ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Catatumba]

Go for it. I'm not saying those are the only two possibilities, but rather that those are what I think I'm hearing in this conversation, and I'm totally open the possibility I'm misunderstaning something.

OK....
just suppose for a minite that the hebrew God is not only Omni present but also omni sapient. What would that mean?
Well:
God Is Present everywhere that you and I can think of and then some.
God Knows what you and I know and then some.
And some is the All in All, which translates into the Totality af the All.
That means that God Know what you'gona do before you do it , and He also knows what you are going to think before you think it, BECAUSE IT ALL-READY THERE; WITHIN THE INFINATE, OR EVERLASTING NATURE OF THE HEBREW CREATOR GOD.
And I say ever-lasting Hebrew God because that God will be the hebrew God as long as there are Jews (hebrews) by adoption ( true believing Xstians) and or true born or nationalized Israelites on this here Mother (Eve) Earth. Get it??

 

[godrulz]

Do you know something I don't? :noid:

How many kids do you have?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How many kids do you have?

At last count? 6.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ok, what this seems to be saying is: Inability to do evil = confinement = hell. Is that a fair restatement?

When we humans want to keep "fleshy" folks from hurting one another we put bad people in jail. We confine them so they don't hurt anyone.

Please note this is an analogy I am not endorsing the prison system

If you love your wife I assume you don't keep her confined in your closet. That would be twisted and sick! Instead you love her and value her freedom because you value her relationship which is real and meaningful, even though that freedom comes with the risk she could at some point reject your love.

Alright, but let me take a step back further from this: Does there exist one single thing which is outside of God's power? If the answer is no, isn't the consequent that there is nothing outside of his will? If this answer is yes, isn't the consequent that he is not omnipetent?

God is so powerful He even has the power to control His own power!

In other words God is sovereign over His own sovereignity! God is in charge of His own faculties! Do you agree with that? And if so, what could prevent Him from delegating or "giving away" some of His control if He so desired?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I can see what you're saying, but I'm going to have to think on it for a bit as to whether or not that's a valid analogy,

:up:

and in fact whether the freedom to reject a relationship is actually required for it to be real and meaningful is actually a universal truth.

Isn't that the very definition of what a loving relationship means?

It being a logical impossibility on the order of people asking "can God create something so heavy he can't lift it?". I'm not saying that's what it is, but not convinced at this point that it's not either. Something that will require further thought.

Huh???

This is nothing like that at all.

The question is almost rhetorical...

Does God, have control over His own power?

Fun conversation, let's keep it going! :up:

 

[godrulz]

At last count? 6.

Catching up to sozo.

A sincere question...does Denver Church teach against birth control?

 

[godrulz]

Well, no, I'd actually have to say it's not. In that I'm not conviced at this point that for love to exist it requires the possibility of non-love.



Ok, maybe I need to look for some clarification here, as there's at least two ways I see I could take this question:

1. Can God choose not to exercise his power? To this I say undeniably, and if fact it's at the very crux of what I've been thinking about.

2. Can God exercise his omnipetent power to cease to be omnipetent? This is the one that seems to fall at least very close to the "Can God create something so heavy he can't lift it?" paradox.

Which of these is closer to what you're asking.

Omnipotence means that He can do all that is doable. Creating the proverbial rock is a logical contradiction, an absurdity.

It does not mean that He always does everything He can possibly do. I have power as a parent, but I do not always use brute force or authority to get my way. I can let my children fail or fall without intervening, even though I could if I want. It is a voluntary limitation of my potential power, not a negation of it. Just because God does not exhaustively control everything does not mean that He could not if He wanted to. He wisely chose to give us significant freedom. The incarnation is also an example of God limiting His omnipotence without forfeiting it. He voluntarily laid aside the independent exercise of His all-power while on the earth as the God-Man. It was veiled, not negated.

Your first point is closer to the truth. Jesus could have called angels or killed his captors, but He did not. God could have permanently destroyed the human race through sheer power, but He did not (saved Noah and others). God cannot cease to be God nor omnipotent, but He can use His power how and when He wants to (Knight's point of being sovereign over His power). Creating significant others resulted in a voluntary limitation of the exercise of His power, not an actual ceasing of omnipotence. A weight lifter is strong and does not cease to be strong just because he takes a bath or sleeps once in a while instead of flexing constantly.

 

[Clete]

Urizen,

I think what Knight is getting at has to do with God's ability to delegate His authority and along with it the power/ability to exercise that authority. Such delegation of powers does not make God something other than sovereign. He retains the power and the absolute right to recall His delegated power at the sole discretion of His righteous will.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

2. Can God exercise his omnipetent power to cease to be omnipetent? This is the one that seems to fall at least very close to the "Can God create something so heavy he can't lift it?" paradox.

