ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Rolf Ernst]

Knight--Iwas just reviewing your post # 872 wherein you define man's freewill. Basically, I agree with you. You said nothing that will not fit in with what I said in a longer post.

OUR DIFFERENCES, as I understand them at this point, are basically two in number.

1. You believe that according to the Reformed understanding of God's decree, men are without options; that a life which might otherwise have been a wide sea of varied options/opportunities is instead set in concrete, allowing only what was predetermined for them.

2. You believe that individual motivations make no difference in the execution of an act.

Reformed people believe

1. God decreed man be in His image--having will, motive, and the power to choose his own options from a vast ocean of possibilities. Knowing which options men would, of themselves choose, He then decreed, "So be it!" Man as a consequence enters into life, sees the options and follows them precisely as God knew he would--not because God made Him do it, but because, as God foreknew, he so acts in accord with his own will.

2. Reformed people believe that BOTH God and man have will and motivation, and it is possible for two beings to will the same thing, BUT with different motivations--one motivation being evil, another being holy, just, and good. Individual motivations DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, and the fact that one's motive is evil DOES NOT MAKE THE OTHER GUILTY of his own wickedness.

I hope I accurately defined our differences. If not, please don't be bashful--lay it on me. Straighten me out.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
1. God decreed man be in His image--having will, motive, and the power to choose his own options from a vast ocean of possibilities. Knowing which options men would, of themselves choose, He then decreed, "So be it!" Man as a consequence enters into life, sees the options and follows them precisely as God knew he would--not because God made Him do it, but because, as God foreknew, he so acts in accord with his own will.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this Arminian theology rather than Calvinisism?

 

[1Way]

Clete, to my understanding, "exactly". The Calvinist does not even give man that much say so.

 

[geralduk]

"The ARM OF FLESH will fail"
it was NOT designed by God to work in isolation fromm God!
For man shall not LIVE by bread alone but by every Word that proccedeth from the mouth of God"
The devil knew this.
So his insinuating lie and perversion of the gospel was to ONE end and that was for man to REJECT the truth and believe the LIE and WALK OR WORK by and acording to the FLESH.

GOD HAVING MADE MEN FREE.
Gve Him then according to His will HIS WORD of LIFE that he might LIVE and NOT die.
But by the subtle 'arguement' of the serpent brought men to believe that God was not trustworthy and spake not the truth.
and so men "did that which was right in thier own eyes"

and so although God had told them to eat of that tree was EVIL to do.
By Eves own reasoning she came to the conclusion "that it would make her wise"!
and thus was GOOD TO DO!

The LORD in then wilderness was "TEMPTED IN LIKE MANNER" fOR THE same end that He might operate and walk according to the FLESH .
But where as the FIRST Adam failed in a paradise.
The LAST conquered in a wilderness.
In the other garden The Lord told the disciples to WATCH AND PRAY lest ye fall into temptation.
But when they should have been AWAKE the fell asleep.
Yet the Lord wa sfaithfull and prayed till the crisis was past.
Is it not written that the kingdom of God is likened unto....
".........and while men slept his enemy came and sowed tares...."?#
Thus it is not unreasonable to think that ADAM was ASLEEP when he should have been awake!


The SPIRIT is willing but the FLESH is weak"

Thus the FIRST Adam was made aliving soul.
The LAST a quickening SPIRIT.

Adam therefore was CREATED PERFECT according to the life that was given to Him.
Yet could not LIVE without the WORD OF GOD.

let no man say this was wrong either for do we not LIVE by OUR breath WHICH ALSO IS NOT OURS?
"ONLY THE FATHER AND THE SON ahev live in themselves"
But in that God gave them the liberty to eat of the tree of LIFE.
IT IS CLEAR THEN that Gods ETERNAL WILL for MAN was (and is) that HE SHOULD overcome the devil AND INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE!
tO PUT OFF CORRUPTION of THIS life AND PUT ON INCORRUPTION.
tHUS when a person is BORNagain he enters into that erternal will of God that mighty river that washes him from all sin and steps out on the other side a new man a new creation BORNagain child of God.
By what means?
That WORD which was even in the beginning AND WAS WITH GOD AND WAS GOD.
who became FLESH and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.
and who died that we might LIVE.
For trutly the devil has come to steal to kill and to destroy but I have come that you might have LIFE and life more abundantly"!

For He came not to condemn the world but that the world throughbHim may be saved.
and to destroy the works of the devil.

Thereforre if you are saved weare called to WALK not after the flesh but after the SPIRIT and so not fullfill the lusts of the flesh.
For if we wlak after the SPIRIT

 

[geralduk]

"The ARM OF FLESH will fail"
it was NOT designed by God to work in isolation fromm God!
For man shall not LIVE by bread alone but by every Word that proccedeth from the mouth of God"
The devil knew this.
So his insinuating lie and perversion of the gospel was to ONE end and that was for man to REJECT the truth and believe the LIE and WALK OR WORK by and acording to the FLESH.

GOD HAVING MADE MEN FREE.
Gve Him then according to His will HIS WORD of LIFE that he might LIVE and NOT die.
But by the subtle 'arguement' of the serpent brought men to believe that God was not trustworthy and spake not the truth.
and so men "did that which was right in thier own eyes"

and so although God had told them to eat of that tree was EVIL to do.
By Eves own reasoning she came to the conclusion "that it would make her wise"!
and thus was GOOD TO DO!

