ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

[drdeutsch]

Jaltus,

I read the thread on "God repenting and nacham." True, my interpretation is a bit more confined, a bit narrower, but I read the entire thread and a broader meaning doesn't change my theology at all. These passages are still showing me that God changed His mind. The word nacham is used for both men and God. The only difference is what makes men "nacham" and what makes God "nacham." Both men and God, however, are repenting, changing their minds, consoling themselves, grieving themselves, however you want to translate it.
Also, in reading through the entire thread, I didn't find very much of an argument put up by the non-OV'ers. 1013 addressed that, but never got much of a response. I'll read through it again, though. I'm no Hebrew expert either, and it's pretty heavy stuff.

I'll also check out that book you mentioned. Thanks.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[Jaltus]

Again, I am no expert on Hebrew. As soon as I take my one OT course and (God willing) pass the Hebrew placement exam, I am done with it.

Greek is my thing.

 

[geoff]

The OV perspective (and especially 1013's) amounts to a denial of the evidence, not a refutation of it.

If you find that convincing... well.. what more can be said?

 

[1013]

Jaltus, I can see only see one thing in the first quote of yours that can be taken it a way that would contradict the second.

In this view, ‘trusting in God’ provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes

reflection taken as looking upon the past from the present.

But I don't think that they necessarily contradict. So something happens that has no apparent divine purpose. So we may reflect that it has no divine purpose. God can still work with the circumstances that have resulted from this event and bring a good end out of it. That it had no intended divine purpose to begin with and that no divine efforts using this event visable at the current time does not mean that God still can't bring something good out of it.

Consider Fredrick Suppe's essay in Philosopher's Who Believe.

He said that he learned to view the emotional abuses from his father were a gift from God. Now I'll imeadiately disagree with this interpretation of his experience but I can say that something of it is true. God used this abuse to bring Suppe closer to him. And so effective this was, Suppe easily concluded that God purposed it that way to begin with. But that is unnecesary. It is good enough to show that God used those scars and that pain for good and so it is that even if God didn't purpose that abuse, he utilized it in the life of one who submitted to his care and healing. What wasn't in his plans (and for the sake of argument, not in his knowledge, though I'd be willing to admit that early on, God foreknew of the abuse that Suppe would recieve) is now an essential part. It didn't have to play that role because suppe didn't have to yeild to God and/or his father could've gotten the spiritual healing that he needed. But neither was the case so God utilize that abuse the way that he did.

 

[geralduk]

Originally posted by drdeutsch
Jaltus,

Also, as far Aristotleian philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy are concerned, I wasn't aware that I was interchanging the two. Augustine drew from many Greek philosophers. Here is an article by Bob Hill from his book Calvinism Unmasked that explains it pretty well:

http://www.biblicalanswers.com/CalvinismUnmasked_ch2.htm

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Why is any man drinking from the polulted waters of mens philosophies and not from the pure Waters of Gods Word?

 

[geralduk]

Originally posted by drdeutsch
Geoff,

If I come to the Bible with the understanding that many of the traditional views of Scripture are rooted in the Hellenistic philosophy (e.g. the doctrine of Immutability) it is because it is true. This can be traced back to Plato, Plotinus, and others. These men were pagans. Not Christians. I'm not saying that they weren't learned men or Erudites. They were very competent. However, I'm not going to take an understanding of Scripture from someone who doesn't believe in God.
As far as Augustine goes, he was a very great scholar. He didn't believe God changed at all. He was a philosopher first and foremost, Christian second. Augustine changed, however, after Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, allegorized the OT and showed Augustine that God can indeed and does change.
After listening to Ambrose, Augustine wrote:

But, let's throw away our presuppositions. Many (Piper, Hall, Calvinists, non-OV's) say that God doesn't change. Many others (Boyd, Sanders, OV's) say that God does change. Why should I believe any one of them over the Bible? They are just men, and men are fallible. So I look at the bible. I look at the 26 instances which say that God repented [nacham]. Enough said.

