2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture

[1Way]

God is Truth – and Turbo (below)

God is Truth - LOL, excellent point! Rolf doesn’t like the factual reality of the unavoidable change in God the Son when He became flesh, not just was nearly like flesh, but actually became flesh and dwelt among us. So he speaks about it loosely as though this was no “real” change at all in order to protect his preconceptions.

Was the incarnation just an epiphany, an illusion/dream as in anything less than God the Son, or was He fully God the Son in person?

I’d say fully God the Son in person, no doubt about it, and since He had not been God incarnate (born of a virgin) from eternity passed, the change in the person of God is unavoidable and rather significant to world history.



Turbo - Your point is most excellent too. Rolf along with a myriad of closed theists, in a vain attempt of protecting their ideology (i.e. Greek philosophy), they say ...

that whenever God’s word says that He repented and did not do what He said (or thought) He was going to do,

that actually means that ...

God did not repent, (!!!)

thus necessarily implying that He did do what He said or thought He was going to do. The contextual development squashes yet another closed view theist! I love God’s truth, I love God, He is so good and true and it’s so bad that folks like Ralf refuse to trust God at His word without

voiding it of meaning
and replacing it with nothing,
or worse yet, contradicting it with their manmade traditions.

The scriptures say over and over again, that God repented, but we have the closed theists say that such texts mean that He did not repent. Repenting actually means to not repent. Could they get it any more wrong than diametrically opposing the truth? :chuckle:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by 1Way

Turbo - Your point is most excellent too. Rolf along with a myriad of closed theists, in a vain attempt of protecting their ideology (i.e. Greek philosophy), they say ...

that whenever God’s word says that He repented and did not do what He said (or thought) He was going to do,

that actually means that ...

God did not repent, (!!!)

thus necessarily implying that He did do what He said or thought He was going to do.

Or they think He never thought He would do what He said He would do, and what He said He thought He would do. He may have said He would do something, but He knew all along He wouldn't and never had any intention of doing what He said. :think:

 

[1Way]

Acts9_12Out – I know your busy, but I haven’t heard from you on this yet, and just wondered if you caught it the first time. Also I thought I’d add a link to the OnLineBible’s Mac page, here it is.

http://www.online-bible.com/maconlinebible.html

It has two or three Greek texts available for download for free, including Revised Thayer's Greek English Lexicon. And again, on the IBM clone side, even some of Bullenger is available from the CCEL.org site.


***Beginning of repeat post***

Acts9_12Out – You said

I wish I had a program that automatically inserted greek fonts. I use the vb tags bold, size=3 and font=symbol and manually type in the letters. I have been studying Greek with Bob Hill for almost 8 years now, and know many of the "popular" passages by heart in the original. BTW, excellent points raised. Just think if I inserted "come" into my passage...

I use the OnLineBible (OLB) and it does it for me automatically just fine. I run a windows machine, but I would think the same should hold true for Mac. The only issue is that one or two letters from the online bible’s Greek font do not correspond to the Greek font used in symbol, so you might have to do an occasional edit here and there. It is a great freeware program. It is wonderful for searching, you can even search using Greek text, you can do proximity searches which find occurrences within a “passage” not just within a “verse”! It has phrase and word search and many Boolean search functions.

The OLB has great third party freeware add on modules. I own a $400-500 bible study program from Logos, “the original languages” package in the new improved series X version no less, and I rarely use it(!) except for the various electronic references that I don’t otherwise have, the OLB is that much more practical. It’s better at doing the kind of searches I usually do, and it’s easy for copy and paste functions. And it’s free, unless you want some copyrighted translations.

I’ve used the OLB program and several others since the 286/386 days, and I have done a lot of comparisons. It’s weak points are that it’s install routine is sort of clumsy although that has improved of late (it’s not a big learning curve), and the windowing options have been glitchy and sometimes a hassle to deal with, but that too has been almost completely fixed. You can get a CD for like 30 bucks and the NKJV is included in the price, a $5 royalty value, and it makes the install process a bit easier. It’s not a point and click and your done thing, but it is not hard to get yourself set up. If you do get it, I’d be more than happy to do phone in tech support and get you oriented.

You can download about everything you need from the internet

http://www.onlinebible.net/

and you can get a bunch of add on modules, including some on Bullenger and Scofield and Darby and many more at

http://www.ccel.org/olb/

But the NKJV costs $5 dollars to activate.

Happy trails!

***end of repeat post***

 

[1Way]

Turbo – Exactly, they make God into a liar in order to protect their manmade tradition. And in so doing, they do two main things.

They void or invalidate the meaning of the scripture that shows God changing/repenting,

then they follow up that violence by not replacing the meaning directly from God’s word,

instead, they just imply that their philosophy of closed theism forces their hand and so God simply did not change/repent, yet they have no clue what God is saying when He says that He did repent and not do what He said He would do.