The LORD in then wilderness was "TEMPTED IN LIKE MANNER" fOR THE same end that He might operate and walk according to the FLESH .
But where as the FIRST Adam failed in a paradise.
The LAST conquered in a wilderness.
In the other garden The Lord told the disciples to WATCH AND PRAY lest ye fall into temptation.
But when they should have been AWAKE the fell asleep.
Yet the Lord wa sfaithfull and prayed till the crisis was past.
Is it not written that the kingdom of God is likened unto....
".........and while men slept his enemy came and sowed tares...."?#
Thus it is not unreasonable to think that ADAM was ASLEEP when he should have been awake!


The SPIRIT is willing but the FLESH is weak"

Thus the FIRST Adam was made aliving soul.
The LAST a quickening SPIRIT.

Adam therefore was CREATED PERFECT according to the life that was given to Him.
Yet could not LIVE without the WORD OF GOD.

let no man say this was wrong either for do we not LIVE by OUR breath WHICH ALSO IS NOT OURS?
"ONLY THE FATHER AND THE SON ahev live in themselves"
But in that God gave them the liberty to eat of the tree of LIFE.
IT IS CLEAR THEN that Gods ETERNAL WILL for MAN was (and is) that HE SHOULD overcome the devil AND INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE!
tO PUT OFF CORRUPTION of THIS life AND PUT ON INCORRUPTION.
tHUS when a person is BORNagain he enters into that erternal will of God that mighty river that washes him from all sin and steps out on the other side a new man a new creation BORNagain child of God.
By what means?
That WORD which was even in the beginning AND WAS WITH GOD AND WAS GOD.
who became FLESH and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.
and who died that we might LIVE.
For trutly the devil has come to steal to kill and to destroy but I have come that you might have LIFE and life more abundantly"!

For He came not to condemn the world but that the world throughbHim may be saved.
and to destroy the works of the devil.

Thereforre if you are saved weare called to WALK not after the flesh but after the SPIRIT and so not fullfill the lusts of the flesh.
For if we wlak after the SPIRIT we will NOT fullfill the lusts of the flesh.

Therefore lay off all these vain debates and contentions from those who have no understanding.
But rather speak the truth in love and walk on.
leaving them to God that perchance He might have mercy upon them and give them light.

For we are to "walk in the light even as he is in the light and then we have fel;owship one with the other and the blood of JESUS CHRIST Gods SON CLEANSES US(CONTINUALY) FROM ALL SIN"

In so doing we not only show we are the sons of God but also manifest the wisdom of God.
To the consience of evry man.
To wit they might be ashamed at thier folly

AS FREE MEN not BOUND

Doing that which is GOOD in GODS SIGHT freely and with all naturaleness. springing from a rightous heart before God.

Being rooted and grounded in the TRUTHA and so bringing forth FRUITS WHICH SPRING FORTH FROM THAT GOOD SEED.
wHICH IS INCORRUPTABLE.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

It is truly becoming impossible to have a conversation with you.
Let?s review a little and hopefully you?ll see what I mean.

I basically restarted this conversation by having you define terms so that we wouldn?t be talking past one another.

You said?

That nothing happens apart from His (God?s) control.

You defined justice in the following manner?

The rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.

and your definition of freewill was?

It means to have a will, or an ability to choose or decide upon a course of action, without no limitation or restriction from any outside 'force'. To do whatever one pleases.

I asked, ?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??
You responded?

Of course not.

I made the statement, "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 you responded

?I agree.

Up to this point we were doing fine. But when the logical conclusions that flow intuitively from these ideas became appearant and the logical fallacies of your own position could no longer be denied, you quickly abandoned rational thought and said?

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 then spent quite a good number of hours reading and researching the issue of logic and how it applies to theology and built an argument that you cannot even attempt to defeat and so what do you do? You reverse yourself almost completely?

While I am grateful that you did take the time to reply, I feel that you somewhat avoided the main focus of my last post. When I made statements against interpreting the Bible with logic, I wasn't necessarily making the point that we are not suppose to interpret it at all with any sort of logic or reason. My point was simply that it is wrong to use what logic you've learned in life and from your surroundings to interpret the Bible.

There is one point that you have made or inferred a number of times that I haven't yet addressed and this as good a time to do it as any.
Logic is not man made. There are different forms that logic sometimes takes but these forms of logic are not made, they are discovered. Flipper brought up a form of logic that I hadn?t heard of before that has to do with computers and the way they process information. Even this form of logic was not crafted by men but it flows from the nature of the computer.
Flipper said?

I might also add that his side of the argument effectively shortcircuits boolean logic, which means that in Zarcharias World, none of the computers work.

First it is interesting to note he attempts to knock a whole in either/or logic by effectively telling us that for computers it?s either Boolean logic or nothing at all. The very same trap you fell into with regards to wanting both predestination and freewill. But that?s not the point I want to make. The point I do want to make is that this Boolean logic is not man made. The computer is man made and it is made in a certain way which then by nature of the way a computer works Boolean logic has certain rules.
In other words the rules of logic are not arbitrary. They are an extension of reality. If something is illogical it doesn?t have anything to do with the way I feel about it or what I think. Something is either logical or it isn?t, period. Saying that something is logical is just another way of saying that it is true or correct not that it feels good or that I agree with it. Your emotions and intellectual acknowledgment of something is not a factor in how true or how logical it is.
This is the point that I established beyond dispute in post 857.

