get to the heart of the matter much more quickly. Let me know.
[For the record, I'm a Christian who seeks to identify with early Christianity - the 1st century (the apostles and their disciples), and the 2nd and 3rd centuries (the next few generations of disciples who upheld the apostlic teaching); in pursuing their teachings, I find myself to be doctrinally Trinitarian, premillennial, and "freewill theist" (in line with basic Arminianism and Wesleyanism). Extending from that, I find orthodox/Nicene Trinitarianism to be a good and helpful exposition of pre-Nicene Trinitarianism; likewise I find Darby's dispensationalism to be a good and helpful exposition of pre-Nicene premillennialism; similarly, I find Boyd's open theism to be a good and helpful exposition of pre-Nicene freewill-theism. So my prioritization runs like this: 1) most importantly, the Holy Scriptures. 2) 1st and 2nd century Christian teaching, inasmuch as it accords with Scripture. 3) 3rd century Christian teaching, inasmuch as it accords with Scripture and prior Christian teaching. 4) Any post-Nicene Christian teaching which I find to be in the spirit of pre-Nicene Christian teaching, such as orthodox creeds (specifically those which uphold Trinitarianism), Arminius & Wesley (for their freewill theism), Darby (for his premillennial perspectives), and Boyd (for his freewill theism). Accordingly, I reject any teaching which I believe runs contrary to these, such as Arianism, modalism/"oneness", amillennialism, postmillennialism, preterism (partial or full), and Augustinianism/Calvinism. I present all of this simply so you know where I'm coming from, which is only fair since I'm asking you for the specifics of your own theological position.]Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 6/5/2006 1:53:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/5/2006 10:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
I was asked to outline my position, this is all I have time for tonight (this morning! it just ticked over to midnight), I am a 4-point Calvinist, I do not hold to Limited Atonement, I also hope that all may be saved (soft universalism, as opposed to holding that all certainly will be saved: hard universalism).
I also reject "Arianism, modalism/'oneness', amillennialism, postmillennialism, preterism (partial or full)"..
And some of Augustine! He's not perfect, but I do subscribe to most of what he says.
Now as far as God changing his mind, I hold that the verses OVT quotes can be interpreted in other ways (I would, of course!). Such as reading "grieved" in Noah's day and in regard to Saul, and reading Jonah as a conditional threat, so then God changed his response, but not his overall plan of mercy ( "Should I not be concerned?" )
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/5/2006 11:02:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/6/2006 12:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...
I was asked to outline my position, this is all I have time for tonight (this morning! it just ticked over to midnight), I am a 4-point Calvinist, I do not hold to Limited Atonement, I also hope that all may be saved (soft universalism, as opposed to holding that all certainly will be saved: hard universalism).
Lee
Thank you, Lee, for giving a quick rundown of your beliefs. My first question is about your rejection of "Limited Atonement". Given the general Calvinist assumption that not all humans are part of the elect, what logical reason would there be for Christ to die and provide atonement for the reprobate?
Now, in saying that you hold to "soft universalism", are you saying that you believe (or at least hope) that God has elected all humans, and that none are reprobate? (Such a belief would perhaps allow for a logical rejecton of Limited Atonement - if all humans are elect, then all require atonement). Certainly we can all hold out such a hope, but how does such a view square with Scriptures which certainly seem to suggest that a portion of humankind enter eternity separate from God, not having been reconciled to Him through Christ?
My primary question though, for now, is about your rejection of Limited Atonement. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/6/2006 8:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Torkuda: “So here's what I have, two small non-literal passages…”
Hold the phone! You have given me your conclusion, without your arguments. Nor do I know what you mean by non-literal here!
Torkuda: “Was God deceiving Abraham?”
No more so than when a dad says to his child, “Now where will the pliers go?” He is speaking from another’s perspective.
John 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
Torkuda: “Rattling off memorized verses is quite an empty gesture if you don't know what those verses are talking about.”
Quite so!
Matthew 4:6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
Torkuda: “God … but when the thoughts of that nations people and king turn from their wickedness, He will relent.”
I agree, and I also do hold that God knows how people will respond, so he does change his response, but not his plan.
Ricco: “… just maybe, He's trying to teach you something through us Arminians and open theists. Ever consider that?”
I’m in these forums to learn, too! I’ve even changed my mind, on occasion.
