ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[God_Is_Truth]

I could care less how you 'feel' about my beliefs; prove me wrong through Scripture.

God does not contradict himself.

scripture does not contradict himself.

thus, any belief or theological system that is contradictory in any way cannot be correct.

do you agree with this?

THEN DEAL WITH THESE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURES, BECAUSE THEY FLY IN THE FACE OF YOUR 'LOGICAL' CONCLUSIONS:

calm down now, this is supposed to be a civil discussion. let's try to keep it that way

- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

God works in covenants. If a people is faithful to him, he protects them. if they are not, he can bring punishment. to say that God must protect his people even when they are unfaithful is unsupported biblically and is quite a limit on what God is allowed to do. so taken in regards to what his people are doing, there is no problem with those verses and that idea you have presented.

He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

the hardenings themselves were punishments. pharoah had already hardened his heart before God hardened it. God was not playing a cat and mouse game of "let my people go. oops! too late, i hardened your heart! try again! oh wait! hardened again!" God commanded him to let his people go, pharoah resists and hardens his own heart. God asks again, same response and so God hardens pharoahs heart as a punishment. no problem there for the OV.

He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

i must conclude for now (and i haven't done a indepth study or anything, just a simple reading and analyzing) that God was testing david to see if there was pride in his heart. clearly there was. i see it as similar to when God told abraham to sacrifice Isaac. the sin would have been to go through with it completely. similarily, David should have stopped after thinking about it and come before God in humility. so if that's the case, and i see no reason why it couldn't be, then there is no problem with the OV.

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

another example of God bringing punishment upon someone for sinning. no problem here.

He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

stop making these out to be absolutes! rebellion and insubordination are forbidden until they go against God! it's not a "you shall never, under no circumstances rebel against the king". it's a "do not rebel unless he goes against God" thing. it's clearly conditional.

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

murder is the unjust taking of another life. since Jesus was dying in our place, it was just. he was taking what we deserved. thus, he was killed, not murdered.

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

that's only a problem if you believe in unconditional election

Jesus didn't commit suicide; He was murdered.

killed, not murdered. by taking our place on the cross, he made himself guilty and thus it was a just killing.

Where does it say that they were hardened because they did not believe? BTW, Romans 11:25 is NOT a pre-ceding verse. It doesn't support your claim anyways, that the unsaved Jews were hardened because of their unbelief...

context, context, context! Romans 9-11 are all about Israel.

Romans 9
1I speak the truth in Christ--I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit-- 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel.

right off the bat Paul declares that he is talking about Israel.

in verse 27 we can see that Paul has still been talking about Israel up to this point

Romans 9
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.

and verse 30 is a summation/lead on statement

Romans 9
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

this makes it clear that this is what Paul has been talking about all through the chapter.

Romans 10 continues with Pauls desire for Israel

Romans 10
1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

this verse does not fit at all if Paul has been talking about unconditional election.

so, coming back to your question of where does it say israel was hardened before hand, it doesn't say it before. but it doesn't need to. the verse

Romans 9
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

is talking about how it doesn't matter if we try to establish our own righteousness. we can try any way we want to try and get to God but all of them fail. that's why it depends completely on God's mercy if there is to be any means of salvation. all promises made to us by God are made out of his mercy. that's why it doesn't depend on man's desire or effort but on God's mercy. and that is what Paul is saying. he is not saying that salvation is unconditional and only given to a few precious souls chosen and random

They were hardened because God willed them to be! Paul tried to prove that the Jews were not saved on anything they had done or because they were descendants of Abraham; some where hardened/not saved and others were shown mercy/were saved based upon God's sovereign choice!

"So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

no, Paul is saying that salvation in any way is completely dependent on God's mercy and not on the desire or will of man. God doesn't save us because we want to be saved or we will to be saved. he saves us out of his mercy. and that is Paul's point.

"But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."

Paul is just saying that it's the children of God's promise who are saved, not ones who are born of Israel. you must have faith in God to be saved, not just do what he says.

v.11 tells us that God chooses not based on our works, but solely on the basis of His purpose according to election

Paul is not saying that God choose us individually though. God chooses what he wants to choose because he is sovereign.

Her children weren't even born yet when God declared that He had chosen who He loved and hated already.

that is a reference to the nations in her womb! need i remind you that the context of Romans 9 is about God including the gentiles into the group of "his people" and no longer just being israel? that is exactly why Paul quotes that verse in reference to two groups as well, two nations in this case. israel and gentiles, jacob and esau nations. two groups in each case.