So as much as you would like for me too, I simply will not permit you to change the definition of the terms which you have already agreed to as being right and true.
Given the definitions of the terms you yourself came up with and given the undeniable necessity of logic and sound reason, the conclusion that Calvinism is incoherent, contradictory and therefore false is inescapable.

The truth of this is evident in your having asked the following question?
You ask?

?how in the world do you not see an unjust God in Scriptures, if that is what you truly believe??? Who hardened Pharaoh's heart, THEN told him to let the Israelites go? Who opposed the hatred of His people, yet turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate His people? Who punished David for doing exactly as He had told him to do? Who 'hid the things of God' from Jerusalem, then wept for them because of it? Who controls sickness, yet had compassion on those who are sick? Who hates adultery and made a law against it, stating that anyone who commits such an act shall surely die, then turns right around and ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives?

Tell us Clete, in your view, how is God not unjust and 'contradictory' when He has done all these things, and many more?!

The fact that you would ask such a question is truly mind boggling! Don?t you get Z Man? You just asked me how I couldn?t see God as unjust if I interpreted the Bible the way you do! Well, the answer is that I do not see God as unjust because I do not interpret the Bible in such a way that it requires such a logical conclusion!

Here?s a little DEDUCTIVE reasoning for you?

Premise 1. 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.

Premise 2. You have explicitly agreed that premise 1 is valid and true. (Post 706 and elsewhere.)

Premise 3. Your interpretation of Scripture violates premise 1 by requiring a logical conclusion that God is unjust.

Conclusion. You must agree that your interpretation of Scripture is false!

Now here?s a bit of either/or logic for you.

Either demonstrate the logical fallacy in the above syllogism or admit that you cannot and acknowledge Calvinism as the false theology that it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Big Finn]

Clete,

That last post of yours is really good. This truly is about who God is. This discussion isn't about us in any way. It's about the validation of God's character, and that certain concepts such as justice and love are not changeable or capable of being redefined to mean something else, for if they were they would lose all meaning.

God expressed Himself to us in terms we can understand and the Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us. If we attempt to say that we just can't trust that revelation because the concepts are just waay too nebulous for us to understood, then the Bible is a failure for it then cannot fulfill the purpose for which God gave it.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this Arminian theology rather than Calvinisism?

:up:

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Big Finn

Clete,

That last post of yours is really good. This truly is about who God is. This discussion isn't about us in any way. It's about the validation of God's character, and that certain concepts such as justice and love are not changeable or capable of being redefined to mean something else, for if they were they would lose all meaning.

God expressed Himself to us in terms we can understand and the Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us. If we attempt to say that we just can't trust that revelation because the concepts are just waay too nebulous for us to understood, then the Bible is a failure for it then cannot fulfill the purpose for which God gave it.

:up:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete, Post 922--Yes, you are wrong. I have stated so many times on this forum that God did NOT decree the actions which man would have done BUTwhich God was not PLEASED to have happen; i.e., those acts through which God did not purpose to manifest His glory.

There is a far cry difference between man being given the power by his will to frustrate God's purpose, and God allowing man to execute his will insofar as God was pleased to have it be so for His own glory. The distinction is not difficult to understand to anyone who really wants to understand it.

Furthermore, that distinction has many EXAMPLES throughout the Bible. I have not said anything I cannot give you an example of in Scripture. That is sufficient to PROVE Reformed doctrine was not derived from man's faulty logic which ALWAYS fails when it presumes to arrive at spiritual truths on the basis of man's own logic, "for my ways ARE NOT your ways, nor YOUR thoughts as MY thoughts, for as the heaven is high above the earth, so are my ways abovre you ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."

This verse shows the utter vanity of men rejecting the testimony of Scripture because it doesn't make sense to what HE understands as logical, reasonable, or in line with his sense of what should or should not be.

I know many onb this forum have delighted to misunderstand that statement--"OH!" they will cry out again, "according to Calvinism,"GOD IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LOGICAL."

No, that is not what I said. I said God IS logical. Man is just so foolish that he can't understand thoughts and ways that are above his own.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete, Post 922--Yes, you are wrong. I have stated so many times on this forum that God did NOT decree the actions which man would have done BUTwhich God was not PLEASED to have happen; i.e., those acts through which God did not purpose to manifest His glory.

There is a far cry difference between man being given the power by his will to frustrate God's purpose, and God allowing man to execute his will insofar as God was pleased to have it be so for His own glory. The distinction is not difficult to understand to anyone who really wants to understand it.

Furthermore, that distinction has many EXAMPLES throughout the Bible. I have not said anything I cannot give you an example of in Scripture. That is sufficient to PROVE Reformed doctrine was not derived from man's faulty logic which ALWAYS fails when it presumes to arrive at spiritual truths on the basis of man's own logic, "for my ways ARE NOT your ways, nor YOUR thoughts as MY thoughts, for as the heaven is high above the earth, so are my ways abovre you ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts."

This verse shows the utter vanity of men rejecting the testimony of Scripture because it doesn't make sense to what HE understands as logical, reasonable, or in line with his sense of what should or should not be.

I know many onb this forum have delighted to misunderstand that statement--"OH!" they will cry out again, "according to Calvinism,"GOD IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LOGICAL."

No, that is not what I said. I said God IS logical. Man is just so foolish that he can't understand thoughts and ways that are above his own.

Rolf, i have no problem with the fact that we can't know everything about God. the problem is when God becomes illogical. what calvinism does is it makes God out to be illogical. that's the problem.