Ricco: “… are you saying that you believe (or at least hope) that God has elected all humans, and that none are reprobate?”
Yes, that is my hope, that people may repent after death, or even after judgment (Jude 1:7, Eze. 16:53).
But we are getting off-topic!
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. See my website, here on the Scriptures on whether all can be saved, and then here on how that squares with other verses, and here on limited atonement.
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/7/2006 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...
Ricco: “… are you saying that you believe (or at least hope) that God has elected all humans, and that none are reprobate?”
Lee: Yes, that is my hope, that people may repent after death, or even after judgment (Jude 1:7, Eze. 16:53)...
But we are getting off-topic!
I'd say we're getting on-topic.
A Calvinist Universalist? You're the first I've met thus far. As far as theological positions go, and weighing the relative merits thereof, I've gotta say that I can actually [however grudgingly] respect "unconditional election" when coupled with "universal election". But, Scripturally speaking, I remained unconvinced of either.
In any case, in looking at your webpage, I see that your answer to my question ["Given the general Calvinist assumption that not all humans are part of the elect, what logical reason would there be for Christ to die and provide atonement for the reprobate?"] is that you recognize that the question itself is wrong, seeing that Scripture itself over-rides the concept of "Limited Atonement", and in this instance you recognize that Scripture trumps philosophical maxims [unlike most 5-point Calvinists, you refuse to let yourself be drawn into upholding "Limited Atonement" simply because it is the most logical outcome of the other supporting tenets of Calvinism]. This is good, and forms the groudwork for where I feel our discussion needs to go. It is my belief and contention that, when this principle is applied consistently (Scripture trumps philosophical maxims), Calvinism altogether crumbles on all 5 points and then some.
If you're willing, I'd like for us to discuss the remaining 4 points of Calvinism, 1 by 1, in light of Scripture. We'll begin with "Total Inability" (I say "Total Inability" rather than "Total Depravity", because classic Arminianism actually shares "Total Depravity" in common with Calvinism; the actual genuine distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism on this point is the concept of "Total Inability" ). Seeing that Calvinism teaches that man, in his fallen state, is spiritually incapable of responding positively in faith to the Gospel without first being subject to His "irresistable grace" and regenerated [typically the illustration is that of a corpse being commanded to stand - it is a corpse, unable to hear or comply, and thus must first be resurrected before it can do either], how do you feel this squares with the following words of Jesus:
""Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live."
Notice that Christ says the dead will hear [sense/perceive] His voice - not only after having been made alive (regenerated), but while they are yet still dead - they live as a result of hearing (listening/heeding] His voice. Calvinism would require this to say "the dead will live and those who live will hear the voice of the Son of God". But, regardless, Christ says "the dead will hear", while yet dead, not yet being alive, and the "will live" comes after they "hear", which again happens while they were yet dead, prior to being alive.
Seeing that you have learned that, in the case of "Limited Atonement", Scripture trumps philosophical maxims, wouldn't it seem to you that Christ's words in John 5:25 should also trump "Total Inability" ? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/7/2006 10:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
various folks said...
John 6:6 He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
Torkuda: What relivence do you think that verse has?
That was meant to be an example of Jesus speaking from another person’s perspective…
Ricco said...
A Calvinist Universalist? You're the first I've met thus far.
I am rather an odd bird.
Ricco said...
… you recognize that the question itself is wrong, seeing that Scripture itself over-rides the concept of "Limited Atonement’
Yes, agreed. Thanks for reading some of my web site, by the way! I have not typed in vain.
Ricco said...
Christ says "the dead will hear", while yet dead, not yet being alive, and the "will live" comes after they "hear", which again happens while they were yet dead, prior to being alive.
Yes, and the message brings hearing as well!
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
So then they would be totally unable, would be my thought here…
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 | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/8/2006 12:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...Ricco said...
Christ says "the dead will hear", while yet dead, not yet being alive, and the "will live" comes after they "hear", which again happens while they were yet dead, prior to being alive. Yes, and the message brings hearing as well! Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. So then they would be totally unable, would be my thought here…
I understand the relevance of Romans 10:17, and definitely agree with the connection, but I'm not following what you mean in your last sentence ("So then they would be totally unable, would be my thought here..." ). Could you elaborate, please?