Thus, God did not harden the Israelites because of their unbelief.

wrong. scripture declares you wrong very clearly.

Romans 11

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in

25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Israel was hardened because of unbelief. scripture is right and you are wrong.

Paul was debating the exact opposite!

try again :down:

"Why does God blame people for sinning? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?"

that was NOT Paul's objection. the objection was:

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

and that is a reference that would be made by someone who was being punished for their unbelief. the question is "well why is God going to punish us for what he is doing to us?" but since they are so arrogant, they fail to realize that what God was doing to them was in fact a punishment itself. if we belief, we are vessels of grace and mercy. if we do not believe, we are vessels of wrath. the vessels of wrath are the ones complaining when God begins to make them the vessels of wrath.

this verse makes no sense otherwise

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--

clearly Paul believes that God prepares those who are unbelieving and unrepentent to be vessels of wrath. this is why it's done with great patience.

why would he do it with great patience if he knows that they will never repent due to exhaustive foreknowledge or predestining? :think:

"Then why does God still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

I don't have to tell you this. You know it already....

yes i do know. those who resist God's will don't understand why they are being blamed for something God is doing to them. they do not realize that God's preparing them as vessels of wrath is conditionally based upon their unbelief and that should they repent and believe, they would be turned to vessels of mercy and grace. God is fully justified in punishing someone for not repenting of their sins. justice demands it.


God bless.

GIT

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Paul was not talking about Israel en masse. He was throughout speaking of indiviuals--witness Jacob and esau (v.13), v.18-21--and the determination He was making between them AS individuals.

 

[Hilston]

(Note: I've added some clarification to some of my questions (e.g. I added "in Egypt" to my first few questions so it wouldn't be a mistake about who and when I was talking about).

Hi God Is Truth,

I'm trying to better understand the Open View, so my questions will pertain to the verses you answered above.

Someone wrote: God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

God Is Truth replies:God works in covenants. If a people is faithful to him, he protects them. if they are not, he can bring punishment. ... so taken in regards to what his people are doing, there is no problem with those verses and that idea you have presented.

I have a two-fold question about this response: (1) How exactly did God punish His people in Egypt and (2)what was their crime against Him whilst in Egypt? (3) When did they become faithful again, prompting the sending of their deliverer Moses?

Someone wrote: He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

God Is Truth replies:The hardenings themselves were punishments. pharoah had already hardened his heart before God hardened it. ... God commanded him to let his people go, pharoah resists and hardens his own heart. God asks again, same response and so God hardens pharoahs heart as a punishment.

For this I have three questions: (1) What does it mean to "harden pharoah's heart," (2) How exactly is this done? and (3) In light of (1) and (2), how does God do the opposite, i.e. soften a person's heart (give him heart of flesh, as in Eze 11:19 36:26)?

Someone wrote: He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

God Is Truth replies:i must conclude for now (and i haven't done a indepth study or anything, just a simple reading and analyzing) that God was testing david to see if there was pride in his heart. clearly there was. i see it as similar to when God told abraham to sacrifice Isaac. the sin would have been to go through with it completely. ...

I understand that you have not studied the passage, so I'm more interested in your reasoning. So, let me see if I understand you. This seems to be your rationale:

"Go, number Israel and Judah" = "Take Isaac and make him a burnt offering"
David conducting a census = Abraham actually going through with it

There is no doubt that David did wrongly. But the scriptures say that Abraham was to be commended for offering Isaac as a burnt offering (Heb 11:17), as was Jephthah (Heb 11:32), who offered his daughter as a burnt offering (Jdg 11:31,34). What is your reasoning for believing Abraham was committed to sinning against the Lord, and indeed would have if the angel would have not intervened -- despite the fact that Hebrews says Abraham did this in faith?

God Is Truth writes:similarily, David should have stopped after thinking about it and come before God in humility.

I agree, but Abraham did not stop of his own accord, as you are requiring of David. In fact, Hebrews views Abraham as having actually offered up Isaac, even though it was not carried to completion. In Abraham's mind and intentions, his son would die that day. So determined was Abraham to obey God that an angel had to be sent to prevent Abraham's deed. Here are my questions: (1) Why did not God send an angel to stop David? And (2), why would God command Abraham to sin?

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

Someone wrote: He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

God Is Truth replies: another example of God bringing punishment upon someone for sinning. no problem here.