 

[Clete]

Rolf,

With all due respect, you can't expect to win a debate about Calvinism by redefining what Calvinism is.

There are hundreds of sources that one can choose from to get a basic understanding of what Calvinism teaches and what Calvin himself taught. I will post a short bit that I found in about in about 2 minutes.
If this isn't sufficient I could post something from Calvin himself that will show that what you've posted is not what Calvinism teaches.

The following is from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-calvin.html...

Calvinism
With the possible exception of Martin Luther, no man has had a greater impact on the theology of the Protestant Churches today than John Calvin. While it is not possible to condense countless volumes of Biblical commentary of John Calvin down to a short summary, it is true that Calvin’s most well-know teachings, set forth in his Magnum Opus, “The Institution of Christian Religion” are the often-quoted “Five Points of Calvinism”. A common acronym used to help remember them is “T.U.L.I.P.” They are:

Total Depravity of Man: That man’s nature is basically evil, not basically good. Apart from the direct influence of God, man will never truly seek God or God’s will, though he may seek the benefits of association with God.

Unconditional Election: That God sovereignly chooses or “elects” His children from before the foundation of time. God does not “look down the corridors of time to see what decision people will make”… rather, God causes them to make the decision to seek Him.

Limited Atonement: That the death and resurrection of Christ is a substitutionary payment for the sins of only those who are God’s elect children… not the entire world.

Irresistible Grace: That when God calls a person, His call cannot ultimately be ignored.

Perseverance of the Saints: That it is not possible for one to “lose his salvation”.

The highlighted section is the typical Calvinist teaching. What you've posted is typical Arminianism.

Are you quite sure that you aren't an Arminian?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Big Finn

Clete,

That last post of yours is really good. This truly is about who God is. This discussion isn't about us in any way. It's about the validation of God's character, and that certain concepts such as justice and love are not changeable or capable of being redefined to mean something else, for if they were they would lose all meaning.

God expressed Himself to us in terms we can understand and the Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us. If we attempt to say that we just can't trust that revelation because the concepts are just waay too nebulous for us to understood, then the Bible is a failure for it then cannot fulfill the purpose for which God gave it.

Excellent point!!! :thumb:

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I spent quite a good number of hours reading and researching the issue of logic and how it applies to theology and built an argument that you cannot even attempt to defeat and so what do you do? You reverse yourself almost completely…



There is one point that you have made or inferred a number of times that I haven’t yet addressed and this as good a time to do it as any.
Logic is not man made. There are different forms that logic sometimes takes but these forms of logic are not made, they are discovered. Flipper brought up a form of logic that I hadn’t heard of before that has to do with computers and the way they process information. Even this form of logic was not crafted by men but it flows from the nature of the computer.
Flipper said…

First it is interesting to note he attempts to knock a whole in either/or logic by effectively telling us that for computers it’s either Boolean logic or nothing at all. The very same trap you fell into with regards to wanting both predestination and freewill. But that’s not the point I want to make. The point I do want to make is that this Boolean logic is not man made. The computer is man made and it is made in a certain way which then by nature of the way a computer works Boolean logic has certain rules.
In other words the rules of logic are not arbitrary. They are an extension of reality. If something is illogical it doesn’t have anything to do with the way I feel about it or what I think. Something is either logical or it isn’t, period. Saying that something is logical is just another way of saying that it is true or correct not that it feels good or that I agree with it. Your emotions and intellectual acknowledgment of something is not a factor in how true or how logical it is.
This is the point that I established beyond dispute in post 857.

So as much as you would like for me too, I simply will not permit you to change the definition of the terms which you have already agreed to as being right and true.

I think you are taking this 'logic' thing way too far. Maybe I used the wrong word? Maybe I should of said something other than 'logic'?

Like I said before, I never meant to say that we should not use 'logic' to discern truth or whatever; the point I was merely trying to make was that we cannot make certain conclusions about life, and then read the Bible and expect the Bible to agree with everyone of those conclusions. It has to be the other way around. We must read the Bible and make conclusions about life or whatnot from the text itself.

I didn't know what to call that (the "making up conclusions" part), so I said it was 'man-made logic' - something that we teach ourselves from our own experiences or what we have been taught from others in our life. I know that logic isn't 'man-made'; I just didn't know what else to call it...

Forgive me for being confusing. Sometimes I lack the ability to fully express what I mean...

Given the definitions of the terms you yourself came up with and given the undeniable necessity of logic and sound reason, the conclusion that Calvinism is incoherent, contradictory and therefore false is inescapable.

The truth of this is evident in your having asked the following question…

You ask…

Originally posted by Z Man
…how in the world do you not see an unjust God in Scriptures, if that is what you truly believe??? Who hardened Pharaoh's heart, THEN told him to let the Israelites go? Who opposed the hatred of His people, yet turned the hearts of the Egyptians to hate His people? Who punished David for doing exactly as He had told him to do? Who 'hid the things of God' from Jerusalem, then wept for them because of it? Who controls sickness, yet had compassion on those who are sick? Who hates adultery and made a law against it, stating that anyone who commits such an act shall surely die, then turns right around and ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives?

Tell us Clete, in your view, how is God not unjust and 'contradictory' when He has done all these things, and many more?!

The fact that you would ask such a question is truly mind boggling! Don’t you get it Z Man? You just asked me how I couldn’t see God as unjust if I interpreted the Bible the way you do!