As I said before, Geoff, I was a Calvinist at one time. I subscribed to all of the traditional views of God. Speaking of traditional, I was raised Catholic. I had tradition stuffed down my throat every sunday morning. (this is not a knock against the Catholic church - just that I didn't really like going to mass because it put me to sleep. Does any kid really enjoy going to mass?) Anyway, I swallowed everything that theologians put out there - immutability, impassability, timelessness, etc... Then, I got a wake-up call. I started reading the other side. I kept an open mind, and I started comparing everything against Scripture, doing my own research, and praying that God would "open my mind to an understanding of the Scriptures." Bless Him, He has.

Please don't make any more presuppositional comments about me, Geoff. By the way, where do you preach?

God bless, all.
Dr. Deutsch

The NATURE AND CHARACTER of God has NEVER changed.
Nor has His ETERNAL WILL and purpose and plan FOR MAN.

IT IS TO THE "whosover"will believe who ENTERS INTO it.
Those to whom it is promised but do not beleive in the promises how can they recieve it.
So to MAN whom God had purposed to have an incorruptable eternal life.
But by not beleieving the Word of God did not live but died.
To those He showe dmercy to and a promise of a savior ("the seed of the woman") they also through unbelief did not recieve it.
But like th genearion prophesied in scripture is a rebelios one perished in the flood.
The children Of Isreal who were brought out ogf Egypt buy Gods strong handand were promised a land flowing with milk and honey.
nevertheless through their unbelief entered not in.
yet "to them that believe to THEM gave He the power to become the sons of God"
Does that mean that those who do not and perish makes God a lier?
OF course not!
Look again WHERE you see God repenting and what He repents of.
He does Not change.
It is men who change and God cannot give to them which He desired to and be CONSISTANT with His RIGHTOUS nature and character.
WHOSOEVER though calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
If you read at the beginning of THE book you will read that men were BARRED from the tree of LIFE.
But if you look at the END of THE book you will find he has REGAINED it.
You will read that God had said "of ALL the trees in the garden you may freely eat"This INCLUDED the tree of life.
The ONLY one they were NOT alowed to eat was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Therfore it was and IS and shall be the eternal WILL of God that man should EAT of the tree of life.
Now the first Adam failed in a paradise.
The last suceded in a wilderness.
God in Christ redeems man and IN Christ he ENTERS INTO that eternal will and plan of God.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geralduk,

No matter what you do, God's word is going to get watered down by our own idiosyncrasies and philosophies. None of us can live, think, or be pure like God. Are not theologies philosophies? And our theologies are different. Each interpretation is different. I'm not saying each one is rooted in Hellenistic philosophy, it is merely my contention that none of us can have a "perfect" theology. At least not in the sense that only God's theology is perfect because God is perfect.

I also never made the claim that when God repents He was changing. I don't believe that God changes in His character. He always has been and always will be perfectly holy, loving, just, righteous, etc... These attributes of God never change. What I was trying to say is that when nacham is used by/for God, He is changing His mind or changing the way He deals with mankind. He is, in a sense, growing. Growth, however, does not imply imperfect. Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned through suffering. If Jesus was God and God was perfect, then Jesus was perfect, but He was still able to learn and grow and maintain his perfection. Had Jesus ever been a man before? Not as far as we know. Likewise, has God ever dealt with humans before? Did God ever work with or create humans before we know He did in Genesis? Of course not. I'm not saying that God doesn't know how to deal with humans. That would be dumb. I'm saying that God knows how we can act, but, as an open theist, He doesn't know how we will act until we do it. Thus, He does, in a sense, learn. By the way, I'm using "learn" because I really can't think of a more fitting term. I'm sure there is one out there, but my mind isn't working at the moment.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up.
God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

What I was trying to say is that when nacham is used by/for God, He is changing His mind or changing the way He deals with mankind.

the point IS DrD, that the text DOES NOT say this at all. In fact, in gen 6 for example, its quite clear that nacham is an emotional response... NOT AT ALL to do with learning or growing.. Each use of the word must be looked at closely, and in context.