God not only brought punishment, God was specific about what He decreed against David. In the Open View, is it the mark of a healthy mind to decree such heinous and evil things against someone of whom is it said, "A man after God's own heart"? God said He would raise up evil out of David's own house (Absalom). God said that Absalom would publicly take David's wives before all of Israel. This is what God decided would happen to David and his wives, in front of the entire nation. Did God come up with this punishment out of His own mind? What would you think of a judge who would sentence a man this way: "For killing a man and committing adultery with his wife, the sentence is thus: He and his entire nation must watch as his own son publicly 'knows' all of his wives." You say this is no problem for the Open View. Please elaborate.

Someone wrote: He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

God Is Truth replies: Murder is the unjust taking of another life. since Jesus was dying in our place, it was just.

What Jesus did was just. But was it just for Pilate, the Sanhedrin, and the Romans to kill Him? Was it just that He was betrayed by one of His own disciples? Was it just that false witnesses were brought to testify against Him?

God Is Truth writes: he was taking what we deserved.

:Let me see if I'm understanding you: You're saying that Jesus deserved every stripe, every scourge and gash, every insult and mucous mass that was spit at him, every thorn and nail and spear that was thrust into him? Not only that, but He deserved to be wholly lucid for every excruciating pain that He endured for those many hours of torture and suffering? That's why I'm wondering what the Open View does with verses like this:

Ac 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Doesn't that say that wicked hands executed Jesus? Or was "wicked" not in reference to the actual deed?

God Is Truth writes: thus, he was killed, not murdered.

You said yourself that murder is the unjust taking of another's life. If Jesus was not murdered, then He was justly killed and deserved everything He suffered. I want to be clear that this is your position. I will then attempt to find out if all Open Viewists believe this.

God Is Truth writes: [Jesus was] killed, not murdered. by taking our place on the cross, he made himself guilty and thus it was a just killing.

Please clarify: We understand that He took sins upon Himself and gave up His own life for the redemption of men. But is that why He was tortured and killed? Were the charges for which the Sanhedrin and the Romans tortured and executed Him true?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Hilston, post 703--Good post, Hilston. Very thorough, and it sticks persistently to the point. Excellent. Maybe his response will be as well detailed.

 

[Z Man]

Hilston,

Excellent post. The person who said those things and brought forth Scripture for God_Is_Truth to contemplate upon was me. I think you did an outstanding job in your reply, and took the 'words' right out of my mouth. :thumb:

God_Is_Truth,

Hilston has done a good job responding to your remarks about my post. I really don't have much to add to his remarks, or else I'd just be repeating what he said. I trust you take into consideration his questions and come back with a well-thought out reply. If you have any more for me, I'd be happy to answer them.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Is there anything at all that happens that God did not predestine to happen. Is there any possibility that anything could happen that God did not predestine?

Of course not.

Is your understanding of both the sovereignty of God and predestination in anyway compatible with your understanding of a person having a free will? Does the existence of one require the nonexistence of the other?

I think the answer to this question goes beyond our logic and reasoning. Let me try to explain:

It seems that men have freewill; we can do whatever we want, when we want. Go ahead and pick whatever flavor ice cream you so desire; it's your choice.

However, I am not foolish enough to say that our choices are not known by God. Indeed, Scripture tells me that He knows everything, including our hearts, motive, thoughts, actions - everything. No one can 'surprise' God, or do something that He was not aware of or had plans for or directly ordained. It may seem like we can do whatever we wish, and to a degree, we can; but whatever we do is exactly what God had intended/planned for/ordained. We plan our ways, but God directs the steps.

For arguments sake, I don't have a problem with stating that we have free will. What I don't like is the notion that our 'free will' is apart from God's control. To me, that's blasphemous. It's saying that we are just as free in our will as God is. I don't think that's biblical. It's not a good theology either, because it gets people thinking that they are seen by God as 'almost', if not completely, on the same level as Himself, and that for God to do anything to us is wrong on His part.

I believe our will is very limited. We can only do what we desire. Our natural desire is to sin. We are bent on only pleasing ourselves. Our will seeks only to destroy us. We need a Savior, one who can set us free from our own will. Our will can never, on it's own, 'choose' God. Not until God truly frees us can we make the choice to follow Him.

Ok, I think I'm going off track here. Basically, I believe that we can say to each other that we have a will. Plan to do whatever you wish to do; choose freely whatever your heart desires. I also believe that what we choose to do is exactly what God has ordained the whole time. Hope this answers your question. If I need to make myself clearer on some issues, let me know.

I appreciate you taking the time to do this. It is helpful to me and I hope for it to be helpful to you as well.

Now that you know my answers to your questions, and I am assuming, have a better understanding of my position, can you now understand my position in this post?