Wrong. May I correct you in that I was asking how in the world you do not see an unjust God from the way YOU interpret Scripture, not the way I interpret it. Notice I said:

"Anyways, you believe that if God was absolutely sovereign and we were held responsible for our actions still, then that would make God unjust. And to that I ask, how in the world do you not see an unjust God in Scriptures, IF that is what you truly believe???"

Well, the answer is that I do not see God as unjust because I do not interpret the Bible in such a way that it requires such a logical conclusion!

I do not see an unjust God in the Bible either. Although we read countless stories of Him hardening people's hearts, then telling them to do something, knowing full well they ain't going to do it, then telling people to commit adultry, then telling people to conduct a census, although knowing full well it was a sin for the person to do, and causing people to have sickness so He could have compassion on them and heal them, and turning the hearts of the Egyptians to hate His people, even though God opposes hatred towards His people - although we read all these things about God, it does not mean that God is unjust! It proves to us that He is completely sovereign, and that no matter what He does, HE IS RIGHT AND JUST!!!!

It shows us how puny and miniscule and insignificant we are and how 'little' we contribute to this universe. The Scriptures, if read in context, will deliberitly humble you! It's suppose to! If God decides to kill a few kids for harassing a bald man, He'll do it! If God decides to harden a person's heart, then command them to do something that they are incapable of doing (since He hardened their heart), He'll do it! If God decides to inflict sickness upon an individual so that He may be glorified through their wellness/death/misery, He'll do it! If God decides to take away everything a person owns, including their children, even though the person may be 'righteous' in His eyes, HE'LL DO IT!!!

And you know what Clete? There's nothing you can say to Him to 'stay His hand'. Who are you, O man, to reply back against God? Who are you to declare Him unjust for doing as He so pleases with His creation?

Here’s a little DEDUCTIVE reasoning for you…

Premise 1. 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.

Premise 2. You have explicitly agreed that premise 1 is valid and true. (Post 706 and elsewhere.)

Premise 3. Your interpretation of Scripture violates premise 1 by requiring a logical conclusion that God is unjust.

I do not present Scripture, or interpret it to show an 'unjust' God; if that's how you feel, it isn't because I believe that way - IT"S BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT WAY ABOUT THOSE VERSES!!!

I don't have a problem with any of the verses I present to you. I know they don't make God unjust. But if you feel that they do, maybe you need to sit and meditate on them for a while, and see if the God you really believe in is unjust or not...

My interpretation of Scripture DOES NOT violate premise 1 at all! God cannot be unjust - yes, we agree. Thus, we must agree that since the Bible says God does things like, oppose adultry, yet He ordains that Absolom should commit adultry, or that He hardens a person's heart, THEN asks them to let His people go, it is not declaring God unjust, but rather, that He is a soveriegn God who can do anything He pleases. Yes, a SOVEREIGN GOD INDEED!

Who are we to reply against Him? Although He decreed/commanded that David take that census, God still held him accountable for his sin! God punished David for the very thing God told David to do. In all this, God was not unjust. The Scriptures are not trying to teach us that.

However, because you read the Bible with a false 'pre-sumption', a doctrine known as the Open View, you read those passages of Scripture and suddenly cry out that I am trying to present an 'unjust God'. If you would change the way you look at Scripture, you would clearly see that God cannot be unjust, but rather, He is completely Sovereign.

Conclusion. You must agree that your interpretation of Scripture is false!

Now here’s a bit of either/or logic for you.

Either demonstrate the logical fallacy in the above syllogism or admit that you cannot and acknowledge Calvinism as the false theology that it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

We both agree that God is not unjust, yes. However, you believe that if God opposes A, then commands/decrees that a certain individual do A, and then hold them accountable still, that He is unjust. So please, do tell - how do you NOT see an unjust God from these passages of Scripture:

- Jesus wept over Jerusalem because the things of the kingdom were "hidden from [their] eyes", yet He clearly tells us that it was God who hid these things from their eyes (Luke 19:41-42; Luke 10:21)

- Jesus felt compassion over those who were sick, yet it is God who is finally and decisivly in control of sickness (Matthew 14:14; Exodus 4:11; 1 Samuel 2:6)

- 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)

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--In your post #932, you quote John Calvin concerning unconditional election wherein he says, god does not look down the corridors of time to see what men would do.

If you will check back, you will see my statement that man's free will does not have the power to over ride God's will when they are diametrically opposed. I have repeatedly said that God decrees the acts of man's free will with the exception of those instances wherein they are contrary to God's purpose.

Unconditional election is one of those instances. If God had left men to their will in regard to salvation, NO ONE would have ever been saved. To in any way leave man's salvation hinged to ANY extent upon man would leave all men with a mission impossible. To ask that would be analogous to the Holy Spirit going to the graveyard with the gospel to see who would come out of the grave when it was proclaimed.

The truth is, God went to the graveyard to raise up certain ones. The Bible says that the second Adam was NOT made a life OFFERING Spirit as the Arminians suggest in their soteriology, but a lifeGIVING Spirit. Apart from His work of regeneration, which without fail issues in a spiritual life with faith and repentance, NO ONE WOULD HAVE been saved. If God had looked down the aisle of man's SELF will in this regard, there would have been only a deathly silence, Just as there was as Ezekiel looked upon the valley of dry bones--"and they were VERY dry." Then God intervened independently of anything in man. Ezekiel was told to prophesy: "come from the four winds, oh breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live."

Remember Jesus in Jn. three and His comparison of the work of the Holy Spirit to the movement of the wind.