As for philosphy and religion, here are the words of Edward Moore, dual Phd in philosophy:

The catechetical schools of the Hellenistic era used philosophy as a propaideutic to the study of the gospel and Christian theology in general. The reason being that too many grave errors resulted from a total immersion in the word of God without any grounding in logic, dialectic, cosmology, and ethics. Origen, for example, introduced his students to what was both admirable and despicable in pagan thought. He introduced them to false ideas and proved those ideas wrong through the technique of dialectic. Only when the students had been convinced of the error of certain ideas on the basis of human reasoning alone did Origen begin to teach them the gospel. This precluded any back-sliding caused by doubt or lack of personal conviction. I believe the proliferation of heterodox sects, fundamentalism, and intolerance in our own era would be checked or eliminated if all Christians were required to undergo a rigorous philosophical training. But that will never happen, alas! It is fortunate, though, that a few denominations find a place for philosophy in their teachings.

Interesting.

and again:

The New Testament was written, as Jaroslav Pelikan has remarked, "in the language of Socrates and Plato, or at least in a reasonably accurate facsimile thereof." Greek language and concepts pervade the New Testament. I could quote literally hundreds of passages (and by the way, I know that bible quite well, in addition to philosophy) that draw on Stoic and Platonic philosophical concepts. So I don't believe that Paul was all that adamant in his opposition to Gentile wisdom. Let him speak for himself:
"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Rom 2:14-16 RSV).
From this passage we may deduce that certain pagans, like Socrates perhaps, will attain salvation. This passage also implies that those who are not Christian even in our own time may, through human reason alone, attain salvation. Of course, Christians have a sure hope in Christ, while non-Christians are left to their own devices. But the fact that even non-Christians may attain salvation speaks in favor of a God who is both loving and just.

Does that help you all?

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the philosophy quotes. Very interesting, to be sure, but it was never my intention to say that pagans cannot attain salvation. Indeed, I never said that. A lot of this is new to me. Like I said, I'm not theological expert. It was merely my understanding that many traditional beliefs, such as the doctrine of immutability, were deeply rooted in Hellenestic philosophy, namely, from pagan philosophers. Now, these pagans may unknowingly do the law and thus keep the law and attain salvation, just as you have shown, but that doesn't make them bible experts and certainly doesn't warrant that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour should turn to them in times of distress and seek answers from them.

As for Genesis 6:5-6,

"and the Lord God having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, then God laid it to heart that He had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them."

Yes, Geoff, God does show emotion here. He is grieved. You cannot deny the passibility of God in this passage. However, unless you can prove to me with Scripture that God foreknew and planned the flood and wiping out man - in essence, in changing His plan and dealing with man, starting over because man turned evil, which He did not expect - then I find that this passage is showing that God does indeed change His mind and dealings with man.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

DrD,

Can you PROVE God DID NOT know?

In fact, the text reveals (in Hebrew) that the reason for God's grieving is because of all the evil committed, and all the evil that WOULD BE committed (knowing as we do that God DOES know the specific sins of the individual).

That would seem to indicate a fair depth of foreknowledge... enough to convince me that God DID foreknow...

Honestly, there is quite enough evidence in Scripture to have convinced the majority believers for several thousand years that God does in fact have perfect knowledge, which undeniably means perfect foreknowledge... How on EARTH do you think a few piddly OV'ers are going to change that? The only way is to retranslate, and commit the exegetical SIN of Eisogesis... and quite frankly, it wont wash. If it wasnt so sad, it would be laughable.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

I find nothing in the Hebrew to suggest that God knew what sins WOULD BE committed. True, it says that God knows that man's heart is only evil continually, but this does not imply that God has foreknowledge of specific sins. And He doesn't reveal that He knows that the heart of man is only evil continually until He decides to wipe out man from the face of the earth in Genesis 6.

"Perfect knowledge" does not mean "perfect foreknowledge." "Perfect knowledge" means "perfect knowledge." Knowledge and foreknowledge are two different concepts. I would expect anybody discussing theology to make the distinction.

God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

DrD,

Obviously you didnt look closely at the word, stems, tenses, etc etc... if you have, you would see what I mean. If you have something like Logos Software, you can do it in about 2 seconds flat.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt foreknowledge a subset of 'knowledge' ?
The general subject of Knowledge includes knowledge of all kinds.
Human beings have imperfect knowledge, and imperfect foreknowledge, God has perfect knowledge, and therefore perfect foreknowledge.

btw, your sig looks very familiar... so do your comments...