I don’t mean to drive the same point home any harder than it already has, but this issue, especially the way you put it, brings to my mind what happens at the very point when the closed viewer’s attempt to deal with such divine mutability teachings as divine repentance. They just can’t stand what God’s word plainly says, so they ignore it and then mistreat it terribly. Not that many of them mistreat it on purpose because if you first grant classical divine immutability, then these mistreatments are a natural result. I believe most of them are sincerely mistaken, but what they actually do to God’s word is none the less, unmitigated violence.

If you would examine some of my recent exchanges with Z Man over in the Does Calvinism Limit God thread, Z demonstrated this perfectly (actually it was several pages back from the latest over there). He would say, oh, ya, God did repent (all words no meaningful action), but God did do what He always intended on doing! He says that even though the text specifically says that God did “not” do what He said He would do.

In particular I’m thinking of when Z would try to answer the closed theist challenge of Jonah 3:10 (subsection “b”) (chuckles). He would not even use the words “do what God said He would do” except to quote that scripture, he is that afraid of the text.

Instead of using

“God did not bring the destruction that He said He would bring, and He did not do it”,

when it came right down to the matter of Z Man supposedly handling the divine repentance aspect of the specific text in question, he would look completely away from God’s word and say something like,

God did what He always intended on doing, nothing changed in God, only in man.

So at the very heart of their mistreatment of scripture, they ignore and void God’s word, and worse than that, they replace the voided meaning with nothing but their contradictory manmade ideas.

I “usually” find them unwilling consistently maintain that God is untrue, except for perhaps folks like Jobeth and smaller for example. Thanks for your interest and comments!

Aside
(Suggestion, if you “restore” your browser window so that it is not “max” or “min”, and then make the width of this window smaller like perhaps 2/3's width or so, then this post’s long and skinny paragraphs will be easier on the eyes to read as exampled by most bible’s being printed in two column format to help the reader “track the next line” a bit easier. At 1024x768, my para’s aspect ratio is about 6-8 times longer and skinnier than standard bible formatting and such skinny formatting can make line tracking that much more difficult to accomplish. It’s just a thought that helps me sometimes.

Actually I think that the bible’s common “two column per page” formatting does two other main things. It packs the text into less pages, which idea is not intuitive because of the added central white space, but I’ve done it before, I tried formatting the entire bible on MS word and the pages get smaller if you use multi column than if you don’t. And secondly, I think it is better suited for oratory reading. Shorter text lines are more easily assimilated and then spoken while also improving tracking for the next text to be spoken.)

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--granting that there was a time when "The Word became flesh," as you and J.I. Packer say, that did not mean that there was a change in His essence. In the same sense you could say that when God created the universe, there was a change because He afterward had creatures with which to deal. But, friend, that was no change at all in His being. Nor was it a change in His decree, for He from everlasting had decreed that which took place at the very time He had appointed.
Similarly, The Word becoming flesh at the precise time and in the precise manner He had purposed from everlasting did not alter Him one iota from what He still is today, and notice that the incarnation took place at the precise time He had purposed--"In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son..."
Those who would argue that there has been to any extent a change in God Himself must show how their believing that is not a misrepresentation of Scripture, or else openly admit that they disagree with certain plain statements of Scripture, such as "I am the LORD. I change not."
I appreciate your referral to J.I. Packer. He is an excellent theologian far above my qualifications, but I believe that a fuller consideration of the context wherein he spoke of change in a sense would show that Packer's fullest explanation of his meaning would be in agreement with mine. Check it out. Let me know if otherwise, or let me know exactly where he made that statement, please.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--your comment in the 112th post on this thread--precisely!
Very well said, friend.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--we make God into a liar? My! Getting nasty aren't we? What if the problem is in your lack of understanding? What if there is a REAL agreement between those verses which say that God is "not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent."?
and those verses which speak of Him altering His actions toward a people in accord with His immutable purpose of showing mercy to the repentant? There are many places in which God is spoken of in an anthropomorphic sense.
Did you see that verse above? Where does it rate on your list of scriptures worthy of being "God-breathed"? He is not a "son of man that He should repent."
Do you believe that text? Can you reconcile your view of Scripture with it? That text gives me no difficulty. But from the view you have shown of some scriptures which refer to God in an anthropomorphic sense, you have to now come up with an explanation for why you can claim to believe that the Bible is not self-contradictory. So why don't you do that now? Show us all how your belief that God changes in in accord with the verse and does not contradict the verse where He Himself says, "I am the LORD. I change not."
When you get that done, show us all how your charge that God does repent does not attack those verses which say that God does NOT repent. Kindly do that, please. And use scripture. It will give you something to do besides maklng insulting comments about others.