God can work His will either in concert with human action, contrary to human action, or independent of human action. Regeneration (and election) are ALWAYS independent of human action.

Consider God confirming the covenant with Abram immediately after He had made a promise to Abram CONCERNING HIS HEAVENLY (SPIRITUAL) SEED in Genesis 15. Normally in covenants struck between two parties, both pass between the divided pieces of the covenantal offering, therby signifying that if the covenant is broken, the breaker of it will be broken in pieces
just as the pieces of the offering which he had passed between were broken.

However as we come to this most wonderful of all covenants, we find Abram in a deep sleep with a horror of GREAT darkness upon him. I view this as probably like unto the sleep and darkness of spiritual death. Abram is not awake to take part in this covenant, signifying that its certainty is NOT DEPENDENT IN ANY WAY UPON HIM. Abram wakens to see the smoking oven and burning torch (remember the columns which led the israelties through the wilderness--by day, a column of smoke, by night a column of fire) pass through the pieces the pieces alone. That was God's promise to do that thing independently of man. It was not a covenant that was conditional upon man. It was unconditional, and it involved the unconditional election and salvation of Abram's heavenly seed ("Look to the heavens now and count the stars if you are able to number them--so shall your seed be." (Gen.15:5)

God's ways of working out His will are so multi-faceted that you can't cover them all in a brief explanation. I was not addressing soteriological issues in my post earlier. Thanks for mentioning it with your well stated objection.

 

[add yasaf]

kids today

kids today

Rolf Ernst quote - Unconditional election is one of those instances. If God had left men to their will in regard to salvation, NO ONE would have ever been saved. To in any way leave man's salvation hinged to ANY extent upon man would leave all men with a mission impossible.



FIrst of all, the Bible never says that man's will is not connected at all to receiving salvation. It says the opposite! The indicative can never be seperated from the imperative. See the 10 commandements - I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt - therefore, do this, don't do this.

A person asked Jesus what work he must do to enter the kingdom, and Jesus said it was to believe.

Arminians have always believed in prevenient grace. In case where you are wondering where this is spoken of in the Bible, just look at 90% of the verses Calvinists use to support Common Grace. My favorite is Acts 17 -

He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need there is. 26 From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand which should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries. 27 "His purpose in all of this was that the nations should seek after God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him-though he is not far from any one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and exist. As one of your own poets says, `We are his offspring.' 29 And since this is true, we shouldn't think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone. 30 God overlooked people's former ignorance about these things, but now he commands everyone everywhere to turn away from idols and turn to him.


Arminians realize man cannot by his own initial act of will come to God, but no where does Scripture speak of a salvation apart from our faith involved in the process.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

add yasaf, post #936. The Scripture DOESN"T speak of salvation apart from faith, but it does speak of a faith that is the result of God's regenerating work. Both faith and repentance are wrought in the heart of those whom the Holy Spirit regenerates. The Bible says that we "believe ACCORDING TO the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from among the dead." We believe ACCORDING TO THE WORKING OF HIS MIGHTY POWER.
"And you has He quickened who were DEAD in trespasses and sins."
Until the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, there is NOTHING in man--no life, no faith, no repentance; no hearing, no seeing, no understanding. Then the Holy Spirit raises His people from the dead; and they come forth believing, repenting, seeing, hearing, understanding.

 

[add yasaf]

scripture twisting

scripture twisting

Rolf Ernst quote - The Bible says that we "believe ACCORDING TO the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from among the dead."


Whatever version you are using it is wrong. Since it says "that ye may know........what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. "

The word used for "believe" is a participle with an article before it, and it is in the accusative case(direct object), the same as the Greek word for "us". So it should be translated, "who believe". Putting it together it would be "us who believe".

Paul wants to pray for the Ephesians who are Christians, for one, because they believe! In the context Paul is not mentioning the salvation experience at all, but telling the believers what benefits we as Christians have and that we should claim these promises for us in Christ.

Nowhere does the Bible proclaim being "dead in sin" as rigo mortis. It does mean that all of our faculties have been corrupted by sin, and everything in us needs a renewal. It doesn't mean that the image of God in us has been destroyed, and that people are not capable of performing acts that reflect God's image - remember Cornelius?

 

[Hilston]

Reply to Yorzhik

Reply to Yorzhik

This is a reply to Yorzhik's post #855

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

Yorzhik cited Gen 8:22 to support his claim that God declared He would not manipulate the natural order.
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

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

Yorzhik writes:
Excellent point. But, no, it isn't the same. When God wrought a miracle, he did it out in the open because He was interacting with humans – not secretly manipulating them.

So are you saying that God does not really violate the verse as long as the violation is out in the open?

Yorzhik writes:
I realize this is a fine point, so we need to get to the foundation of your claim. The point you are making, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that God, if He loved all men, would manipulate His creation to create the most favorable environment for men to come to Him in love.

No. I'm saying that He could, based on statistics, carefully and selectively prevent the premature deaths of innocent people at the hands of evil people, knowing that, statistically speaking, the odds are in His favor of more people getting saved if they live longer.

Yorzhik writes:Now, this doesn't work if He is open about his miracles - announcing who is doing them and why – because then that puts Himself as an interloper, not a manipulator. And putting Himself as one of the players creates a reaction to Him, not to the situation He would create. And as we see repeatedly in scripture, miracles result in a rejection of God.