Also, you charge me with believing in a doctrine that makes God out to be unjust because it states that God ordains evil - that He forces someone to do wrong, then punishes them for it. You do not understand how God can hold a person accountable for thier actions if God predestined it in the first place. You told me:

God cannot be unjust Z Man! He can't do it! HE CAN'T DO IT. Any interpretation of the Bible you come up with that suggests otherwise is false. God cannot violate His own nature, period.

to which I agree. I believe God ordains and causes/creates 'calamity' for His purposes and glory, and you believe that that makes Him most unjust. If that is the case, and my assumptions are correct, I would love to understand how the OV'ers coincide their belief system of a God who most certainly DOES NOT predestine individuals to sin, then blame them for it, with these passages of Scripture:

- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

I thank you for answering my questions as thoroughly as you have. However, this last post of yours is a tragic disappointment. I do believe that we are at an impasse.
I truly do not know how we can continue. It would be like trying to have a meaningful conversation about mathematics with someone who acknowledges what 2 is and what 3 is and what 5 is but at the same time refused to acknowledge that 2+3=5.
What you've done in the your last post is the theological equivalent of saying that while 2 is not equal to 3 they might be the same thing. The fact that this is clearly illogical doesn't seem to matter to you. In fact, it seems to add depth to the truth of it in your mind. It's as if you actually prefer that it doesn't follow logically because it seems to add some spiritual mystic to the belief system.
At any rate, you're admission that your belief system is illogical is actually a very ripe piece of fruit that this discussion has yielded. And thus, this has not been a waste of time.
Unless you can think of a way to convince me that throwing away logic and reason is a viable way of determining truth, any truth, including that of Scripture then I don't believe there is anywhere else for us to go with this conversation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

The fact that [your belief] is clearly illogical doesn't seem to matter to you. In fact, it seems to add depth to the truth of it in your mind. It's as if you actually prefer that it doesn't follow logically because it seems to add some spiritual mystic to the belief system.

Clete,

You're right; just because my belief does seem illogical does not matter to me whatsoever. I do not care what one 'thinks', or how someone 'feels' about my particular theology, including myself. In other words, I believe that it doesn't matter how my belief may be 'percieved' to be, or how it may 'feel' wrong or right; it doesn't matter to me what human emotions and logic tell us. To me, what matters most is the TRUTH of God's Holy Word. That is what I believe, no matter how 'illogical' humans may percieve it to be.

There are some things that we cannot understand, no matter what happens. Our puny little human minds will never fully comprehend many things that are spoken of in the Bible. For example, how is one suppose to understand and explain the concept of the Trinity? Or, how are we suppose to comprehend that God is, was, and will be; that He is the Alpha and Omega, begginning and end, the eternal God who is self sufficeint? He wasn't created, nor will He ever be destroyed. How can we understand the concept of the incarnation, the fact that God was in the form of man, and Jesus was both God and man, at the same time? How can we understand that God, as the man Jesus, died? How will we ever comprehend the fact that God SPOKE the uniververse into existance? Many, countless more examples are littered throughout the Bible that mere mortal man will never fully comprehend. We weren't meant to know everything.

I am aware that the concept of God's sovereignty (in the way I believe the Bible to define 'sovereignty') and man's responsibility co-existing together may seem 'illogical' to us, but I also know it would be foolish to say that it's impossible for it to happen. Especially in light of so many Scriptural references that tell us, yes, God is sovereign and ordains 'calamity', and at the same time, He does hold us accountable for our own actions.

The Bible and our theology is not meant to be fully understood 'logically'. I believe that it is an error to try and fit God into a man-made box that suddenly makes everything 'logical'. That's the only way you can make sense of the Bible 'logically', is if you restrict God's attributes and sovereignty! You have to put Him in a box and sacrifice some things that otherwise would be reaped from a 'full, biblical' view of God.

I know that in your belief, you believe God is sovereign and glorified. But I fully believe, with all my heart, that my view holds God at a higher place of sovereignty, and that He is even more glorified through that view of His sovereignty. When I debate with people who hold the OV to be true, such as you, and GIT, and Knight, I'm not debating to prove myself right, or to 'win'; I simply desire with all my heart for you guys to come to a revelation of what I believe to be a much greater view of God's sovereignty and glory. I want the bible to 'blow your minds'. When that happens, then everything will make sense. It seems irrational, I know, but that's what happens. When a person finally gives in to Scriptures, and lets it go beyond their 'logic', all of it suddenly makes more sense. For example, the passages of Scriptures that I presented above; I do not know how those make sense in your view. But I have no problem with them whatsoever in accordance with my belief. I know God ordains everything, even our sins, yet we are still accountable. I believe the reason He does those things (well, anything for that matter!) is to display His ultimate glory. I know that God doing as He pleases does not make Him 'unjust'.