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

First off, I'm glad that we're actually able to discuss this like civilized human beings. In fact, I'm glad that you would even discuss this with a "cultist" like me.

Logos software. Yes. A little too expensive for me. I am but a poor student. However, I feel confident that many people have gone to heaven without having bought Logos software.

As for the signature, I saw it one day on the forum hosted by Gregory Boyd's site (www.gregoryboyd.org/gbfront.htm). I liked it, so I picked it up.

Can you demonstrate that God had perfect foreknowledge of the fall of man or of the flood? Obviously, God had perfect foreknowledge of the life and crucifixition of Jesus Christ, and He has perfect foreknowledge of end times (Declaring the end from the beginning...) because He has predestined it.
Can you offer me some verses to support the claim that God foreknows every action in the universe? For that is truly where OV makes the distinction: That God has foreknowledge of the things He has predestined, and also has foreknowledge of an open future - He knows that the future is open. Our free will actions are not knowable because we have not yet done them. Thus, God was grieved when man became sinful in Genesis 6 and God changed His plan and decided to wipe man out and start all over again.

Yes, the traditional view has been that God has perfect foreknowledge. But that is tradition. It used to be the traditional view that the earth was flat. It used to be the traditional view that the sun revolved around the earth. But tradition has been wrong before. Men are fallible and wrong. I'm not saying that my theology is perfect, but that both of ours, no doubt, have their faults, and we should be willing to admit that because only God is perfect.
As long as we're on the subject of philosophy, how about Ralph Waldo Emerson? I can't remember exactly, and I can't seem to find my Emerson right now (it's cleaning time), but something like "Tradition builds the sepulchres of the fathers. [. . .] Why should we not also enjoy an original relation to the universe?"

I'll reference that for you later, when I finally find my book.

God bless you all, (especially Geoff)
Dr. Deutsch

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

It's at the very beginning of "Nature" by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations behld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should we not also enjoy an original relation to the universe?

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[geoff]

DrD,

In this case, tradition is built on what scripture says, not about what people learn about the universe using scientific method rah rah rah.

That God has foreknowledge of the things He has predestined, and also has foreknowledge of an open future - He knows that the future is open. Our free will actions are not knowable because we have not yet done them.

Thats actually utter codswallop.
Its demonstratable that humans can know things will happen in the future, in fact in scripture (acts) we are told that there is a woman who made her owners a living by telling peoples futures.

If human beings can know the future, BY ANY MEANS, then so too can God. It is ILLOGICAL to think that because an action has not happened, it is unknowable. Even humans can do it.

Thus, God was grieved when man became sinful in Genesis 6 and God changed His plan and decided to wipe man out and start all over again.

then God's an idiot, because He didnt even get that right, he left Noah, and therefore sinful humanity on earth.

 

[drdeutsch]

Geoff,

Psychologists can predict what humans might do in certain situations. Metereologists can predict what the the weather might do. Are they sometimes right? Yes. Are they always right? No. Obviously, God "knows the hearts of all men." He can predict what humans might do in any given situation, but the factor of our freewill enters into the equation. If humans can predict what other humans might do, then certainly God can do this on a much greater, more perfect level. This does not imply that He knows specifically every action.

It is not illogical to think that because an action has happened it is unknowable. It hasn't happened yet.

God's not an idiot in this situation. He wasn't controlling men's actions. He didn't make them become sinful (At least, not according to my view). They did it of their own volition, thus God is not an idiot. Yes, God knew that even Noah was a sinful human, but He wanted to start afresh with Noah. Perhaps not only to get rid of all the other sinful humans, but to rid the world of the Nephilim? I'm not sure. Did not God also say that He was going to destroy Israel and start over with Moses? Moses, too, was a sinful human, but God was going to do it, nonetheless.

God bless,
Dr. Deutsch

 

[jobeth]

Perfect

Perfect

Dr. Deutsch,

You said "Yes, God knew that even Noah was a sinful human, but He wanted to start afresh with Noah. "

God said Noah was perfect. "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

Which one of you is correct about Noah?