Agreed, but again, I'm not saying that He has to step in all the time in every case, but only in those cases that His supreme wisdom deems statistically favorable. E.g. "180 innocent people are about to drown if this terrorist succeeds in sinking this ferry. Of these 180 people, 112 of them live in a region that is about to receive missionaries for the first time in 40 years. The terrorist will therefore die of congestive heart failure before he even reaches the dock."

Jim wrote: 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]

Yorzhik writes:
That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

I happen to agree with 1Way 100% on this point. Are you familiar with studies of identifical twins separated at birth?

Yorzhik writes:
Just because we are not free from ourselves, doesn't mean we are not free from God.

But if God has predetermined our desires, preferences, etc., then we will act in accordance with them, and He never has to touch us, so to speak. And we will perfectly fulfill His decreed plan for us, because He has predetermined everything about us that will influence all of our choices.

Yorzhik writes:
Are we free from each other?

We can't make each other choose against our will, so in that sense, yes. I'm not sure of the relevance of your question.

[snip]

Jim asked: God is obligated? By whom?

Yorzhik writes:By Himself. God is not Just because, by definition, everything God does is Just. God is Just because He actively follows the "rules of justice".

God gave himself rules to live by? Whence came those rules?

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

To which Jim replied: 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?

Yorzhik writes:
No, it doesn't help those innocent people except that they are moved to the next stage in life.

The next stage for many of them is hell, right?

Yorzhik writes:How God deals with them, I'm not sure. But it helps the innocent and guilty people that view the evil acts of those evil men during this stage in life. As for the guilty ones, they were already warned.

That doesn't help the innocent people who are in hell because they did not receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

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

To which Jim replied: How can a dead person get saved?

Yorzhik writes:
Well, if they were innocent, then God handles that situation from His side of the fence. Exactly how that works, I don't know. I don't think God tells us. As for the guilty ones, they've already been warned.

Don't you believe that all innocent people who do not believe in Christ for their salvation go to hell?

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

To which Jim replied: I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions.

Yorzhik writes:
By your next sentence, didn't you really mean to say, "I’m not suggesting that God prevent us from experiencing the consequences of our actions if we are innocent."

No. As I said before, He can be selective. He can make the statistical calculations and base His intervention or non-intervention on those calculations. Why wouldn't God do this if it improved His odds of more getting saved?

Jim wrote: 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.

Yorzhik writes:
If you are innocent, it would. Right?

No, because I'm talking about preventing the work of evil men who seek to bring about the deaths of innocent people. I'm not talking about God preventing the unwise actions of innocent people and the consequences those actions bring. Evil men acting upon innocent men. Not innocent men acting upon themselves.

Also, it may be that you're not following my use of the word "innocent." It doesn't mean "pure as the driven snow." It means, in Open View terms (if I understand them correctly), not deserving of the consequences, whatever they may be. In this case, I'm talking about those who did not deserve to die horrific deaths as consequence of the actions of evil terrorists.

Jim wrote: It would prolong the lives of people, thereby giving them further opportunity to believe in Him.

Yorzhik writes:
Prolonging lives creates conditions that are favorable to loving God? Are you sure about that?

Consider this. Group A comprises 1,000 unbelievers who were all born on the same day. Group B comprises 1,000 unbelievers who were all born on the same day. The people in group A live only to age 30. The people in group B live to age 60. Of those 2,000 people, let's say a total of 250 believe in Christ and are saved from hell. Would it surprise you if the same scenario resulted in a total of 400 believing in Christ as a result of Group A living as long as Group B? Do you think God is capable of making such a calculation?

Yorzhik writes:
Also, what of the damage they might do to their own and other's possible relationship with God if they live?

It's a statistical calculation, Yorzhik. Sure, there will be those who cause more damage by living longer. Sure there will be those who hate God more by living longer. But, statistically speaking, wouldn't the goodness and love that results from dozens who later come to Christ far outweigh the damage and the hate of those who do not? Not to mention the fact that Jesus' whole point of dying (i.e. to save the lost) is further fulfilled because more had a chance of coming to Him?

[Snip]

Jim wrote: God disagrees with you if He really is God and not just a big super human.

Yorzhik writes:
He is a big super human. He is also much more. Or you could say, we are a small image of God, and God is much more.

I'm glad for your admission, although it saddens me that you hold to this view. I will file your statement for future reference.

Jim wrote: What if what He has written in His Word is misunderstood by you? Is that at all possible?

Yorzhik writes:Yes. You would answer "yes" to the same question, correct?

Absolutely.

Jim wrote: 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).

Yorzhik writes:
Can God do an "action" at all? Or "think" at all? And beyond that, can God "feel" at all?

If you define these actions, thinking, and feelings in humans terms, the answer is no. Man is the imago dei, not the other way around. Man reflects, in finite terms, God's nature and character to varying degrees, not the other way around. So, at best, we can only have an anthropomorphic/anthropopathic inkling of the infinite God. God does not physically move. God does not "look" in order to see. God does not sleep. God does not "feel" the way we do. Our emotions are tied into so many peripherals that God does not have (uncertainty, mood, what we had for breakfast, how people are treating us, the level of seratonin in our brains, the synaptic response time in our neurological centers, our personalities, our genetics, etc.). So God does not cry. God does not forget. God does not get distracted. Yet there are all these verses in the Bible suggest these very things. Why? Because it was expected that the audience would recognize the figures, as well as their power and importance in enabling humans to relate to and better understand, in a severely limited and finite way, the infinite God.

[snip]

Jim wrote: 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:
That is how I would view it as well if God didn't state the opposite in scripture.