But, please, do tell, how do you reconcile these passages of Scripture with your view:

- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26)


Also Clete, I deeply urge you and respectfully ask that you please read this article by John Piper. It's very short and will only take a minute or two of your time, but it will greatly explain to you how I feel about interpreting the Bible with our logic. Lastly, do not be weary from debate, but be encouraged, and let's continue to sharpen each other's swords. Thank you, and God bless.

:zman:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

hello Hilton,

I have a two-fold question about this response: (1) How exactly did God punish His people in Egypt

sending them to Egypt was the punishment. they no longer ruled themselves, but were subject to the Pharaoh of Egypt.

(2)what was their crime against Him whilst in Egypt?

in Egypt? i'm not sure that there was one except maybe the continued resistence against God.

(3) When did they become faithful again, prompting the sending of their deliverer Moses?

i thought this was just a 2 fold question

i am not sure that it is explicitly stated in scripture. it would seem to be right about the time God came to moses though. God does look at our hearts and knows when we are seeking him and when we are not. perhaps God waited for a high enough number of the Israelites hearts to be seeking Him again before he came to moses.

For this I have three questions: (1) What does it mean to "harden pharoah's heart

it means to make ones self less favorable to a proposition.

(2) How exactly is this done?

i honestly do not know. it may be something that affects the free will of a person (which if it's a punishment is fully justified and allowed under the OV).

and (3) In light of (1) and (2), how does God do the opposite, i.e. soften a person's heart (give him heart of flesh, as in Eze 11:19 36:26)?

i guess it'd be by undoing whatever the hardening caused. i.e remaking things how they were before.

"Go, number Israel and Judah" = "Take Isaac and make him a burnt offering"
David conducting a census = Abraham actually going through with it

yes, that was my thinking.

There is no doubt that David did wrongly. But the scriptures say that Abraham was to be commended for offering Isaac as a burnt offering (Heb 11:17), as was Jephthah (Heb 11:32), who offered his daughter as a burnt offering (Jdg 11:31,34).

it was not the sacrifice itself that was commended, but Abraham's obedience to God through faith. as for Jephthah, same thing. it was not the sacrifice that was good, but his obedience to his vow made to the Lord.

What is your reasoning for believing Abraham was committed to sinning against the Lord, and indeed would have if the angel would have not intervened -- despite the fact that Hebrews says Abraham did this in faith?

Hebrews 11
19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

that seems to suggest quite strongly that abraham would have gone through with it had an angel not stopped him. wouldn't you agree?

1) Why did not God send an angel to stop David?

i've reread the passage a couple times now and i have a question that maybe you know the answer to. what did david believe his sin was? what did he think he had done wrong?

10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD , "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O LORD , I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing."

(2), why would God command Abraham to sin?

i don't think he would. do you believe he did?

God not only brought punishment, God was specific about what He decreed against David. In the Open View, is it the mark of a healthy mind to decree such heinous and evil things against someone of whom is it said, "A man after God's own heart"?

a man after God's own heart, but a sinner none the less. God is allowed to punish anyone for their sin here in this life as well in the after life.

Did God come up with this punishment out of His own mind?

unless he has some sort of council that i don't know of, i'd say yes.

What would you think of a judge who would sentence a man this way: "For killing a man and committing adultery with his wife, the sentence is thus: He and his entire nation must watch as his own son publicly 'knows' all of his wives." You say this is no problem for the Open View. Please elaborate.

God is allowed to bring humiliation upon a person. the effect of one persons sin spreading upon other people is nothing new either (adam in the garden). there is no limit as to what kind of punishment God brings upon a person but i imagine that the punishment will fit the crime more often than not.

But was it just for Pilate, the Sanhedrin, and the Romans to kill Him?

Pilate had no basis for condemning him except to please the crowd. the sanhedrin believed he was guilty of blashphemy so he was justly condemned in their opinion. and the romans could use the "opposing ceasar" card to justify their actions. so with the exception of Pilate, they all though they were doing the just thing although since he wasn't opposing Ceasar or committing blasphemy they were all techinically wrong.

but i think i see what you are getting at. are you saying that because they were unjustified in putting him on the cross that it was murder? if so, it needs to be noted that they didn't actually kill him. he gave us his life.

John 19
30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

nobody killed him so it cannot have been murder. he gave up his spirit. they may have murdered his body, but not him. he layed down his life and took it up again on his own power.