[Just to be sure, I agree with classic Arminianism that, apart from God's grace, humans are unable in and of themselves to respond positively to God - but I also agree with classic Arminianism that God does not withhold His grace [which is not "irresistable"] from anyone, and that He is working to draw everyone to Himself. The difference I see, between Calvinism and John 5:25, is that Calvinism says that man must first be regenerated [not dead] to hear Christ, while Christ says that the dead [unregenerate] will hear him, and hearing Him they shall live [thus, regenerated after hearing Him and a result of hearing Him, rather than requiring regeneration in order to hear Him at all.] | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/8/2006 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | John N. Darby said...
... but I'm not following what you mean in your last sentence ("So then they would be totally unable, would be my thought here..." ). Could you elaborate, please?
Well, I meant that the hearing is not there until God gives it! So then people of themselves, are unable to even hear the message, much less respond in faith to it.
John N. Darby said...
Just to be sure, I agree with classic Arminianism that, apart from God's grace, humans are unable in and of themselves to respond positively to God...
Yes, but providing hearing is more than I understand the Arminians to mean by providing grace.
John N. Darby said...
... while Christ says that the dead [unregenerate] will hear him, and hearing Him they shall live [thus, regenerated after hearing Him and a result of hearing Him, rather than requiring regeneration in order to hear Him at all.]
Ah, but those who hear will live! Not "might live." Also, I think this is speaking of physical resurrection, not of salvation.
Expositor's Bible Commentary said...
The phrase "and has now come" may refer to the present era that will terminate in the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, or it may refer to the power Jesus had to raise the dead during his lifetime, as in the case of Lazarus. There is another sense in which our Lord's words are true. As the source of life, he was promising to those who were spiritually dead, like the woman at the well, a new and eternal life if they would listen to his voice.
And I think because of this following verse, we are to prefer the sense of raising the physically dead:
"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. " (Jn. 5:28-29)
Now rising to be condemned would not involve salvation! And I think verses 25 and 28-29 are parallel...
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 | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 6/9/2006 3:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...John N. Darby said...
... while Christ says that the dead [unregenerate] will hear him, and hearing Him they shall live [thus, regenerated after hearing Him and a result of hearing Him, rather than requiring regeneration in order to hear Him at all.] Ah, but those who hear will live! Not "might live." Also, I think this is speaking of physical resurrection, not of salvation. "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. " (Jn. 5:28-29) Now rising to be condemned would not involve salvation! And I think verses 25 and 28-29 are parallel...
Yes, it has been my experience that the typical Calvinistic reinterpretation and revision of John 5:25 is to insist that it refers to physical resurrection rather than spiritual resurrection. Fact is, the context shows Jesus speaking alternately of spiritual resurrection (everlasting life) and physical resurrection:
Spiritual Resurrection: 24-25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live."
Physical Resurrection: 28-29 "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."
One difference between the spiritual resurrection of 24-25 and the physical resurrection of 28-29 is that with the spiritual resurrection "the hour is coming, and now is", indicating a present opportunity, whereas with the physical resurrection "the hour is coming", indicating a yet future resurrection. Another difference is that, in the spiritual resurrection, Christ indicates that they "hear My word" and "hear the voice of the Son of God", whereas in the physical resurrection He says they will "hear His voice", indicating the Father rather than the Son. A further difference is that the spiritual resurrection is purely positive, without a negative, "he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life... the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live"; however, the physical resurrection is positive for some, negative for others: "those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation".
Admit it - you recognized, as your previous response implies, that John 5:25 refers to spiritual resurrection, up until you started digging around in commentaries for a way around the obvious implication of the passage, and found a suggestion that it may perhaps be speaking of physical resurrection.
I do not accept the typical Calvinistic attempt to force John 5:25 to refer physical resurrection, rather than the spiritual resurrection Christ clarifies in the preceding verse (if one intends to argue that the proximity of verses 28-29 has some bearing, then how much more the immediate proximity and similarity of verse 24?); furthermore, I see such attempts as just further evidence of the lengths Calvinism forces a person to go to re-interpret Scripture and make a passage seem to agree with the Calvinistic scheme. Don't let philosophical maxims trump Scripture; personal and philosophical preferences should be shaped by God's word, rather than His word shaped by our preferences. What say you? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/9/2006 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | "my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
Apparently, people here believe the Bible is without error or something. I'll pretend I agree. So, take Genesis 2 and 3. God says man must not eat the fruit. Man then eats the fruit. This is our paradigmatic picture of sin. What did God send out his word to accomplish? Sin? No! God does not want people to sin. But we might say that God sought to set free choice before humans and that was what his word was to accomplish. From this angle God's word achieved its purpose despite human sin, because God's purpose was modest. So if we want to preserve some form of inerrancy and deny that there is contradiction in the Bible, we cannot hold to an interpretation of Isaiah 55 that says "God is never frustrated." A major theme of the Bible is God's temporary frustration despite his certain victory.