God also said that Job was perfect. Do you think God was wrong about Job too?
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

God also includes Daniel among these perfect men.
Ezek 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

 

[geoff]

jobeth

Which one of you is correct about Noah?

Noah was just and righteous IN THE EYES OF GOD... that doesnt mean He was sinless... the only sinless one is Christ. I am NOT having this discussion with you again, I am sick of it. Go and ply your wares somewhere else please.

DrD:

If humans can predict what other humans might do, then certainly God can do this on a much greater, more perfect level.

I dont accept that. I can do MORe than predict, I can KNOW. One of the abominations in scripture is foretelling the future (divinery) - not guess work, but foretelling of certain events. I would suggest that this argument is based on something you have been told, or read, but it isnt actually valid at all. Very little background work readily proves it false.

It is not illogical to think that because an action has happened it is unknowable. It hasn't happened yet.

No, its illogical to think that because something hasnt happened yet, its unknowable. its also demonstratably false.

God's not an idiot in this situation.

He is an idiot according to you. Firstly He created, made a mess of it, didnt know what was going on, realised he stuffed up, decided to destroy humanity and start again, didnt actually remove all humanity, and ended up with the same problem all over again. IN the case of Moses, you have Him claiming something, then being corrected by a creation of His, because He obviously had forgotten his own nature. You cant really expect us to believe that load of tripe can you? Cant you see how ridiculous it is?

 

[geralduk]

Originally posted by drdeutsch
Geralduk,

No matter what you do, God's word is going to get watered down by our own idiosyncrasies and philosophies. None of us can live, think, or be pure like God. Are not theologies philosophies? And our theologies are different. Each interpretation is different. I'm not saying each one is rooted in Hellenistic philosophy, it is merely my contention that none of us can have a "perfect" theology. At least not in the sense that only God's theology is perfect because God is perfect.

I also never made the claim that when God repents He was changing. I don't believe that God changes in His character. He always has been and always will be perfectly holy, loving, just, righteous, etc... These attributes of God never change. What I was trying to say is that when nacham is used by/for God, He is changing His mind or changing the way He deals with mankind. He is, in a sense, growing. Growth, however, does not imply imperfect. Hebrews 5:8 says that Jesus learned through suffering. If Jesus was God and God was perfect, then Jesus was perfect, but He was still able to learn and grow and maintain his perfection. Had Jesus ever been a man before? Not as far as we know. Likewise, has God ever dealt with humans before? Did God ever work with or create humans before we know He did in Genesis? Of course not. I'm not saying that God doesn't know how to deal with humans. That would be dumb. I'm saying that God knows how we can act, but, as an open theist, He doesn't know how we will act until we do it. Thus, He does, in a sense, learn. By the way, I'm using "learn" because I really can't think of a more fitting term. I'm sure there is one out there, but my mind isn't working at the moment.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up.
God bless you all,
Dr. Deutsch

Where is God in all this?

Now while men have and do corrupt the Word of God and the world is filling up with all the versions that men can make of it.
Adding to and ommiting from and compleyely changing it.
Neverthe less.
I am of the solid conviction that God being God can and does KEEP His Word,both in action and in retention.
So that in this world today you can find a bible that is in English the most accurate transalation of the Word of God.
iTS THE kING jAMES AUTHORISED VERSION(ORIGINAL)

Then you say none of us can have a pure heart and or mind.Nor can we live as God intends us to live.
If that was true why then calvary?
If we are or cannot be any different from what we were BEFORE we were saved .Why then did Jesus die?
You say we cannot think purely?
Or "come to aknowledge of the truth"
If that was so ,why then does it say in the scriptures we are "to have the mind of Christ"?
If we can have no RIGHT thinking,or see things as God sees them.We CANNOT be saved!
For it is BECAUSE that through Gods grace and the quickening of the Holy Spirit that we SAW things as God sees them.
"For the eyes of our understanding were opened" and in understanding what we heard our faith was BORN in God.
When we achknowledged the truth as god showed us and embraced it!
But even as we are BORN into this world and to prosper and be effective in it we have to GROW and mature in our knowledge of it.
So likewise we who are BORN into the kingdom of God must also GROW.
Now if it is a NATURAL part of this world to so grow according to the nature of this life.
How much more then should it be according to the NEW NATURE which is of God!
For have "become PARTAKERS of His NATURE"!
Therefore in "FAITH ,BELIEVEING we do LIVE.
Yet not I (for we are dead)but Christ who lives in me".
How then can we say we CANNOT live a pure and holy life?
For in Christ we are SANCTAFIED and made pure by the blood of His cross.
But it is not me "but the Son who is in me,HE doeth the works"
To some who may contend with that use.
Does not the scriptures say.
"As the Father sent me ,so send I you into the world?