Doesn't that say that wicked hands executed Jesus? Or was "wicked" not in reference to the actual deed?

i agree that they were not really justified in what they were doing because he himself had not done anything wrong. it wasn't until he was on the cross that the wrath of God was poured out on him. but here i think "wicked" is being used to describe the men who put him on the cross because he had done nothing wrong. could not all men who are sinners be justly called "wicked"?

You said yourself that murder is the unjust taking of another's life. If Jesus was not murdered, then He was justly killed and deserved everything He suffered. I want to be clear that this is your position. I will then attempt to find out if all Open Viewists believe this.

he was justly killed when on the cross because he took our place and our sins on him. it was not just for them to put him their in the first place though.

Please clarify: We understand that He took sins upon Himself and gave up His own life for the redemption of men. But is that why He was tortured and killed? Were the charges for which the Sanhedrin and the Romans tortured and executed Him true?

no, the charges were not true.


hope that helps!

God bless.

GIT

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

To me, what matters most is the TRUTH of God's Holy Word. That is what I believe, no matter how 'illogical' humans may percieve it to be.

how do you determine what scripture is saying as true if logic and reason don't matter? in other words, without logic and reason, what can you use to determine what scripture is saying?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how do you determine what scripture is saying as true if logic and reason don't matter? in other words, without logic and reason, what can you use to determine what scripture is saying?

Inductive reasoning.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

Inductive reasoning.

that's a form of logic though.

not to mention it also uses reasoning.

 

[Lion]

Z Man said;

However, I am not foolish enough to say that our choices are not known by God. Indeed, Scripture tells me that He knows everything, including our hearts, motive, thoughts, actions - everything. No one can 'surprise' God, or do something that He was not aware of or had plans for or directly ordained.

Really?

Scripture tells me;

Jer 18:7-8 “The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.

Isa 65:12 Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, But did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight."

Jer. 19:5 “(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I almost swallowed my gum when I noticed Lion posted!

:chew:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Isa 65:12 Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, But did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight."

Hmmmm... so lets see.... :think:

According to the Z Man, Rolf, Boogerhead, Hilston crowd the above verse actually means that God decreed that they would not answer the call (therefore in essence they DID answer the call), ordained that they did not hear when He spoke and finally.... predestined that they choose what He doesn't delight (therefore in essence they DID do what He wanted which was to do as He didn't want). :kookoo:

 

[Yorzhik]

Hilston, I know you are busy, but could you get to post 396 where I responded to you? Thanks.

 

[Z Man]

Both Knight and Lion,

Now now, let's not get too hasty. Before you go off spouting other verses that seem to say this and that, you have to reconcile these verses with the OV:


- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

- He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11).

- He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16).

- He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28).

- He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26)


When we get past this, then we can begin to make sense of the verses you guys brought forth.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

that's a form of logic though.

not to mention it also uses reasoning.

Yeah... ummmm... Check this out...

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Hilston, I know you are busy, but could you get to post 396 where I responded to you? Thanks.

Hi Yorzhik,

Thanks for the headsup. Your post somehow slipped through the cracks. (Didn't I do this to you before? I'm very sorry.)

Jim asked: And where did He say He would leave them the way He said He would?

Yorzhik cites Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Are you suggesting that God violated Ge 8:22 whenever He wrought a miracle?

Yorzhik writes: But going beyond that, letting us experience the consequences of our actions is inferred in every warning that God gives. Going beyond that, God was so insistent on freedom that He let the world go to hell in a handbasket to the point of having to destroy it.

Let me ask you: Do you agree with 1Way when he says the following:

Logical impossibility of contradicting your own will: No matter what, you will always act according to your own will, there is no other alternative. If you say your will is to do "A", but then you try to thwart your own will and do something "non-A" instead, that very response was an act of your own will, so you can NEVER escape the reality that you always act in accordance to your own will, even if you conflict with another aspect of your own will. [emphasis added]

That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Yorzhik writes: Even on another level, changing the rules after the game has started is wrong. Even I know that.

I realize that you’re going to claim that you didn’t mean what I’m about to say, but I need you to clarify it anyway: Does every miracle go against the rule you cited in Ge 8:22 or not? If not, please explain.

Yorzhik writes:So if God can change the rules for some people to "help" them get saved, He is obligated to fix physics for everyone.

God is obligated? By whom?

Jim wrote: If He can give further salvation opportunities to scores of unsaved people by preventing the mass carnage of 9/11, wouldn't it be worth the scattering of a few atoms to do so?