Lee: Are our posts here then potentially on a level with Scripture? Why should we not have a ratings system, “Psalm 12: 8.5, Sahid’s post: 9.2”?
Zach: No. Because we already have a Lord; he is our standard.
Lee: Then nothing he said was objectively true? Instead, it was flowery speech and noble flourishes? But I think Isaiah was a prophet.
Zach: No. It was much more than "flowery speech." I, too, think that all three contributors to Isaiah were prophets.
Lee: Then what would you say that this means?
Zach: Isaiah 55 is an eschatological poem. It speaks of the ultimate victory of God in spite of the temporary victory of evildoers and the vast amounts of suffering. If God were not temporarily frustrated, the poem would make no sense. Who would be thirsty?
John, I try to hold the same reverence for the scripture that I think Jesus does. Jesus spoke of the scriptures as documents that pointed toward him. He was known for fulfilling the scripture by showing people the spirit behind the Law rather than word. His teaching ("You have heard it said... but I say...) is what we call "liberal" today. I consider myself very conservative when it comes to the teachings and life of Jesus. This means that I must be liberal with the scripture. Taking the Bible's written word as the ultimate measure for truth is not Christlike. I do believe that scripture is inspired. I also think that Paul's view of scripture is very similar to mine. But neither Paul nor the Bible is without error. That distinction belongs to Jesus. He is Lord, not Paul, not Isaiah. If any judgment is to be made, it is to be made with respect to Jesus.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/9/2006 3:49:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/9/2006 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Ricco said...
One difference between the spiritual resurrection of 24-25 and the physical resurrection of 28-29 is that with the spiritual resurrection "the hour is coming, and now is", indicating a present opportunity, whereas with the physical resurrection "the hour is coming", indicating a yet future resurrection.
You convinced me, I think this is the better interpretation; I would however expect Jesus had both spiritual and physical resurrection in mind in 24-25.
Now this implies irresistible grace, does it not, if “those who hear will live”?
Zach said...
… take Genesis 2 and 3. God says man must not eat the fruit. Man then eats the fruit. This is our paradigmatic picture of sin. What did God send out his word to accomplish? Sin? No!
Maybe yes, though?
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Zach said...
A major theme of the Bible is God's temporary frustration despite his certain victory.
I think not! Really, the general statements in the Bible to the contrary are most overwhelming. Here is a page from me that has such a list...
Zach said...
Because we already have a Lord; he is our standard.
Yes, but we are talking of what standard to consider for Scripture, not in regard to the Lord.
Zach said...
[Isaiah] speaks of the ultimate victory of God in spite of the temporary victory of evildoers and the vast amounts of suffering. If God were not temporarily frustrated, the poem would make no sense. Who would be thirsty?
You may recall our discussions on this subject before…
For pain can have a good outcome, for starters, if there were nothing to overcome, what would there be to reward?
But my main concern here is “What was God’s purpose with regard to sending his word, in the incidents with Moses, Hezekiah and Jonah?”
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 | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/10/2006 12:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
James 1:13 God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.
Lee: I think not! Really, the general statements in the Bible to the contrary are most overwhelming.
Zach: I think so! God is disobeyed over and over in the Bible. He says, "Do this." And they respond by doing the opposite. There are not many scenes where God says, "I'm so glad my reverse-psychology worked. I really wanted people to disobey me and sin. Hurray, I tricked them into raping and murdering eachother." If we take Piper's view of God as in control of every detail, then every rapist is doing the holy will of God. The Nazi party would be God's hands and feet on earth.
Lee: Yes, but we are talking of what standard to consider for Scripture, not in regard to the Lord.
Zach: A lord is someone who is in authority. If your authority is scripture, you are treating it as lord.
Lee: For pain can have a good outcome, for starters, if there were nothing to overcome, what would there be to reward?
Zach: Sure, pain can have a good outcome. Sometimes it doesn't.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
| 26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:26 AM (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 |
|
|