"Are not theologies philosophies"?
To some that may be.and if it is so there theology will be as empty as thier philosophies.
But what IS theology?
But the 'study' of God.
Now men may presume to study God like they do some microbe or as a dead butterfly pinned to the wall of thier own thinking.
But that is NOT what we should be doing.
The study of the scriptures should bring us to a knowledge of Him who wrote it!
So that we GROW in our understanding of HIM not a theory.
So as we do so our FAITH ALSO GROWS and we become more efective in the kingdom.
I do not take God as soemthing i can REDUCE to my thinking.
But by my studies RAISE mine UP to HIS!

You say our theology is differernt and that our interpreations are different.
True.
But are you then saying that we CANNOT arive at a knowledge of the truth!?
Now does it not say in Peter's epistle |I think that the scriptures are NOT for MANS interpretation?
Does it not also say that "what knoweth the things of man save the spirit that is IN man?
Likewise then what knoweth the things of God save the Spirit of God"
Therefore if we CANNOT come to a RIGHT knowledge of scripture "By our own wisdom"
It folows then that without Gods Holy Spirit we cannot RIGHTLY INTERPRATE THE SCRIPTURES!
This confirmed when we also read and understand "That when the Holy Spirit shall come HE will LEAD youi into ALL truth and when you knwo the truth,the truth will make you free".
It fowlows then,that if you are willing to be LED even as i am then we should and shall come to the SAME understanding!
For it is the SAME Holy Spirit that leads us!
Now if we are Not His and we do not have the same Spirit then we will not arrive at the same place.
But if you or I do not arrive at the truth ,The only reasons are because a) we are not WILLING to be LED,b) that we do not HAVE the Holy Spirit,c) have not ASKED!
But that we SHOULD "come to aknowledge of the truth is clear for it is recorded in scripture the REBUKE to those who do not!
But on a more positive note is it not written that we are all to be of ONE mind?
If we do not see and understand the same things even as it is,then how can we be of the one mind!?
But if ALL are LED by the SAME Spirit of truth even as they are led,they will as it is clear in Ephesians do so and come "unto the perfect man.
Not only that If the church is the BODY of Christ and that same resurected BODY was raised by the Holy Spirit and quickened by the same.How then are we who ARE His who have "been RAISED TOGETHER WITH HIM" not have the SAME Spirit.
Then as there is only ONE Spirit.
It Folows then we are to be of the SAME MIND!

THEREFORE we are to be RENEWED in the SPIRIT of our minds"
"Bringing each thought into SUBJECTION to the MIND of Christ!
Why?
becasue it was Eves REASONING that was founded on the lie of the devil that got us into this mees in the fiorst place!
Why then is it supoposed that with mens own reasoning ALONE is it thought that we can arrive at the truth!
But by the Spirit of God we are changed into His likeness.
And we are to LEARN to think and see things as HE does.
Does that make us God?
of course not!
But look again at the beginning.
Did not GOd give them a part of HIS knowledge of what was good and evil?
It was the REJECTION of that knoweledge that caused thier downfall.
What does the scriptures say?
"MY people PERISH through lack of vision(what they SEE),Now most people stop there;but it goes on.......
"For theY have REJECTED KNOWLEDGE"
The knowledge of scripture is no guarentte of a knowledge of God!
But should lead to it!

GOD learns?

What does the scriptures say?
Who can instruct me"?