Yorzhik writes: The best thing for God to do to save the most people is to let the consequences of their actions be evident.

That doesn’t help the innocent people who die and plunge into hell at the hands of evil men. Are you saying it was better for innocent men, women and children to die in the WTCs than it would be for them to live?

Jim wrote: Couldn't God come up with myriad creative ways to prevent evil people from murdering innocent people who might someday get saved? Wouldn't a healthy God do something to stop the premature deaths of people who might otherwise have become believers?

Yorzhik writes: No, the best way to save the most people is let them experience the consequences of their actions.

How can a dead person get saved?

Jim wrote: Please convince me of the value of thousands of people plunging into hell at the hands of the 9/11 terrorists in the eyes of a God who wants to save as many people as possible.

Yorzhik writes:Many more would not be saved if God did not allow us to experience the consequences of our actions.

I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions. I’m suggesting that He intervene secretly whenever innocent people, who may later believe, are about to be killed by evil men. That would not require God to prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions. It would prolong the lives of people, thereby giving them further opportunity to believe in Him.

Jim wrote: God doesn't have to "predict."

Yorzhik writes:So decrees the mighty Hilston.

Let me ask you, do you intend for this to turn hostile, or should I read that statement as levity?

Yorzhik writes:God disagrees with you if what He has written in his word is true.

God disagrees with you if He really is God and not just a big super human. What if what He has written in His Word is misunderstood by you? Is that at all possible? The very idea of God “thinking” and “knowing” and “seeing” are figures of speech called anthropopathisms. They’re unavoidable because the infinite God is communicating to finite creatures, and finite creatures understand best in finite terms. Thus, the infinite must employ figures of speech to convey His thoughts and actions (and to even speak of God's "actions" and "thoughts" is figurative as well).

Jim wrote: He knows because He has decreed, in meticulous detail, every event, every electron orbit, every hide and hair of existence.

Yorzhik writes:So Hilston claims without support.

Is that really what you think, or do you just like going around poking people with a stick to see what they'll do? As much as I disagree with your views, Yorzhik, I would never say anything so naive, ignorant and stupid as “So Hilston claims without support.” You ask me to respond to your post, which I'm happy to do, yet I have to put up with that kind of puerile tripe.

Jim wrote: If He didn't, then He could not make a single prophecy come true with any certainty.

Yorzhik writes:Sure He could. God is very smart, and thus a very good predictor. Beyond that, as creator of all things, He's very good at knowing how the things He created work. Even *I* can predict some things with great certainty without knowing the future exhaustively. I'm greater than Hilston's God.

Consider the rationale here. I believe God knows the future exhaustively, not because He wanted the answers to the test in advance, but because He cannot help but know everything. Yorzhik views this as something God has chosen to do (to know the future exhaustively). Why? Because Hilston's God is a big wuss and doesn't want to take the risk of not knowing the future. So He cheats by peeking. Have you ever considered that it’s not a failure, but an essential attribute of being the Creator. Can an author write a book and not know how it is going to turn out and everything in between? Of course not. It is impossible. So it is with God and His creation. He doesn't "choose" to know the future. He simply cannot help it. It is intrinsic in who He is as Creator.

Yorzhik writes:Another thing, sometimes when God says something will come to pass, it doesn't. If God says something about what will happen, isn't that, by definition, a prophecy?

For example?

Yorzhik writes:So for you haven't mentioned anything that has to do with Gen 22:12.

”And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”

You said yourself that “God is very smart, and thus a very good predictor.” You also said, “... as creator of all things, He's very good at knowing how the things He created work.” You boasted, “Even *I* can predict some things with great certainty without knowing the future exhaustively.” Yet you suggest by this verse that God did not know Abraham feared God until he offered up Isaac. Even *I*, someone who is "without support" for his beliefs," can read Genesis and know that Abraham feared God long before the offering of Isaac occurred. So despite God being very smart and a good predictor, the you say He nonetheless did not know that Abraham feared Him? By your own words, Yorzhik, you are greater than your own God!. The idea is absurd, even based on your own statements. So maybe this would be a good time ponder this as a figure of speech.

Yorzhik writes:So this is an anthropopathism?

Absolutely! And a great one!

Yorzhik writes:What does the figure mean? Now the way I read it, using the historical grammatical method, this is a passage that should be taken literally. It is nothing more than an historical account.

You have a strange view of historical record. Figures of speech are used constantly in historical documentation.