 

[godrulz]

I am not referring to a specific Packer quote, but merely assume that his view and mine are classical, orthodox theology (he is a name associated with sound theology...though I am not Calvinistic like he is).

The triune God has one eternal spirit essence (monotheism).

The Word incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ (one person with 2 natures= divine/human= Phil. 2).

The Father, Son, Spirit all are the one essence of God.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. The Father and Son did not take on flesh (3 personal, eternal distinctions within the one Godhead).

The great creeds and Scripture affirm these truths. The exact way that God became a man, the relationship of the 2 natures of Christ (incarnation/kenosis), the exact nature of the triune God, etc. are areas of speculation.

Semantics must be precise. Regardless, God did not always have a human nature in Christ. This is a change in relations in the Godhead, if not in an aspect of His essence. I will leave this to greater theologians and philosophers to contemplate.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1 Way--in the 124th post of this thread, you are up to your usual mischaracterizations of others. You esteem yourself as the one to define those whom you are opposing while at the same time you altogether ignore the positions which they put forth.
Again, there are those times when God "repents" in a figurative sense such as when He declares that if that wicked nation repents of their evil then He will repent of the evil He had in store for them.
Again, that is not a change in Him, but merely a difference in His treatment of them based upon their repentance. That happens everytime a sinner is brought to life and faith through the working of his "mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raiosed Him from the dead."
Prior to His raising a sinner from the dead by the working of His mighty power, that sinner was continually under the wrath of God--the wrath of God always bearing down upon him. But when God is pleased to show mercy and regenerate, the sinner is placed by God into a new relationship. The sinner believes and is moved out from under God's wrath into God's favor. God did not change. The grace He exercised when it pleased Him, He had from everlasting purposed to exercise on that elect one. What was changed was the sinner.
NOW---if after the sinner was given the gift of repentance God did not bless him and receive him unto himself THAT would be a change in God because He has from everlasting purposed to show mercy
when He pleased upon that sinner; just as Paul said of his being called by Christ, "When it pleased God..."
Don't let me distract you from reconciling your belief that God both changes and repents when He himself has said in His word that He does neither. We are waiting.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--In the 124th post on this thread, you attack Z Man with misrepresentations of his meaning. You characterize him of being afraid of a text of scripture.
On whose authority do you say that he is afraid of Jonah 3:10?
Did he tell you he feared that text? If he did not tell you he feared that text, who are you, and where do you get the hutzpah, to report to the entire forum that Z Man fears Jonah 3:10? Instead of going in attack mode against other members of the forum, why not just deal with the scriptures in question and when you have done your best in that regard, submit it to the judgment of other members without making personal attacks?
There is no reason ZMan should be afraid of Jonah 3:10 and I don't believe he IS fearful of it, if you don't mind me rejecting your presumptuous judgment of him. I believe that the real issue concerns your refusal to acknowledge the fact that those scriptures which say God repents or repented do not at all contradict the scriptures which clearly teach that God neither repents nor changes.
Your tactics are like those of politicians who are always happy to tell others what their opponent has done, what he thinks, or what their motives are. Politicians do that to gain an advantage which they cannot otherwise win, but what they refuse to realize is that to misrepresent someone's position, motive, or attitude toward an issue (or text of scripture) is to bear false witness against them. I am 67--old enough to remember a time in this country when men were too honorable to define someone who had taken a position contrary to theirs. They would say instead, "if you want to know that, you will have to ask him. I have no right to speak for him, and I will not do so because I might misrepresent him."
God's sparing of Ninevah is similar to His healing of Hezekiah, 2Kings 20. Neither of the two incidents is contrary to the teachings of Reformed theology, nor do they at all even present a problem. Rather, both show that God is merciful and makes use of human instruments in the accomplishing of His purposes of grace and mercy. Overlooking those main things which display the glory of God in His grace and mercy and the means by which He accomplishes those works to focus instead on some SEEMING contradiction with other clear texts of scripture is very much like warning that there is poison in wholly nutritious bread.

In a separate post, to defend the truth, I will deal with both hezekiah's healing and God's mercy to the Ninevites.

 

[1Way]

Rolf - I'm starting a new thread to deal with this somewhat off topic issue (challenging my accusations of biblical violence) so as to respect the very specific and interesting nature of this thread and so that others will have a natural way of easily locating this new topic.

Please respond over in the new thread in this forum called

“An open challenge to all closed theists”

 

[AndrewLevicki]

Is there any way to filter out the childish posts on this service?

smaller, if you believe all are saved then you believe contrary to scripture and to what Jesus explicitly said.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by AndrewLevicki

Is there any way to filter out the childish posts on this service?

smaller, if you believe all are saved then you believe contrary to scripture and to what Jesus explicitly said.

well, you can add people to your "ignore" list so you don't see their posts. not sure besides that though.