God needs to learn nothing!
If He did He cannot be perfect for if He has to learn SOEMTHING His knowledge then must be incomplete.
God knows the END from the beginning.
He looks not on the outward apearence but on the heart.
The Lord we read knew the hearts of all men.
For the Word is the revealer of the thoughtsd and intentions of the heart.
If God knows the number of hairs on our head do you not think He knows us completely!?
YES of course.
I would argue that He So knows the future from the beginning.
That He was already aware of what it would cost Him,before He said "let there be light"
And would also argue in some respects that the road to calvary started there.
"But for the joy set before Him.............."
Now you say that as the Lord had to learn as He grew up from a baby it proves God has to learn.
Not so.
First id like to say that from that argument it shows that we also have to GROW even as He did.
For he was born into this world so that we might be born into the next.
But as for The Lord Growing.
What was He?
But the SEED of God.
The WOrd of God made flesh.
Therefore the seed produces after its own kind.
But the seed contains within itself all that is required to do so.
So that which was unseen is made manifest.
God therfore was manifesting Himself into this world.
And The Lord is the visible manifestation of the invisible God.
Now the Lord also said "unless the seed fall into the ground and die,it abideth alone"
But if it does it bringeth forth much fruit.
Now we read in genesis that each seed bringeth forth after each own kind.
IS it not written that we are born of "INCORRUPTABLE SEED"?
Therefore as the seed that is sown is brings forth the life that is within it in our lives.
Being sons of God "do not sin"
"But if we do we have an advocate with the FATHER ....."
But the emphaisis of SCRIPITURE is NOT.....IF we sin....... But on SHALL NOT SIN!
Why?
"For if we walk inthe Spirit we shall NOT fullfill the lusts of the flesh....."
This new nature therefore will NEVER agree with our sinning if we do so.But if we folow the true nature that has been implanted we will not sin.

Learn?
NO.
It is we who must learn about GOD!
For when we shall see Him as HE is (then)then we will KNOW even as WE are known(now)
What is consideed the norm in modern day christianity.
"baptism,repentance,laying on of hands,dare I say also getting saved?
IS not the scriptures norm.
Paul said it was the MILK of the Word and we should be desiring the MEAT!
And that we are to "GO ON TO PERFECTION!"
God knows EXACTLY how will we act!
For the unregenerated nature is not Gods!
and is doomed.condemned and will if not repented of spend eternity in hell.
A seed will produce after its own kind remember?
And we are of the seed of Adam.
and so will produce the same fruits.
It was not and is not and never will be Gods will for men to be so.
But while we were yet SINNERS Christ died for us"
WHY?
That He who knew no sin,became sin that WE(who believe)might become (listen to this) THE RIGHTOUSNESS OF GOD.
and become PARTAKERS of HIS NATURE.
He was seperated from God so that we might be joined together WITH HIm.
He came from eternity past into time so thast we who lived in time might live in eternity future.

We are not to be the scriptures say "MERE MEN"!

But to rise up on eagles wings into the heavens.
If we are born again our NATURE is changed and as we ABIDE in the true vine so to will we bring forth FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND!

 

[Jaltus]

Can you demonstrate that God had perfect foreknowledge of the fall of man or of the flood? Obviously, God had perfect foreknowledge of the life and crucifixition of Jesus Christ, and He has perfect foreknowledge of end times (Declaring the end from the beginning...) because He has predestined it.
Can you offer me some verses to support the claim that God foreknows every action in the universe? For that is truly where OV makes the distinction: That God has foreknowledge of the things He has predestined, and also has foreknowledge of an open future - He knows that the future is open. Our free will actions are not knowable because we have not yet done them. Thus, God was grieved when man became sinful in Genesis 6 and God changed His plan and decided to wipe man out and start all over again.

I am surprised that nobody pointed out that this is a self-defeating argument.

How can God know that He will send Jesus to be redeemer from the beginning of the world and yet NOT know about the fall? It is a logical impossibility. There would be no need for Christ if there was no fall. Yet God knew from before creation that Jesus would be sent. Therefore, God knew about the fall.

You just disproved your own theology, DrD.

By the way, why are you in school if you are a Dr?