The event was a test. God knew Abraham and fully knew that Abraham would pass the test. What God knew is not the point; the point is twofold: Abraham had to realize his own justification before God, and God would then acknowledge and publicize (document) Abraham's faith. There are different senses of justification for each believer taught in scripture. There is the justification of God's decrees concerning a man within the Godhead. There is justification of a man before God by the blood of Christ alone. There is justication of a man before himself by faith (i.e. how one knows one is saved, that one is justified before God, and has a righteous standing before God). And there is justification of a man before others by works. This test of Abraham accomplished the latter two, (1) because Abraham saw his own faith, thereby recognizing his own righteous standing before God, and (2) because God documented (via Moses) the event for posterity, thereby justifying him by works before others. This is what Romans 4 is teaching. Abraham was justified by works, and could glory in his works, but not before God (v. 2). By faith, Abraham saw himself as justified (v. 3). This is what it means when Paul says it was "counted" to him (Abraham) as righteousness. That is, it was "told" to him, or "accounted" to him that he had a righteous standing before God. The anthropopathism used by God denoted these facts by a rich figure.

Yorzhik writes:So, Hilston says, "Now I know" does not mean "Now I know". Fair enough - figures mean other than what is actually written. Until Hilson tells us what it means, the only thing we can know about the meaning of this phrase is that it cannot mean "I have always known". That is the only meaning (at this point) that we can rule out as a possible meaning.

The phrase is an anthropopathic way of acknowledging Abraham's standing before God as righteous.

Yorzhik writes:So, Hilston, please tell us the meaning of this linguistic figure. When you are done, we should be able to replace the phrase "Now I know" with what you relate to us.

Sure, I can say it much better than God. Let me ask you this: Do you think God really did not know where Adam was in Gen 3 when He said, "Adam, where are thou?"? Do you think God really did not know whether or not Adam had eaten from the tree when He asked, "Have you eaten of the tree that I commanded you that you should not eat?" Perhaps you could please improve upon God's words so we can replace these words with what you relate to "us."

Jim wrote: He is 100% sure because He decreed every case without exception. If there were anything He did not decree, He would not -- could not -- coherently and honestly ask you to trust Him.

Yorzhik writes:I trust my dad, and he doesn't decree every case without exception.

Do you trust your dad for your salvation? Do you trust your dad to secure your future with him in eternity?

Yorzhik writes: Are you saying I shouldn't trust God, who is perfect, without exhaustive forknowledge, but I can trust my dad, who not only cannot see very far into the future, but he is sinful as well?

No, I'm saying, on your view, you shouldn't trust God for your salvation or for your sempiternal future. There is no assurance, no confidence. Sure, God will do the best He can, just as He has always done. But look at the disasters of history that God couldn't do anything about because He's hogtied by the bully freewills of men. He has said in His word that He knows the end from the beginning, but according to the OV, He is often surprised and His plans are thwarted. Specifically what, Yorzhik, do you trust Him for? Give me specifics: "I trust God to __________(insert action here)_______." "I trust that God will __________(insert action here)_________."

Thanks for the dialogue,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Z Man... with all due respect your theology forces you to totally miss the point of many of the Bibles most interesting stories!

Originally posted by Z Man

Both Knight and Lion,

Now now, let's not get too hasty. Before you go off spouting other verses that seem to say this and that, you have to reconcile these verses with the OV:


- God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 "He turned their hearts to hate his people.").

- He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1).

Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Now... as far as the other two verses....

God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the same way that He turned their hearts to hate His people.

In other words...
God chose a nation, people don't like knowing they are not the chosen ones and they often harden their hearts towards the chosen ones. God also showed His power in a big way in Egypt and the prideful Pharaoh heart was hardened.

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.

- He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10).

It was only a sin because David was acting against God's will!

Even Calvinistic study notes agree... (From JFB)

2 Samuel 24:10-14. HE, HAVING THREE PLAGUES PROPOUNDED BY GAD, REPENTS, AND CHOOSES THREE DAYS’ PESTILENCE.

10-13. David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned — The act of numbering the people was not in itself sinful; for Moses did it by the express authority of God. But David acted not only independently of such order of sanction, but from motives unworthy of the delegated king of Israel; from pride and vainglory; from self-confidence and distrust of God; and, above all, from ambitious designs of conquest, in furtherance of which he was determined to force the people into military service, and to ascertain whether he could muster an army sufficient for the magnitude of the enterprises he contemplated. It was a breach of the constitution, an infringement of the liberties of the people, and opposed to that divine policy which required that Israel should continue a separate people. His eyes were not opened to the heinousness of his sin till God had spoken unto him by His commissioned prophet.

I will respond to your other verses later.... if I get time.