Super small nit-picking point but....

You keep saying "omnipetent".

Do you mean to say "omnipotent"?

There are all sorts of "omni's" out there so I just want to make sure this isn't a new one.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

LOL. No, that's what I meant, Just an omnimisspelling on my part. :chuckle:

Ok good, that's what I thought.

The definition for "Omnipotent" has been painfully abused.

God is all powerful but His power has limits. God has the power to do anything "doable", anything that is rational, logical and possible. Furthermore God is not subject to His power in that God has control over His own power. In other words.... His power does not control Him, instead He controls His own power.

There is no logical reason to think that God could not delegate some of His power.

For instance... God could have named all the animals but instead He chose to let Adam name them. Therefore God gave up some small degree of His power to Adam.

Do you agree that God delegated at least some power to Adam to name the animals?

 

[Lighthouse]

If it wasn't for people like Poly, I wouldn't think Calvinists could be reasoned with.

 

[missedmarks]

Actually the very idea of free will is the implication that God has held some of his sovreignity in reserve in order to grant you said freedom.

I never thought about it that way Knight, thank you and that is an excellent point.

 

[Freak]

Knight,

Do whatever it takes to relieve yourself from the obvious truth of Scriptures that prove you wrong, even if that means changing subjects to distract others from your errors.

I think the passage in John was clear...

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

 

[godrulz]

I think the passage in John was clear...

Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

God did not cause his blindness for a higher purpose. The point was that in a fallen world or one where people get poked in the eye with sticks, they can be born blind (genetic issues, not decreed by God) or become blind. After the fact, God can intervene at times and will be glorified when He does. He can heal the inflictions of the enemy and set captives free without being the meticulous cause of these things that are contrary to His will. Jesus opposed sin, sickness, death, evil. He did not come to affirm it as God's mysterious or decreed will. Zman's blueprint model of sovereignty pales in comparison to the warfare model seen in the Gospel. God does not have to control everything nor be the cause of a rebellious universe. He is able to respond as needed with a plan of redemption or miraculous intervention to bring His purposes to pass in the end. This does not mean that every detail (Satan, not God, robs/kills/destroys) is ordained by God. God's will can be resisted in a limited way. Allowing this for freedom is not the same as desiring or intending it.

 

[Z Man]

God did not cause his blindness for a higher purpose.

Well, the Scriptures, by themselves, says He did:

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said, "Who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?

John 9:1-3
As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. "Teacher," his disciples asked him, "why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?" "It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins," Jesus answered. "He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him."

The rest of your post is merely your opinion - it is not supported by what the Scriptures say alone. Without any commentary, the above Scriptures explicitly demand, from reasoning, that God made the man blind so He could be glorified.

 

[Z Man]

Actually the very idea of free will is the implication that God has held some of his sovreignity in reserve in order to grant you said freedom.

*emphasis mine*

Missedmarks,

Is our freedom more important than God's will/glory?

 

[Clete]

*emphasis mine*

Missedmarks,

Is our freedom more important than God's will/glory?

Who said anything about it being more important? :doh:

 

[godrulz]

Well, the Scriptures, by themselves, says He did:

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said, "Who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?

John 9:1-3
As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. "Teacher," his disciples asked him, "why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?" "It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins," Jesus answered. "He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him."

The rest of your post is merely your opinion - it is not supported by what the Scriptures say alone. Without any commentary, the above Scriptures explicitly demand, from reasoning, that God made the man blind so He could be glorified.

God makes men, but does not inflict birth defects, etc. on them. Did God orchestrate things to have Thalidomide babies, or is this a pharmaceutical faux pas? God is still the Creator, even if creation can be defective due to accident, environment, assault, demons, etc.

If someone gets shot in the eye. is this God's fault or Dick Cheney's?

You have a propensity to proof text with wooden literalisms and not consider the nature of the original language/context. You are making a doctrine to support meticulous control while ignoring other passages and self-evident reality.

 

[Z Man]

Who said anything about it being more important? :doh:

Everyone who argues for freewill.

Let me ask it another way:

Is it more important that God let fate rest in our hands or His?

 

[Z Man]

God makes men, but does not inflict birth defects, etc. on them.

There you have it - you said it plain and clear for all to see. It is obvious that Godrulz has just denied believing in the Scriptures. He said it himself right here by denying Exodus 4:11.

Godrulz, if you do not believe in Scripture, we have nothing more to discuss. It would only be fruitless. Hence probably why anything I post concerning Scriptures doesn't matter to you anyways - you continue to post mere opinions, not facts.

My proof lies with Scripture; where is yours?