What if God really is so transcendant (not a big super human) that all those "opposite statements" really are figures that God employed to convey otherwise unfathomable traits and attributes? What convinces you that you're right in taking these passages as literal and not figurative?

Yorzhik writes:
I'll stick with the bible, ...

What if you're sticking to the wrong view of the Bible?

Yorzhik writes:
... and you can stick with your author analogy.

The Bible itself uses the author analogy, Yorzhik. "... and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Ps 139:16) "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." (Heb 10:7) "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals." (Re 5:1) Who is the author of these books?

Yorzhik previously wrote: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?

Jim asked: For example?

Yorzhik writes:Jonah.

A study of the subject of prophecy reveals at least two things: There is prophetic utterance in the form of telling the future, and there is prophetic utterance in the form of command. The former is prophetic decree, the latter is prophetic prescription. Context determines the meaning in every case. Would agree up to this point? If not, I will happily supply the biblical support for these distinctions.

The question the astute Bible reader should ask every time he sees a prophecy uttered in scripture is: Is this a telling of the future, or is this a command from God? The context of Jonah indicates the latter. Jonah was prophesying to the Ninevites: Repent or you will be destroyed. It was not a telling of the future; it was a threat under a probationary period of 40 days. If Jonah's words were not prescriptive and intended to merely inform the Ninevites of their coming destruction, why give them any time at all? The fact of the probationary period (40 days even!) makes emphatic Jonah's warning to Nineveh to repent, or else.

quote:
”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.”

Jim wrote: 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:
You based a statement on a faulty assumption about half way through your quote. The faulty assumption is that since I said God is a great predictor and very smart, that He would have known exactly what Abraham was going to do long before the last moment. However, being a great predictor does not mean "able to predict exhaustively perfect", and very smart does not mean "to know every action exhaustively".

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying, on the Open View, did God ~really~ need to discover for Himself whether or not Abraham would be obedient or not? God knew very well what Abraham would do.

Yorzhik writes:
If that were true then machines (under the conditions of working as intended with data that is not in error) could be considered smart. So how much did God know, even being a very good predictor and very smart? I wouldn't be able to draw the line. I would have to ask God. Lucky for us, God simply told us.

Simply told us what?

Yorzhik writes:
Now, the reason I cannot consider it a figure of speech is because I cannot replace the "now I know" with anything other than "I have always known". And that is outside the rules of understanding figures.

If you saw that the words were intended to convey information to Abraham, not to illustrate the limits of God's knowledge, then you could replace "now I know" with "see, Abraham? You passed the test!"

[snip]

Yorzhik writes:
The definition of an anthropopathism is: "Attribution of human feelings to things not human, such as inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena."

If you're only going to limit the figure to a secular definition, then I'll reject the word and come up with a new one. It is also the attribution of finite human feelings and characteristics to the infinite God.

Yorzhik writes:
I'm curious if you feel that God has no feelings, or why they would be different than human feelings.

He doesn't have human feelings. Human feelings are a finite and altogether inadequate way to fully describe a transcendant and infinite God. They are only small and limited peeks into something we cannot fathom this side of glory.

Yorzhik writes:
It just seems that an "anthropopathism" could never be applied to God in the same way that it can never be applied to a human. Perhaps you can explain that, or at least make it more clear.

Anthropopathism cannot be applied to man, because it would be attributing human feelings or characteristics to humans, and the figure is lost.

[snip]

Jim wrote: 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:
When you get to your point at the end of this quote, "The anthropopathism used by God denoted these facts by a rich figure." You lose all connection with Romans 4, which was support worth considering for what you where saying about the event. There is nothing in Romans 4 which makes a comment about your claim that "now I know" is an anthropopathism. We'll have to investigate this further.

If you can't see the connection between the principles explained in Ro 4 and informing Abraham that he passed the test in such a manner, then there's little else I can do to convince you.

Consider some examples:
Note in Ps 139, God already has searched and known David (v. 1), ...

O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.

... yet David asks that God search and know him.

Search me, O God, and know my heart: (v 23a)

Why? Because he want God to test him; to prove him ...

try me, and know my thoughts. (v 23b)

In other words, test me that I might be documented among the elect. Restore the joy of my salvation.

Of our three kids, my oldest is particularly smart. I know that. My wife knows that. But sometimes we can be a bit hard on him. Sometimes that results in self-doubt. We love him and we try to reassure him, but sometimes there is nothing better than testing him and showing him. We decide on a test. It's test that know he'll pass, but it's important for him to see it. When he passes the test, I say to him, "Now I know you're really a smart boy!" He passed the test. I knew he was a smart boy. I knew he would pass. But my verbal acknowledging of his success and my recognition of what his success implies (i.e. that he's smart) richly conveys the sentiment. The figure of speech acknowledges his intelligence in an assuring and loving manner.

Here is what Figures of Speech Used in the Bible says:

"God, of course, knew it already; but, in wondrous condescension, He stoops to make Abraham understand."

[snip]

Yorzhik writes:
I'd disagree, but that's just my claim against this one.

I would say it's your claim against reason. But that is because of my view of God in opposition to yours. Your Open View paradigm depends heavily on humanistic interpretations of this and other figurative passages (such as Jonah) that are contextually debunkable from the determinist's view. All I'm saying here is that your presuppositions override. So do mine.

[snip]

Yorzhik writes:
Here is a figure in the bible:
Num 11:23 And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.

So, the question is, does God have hands that can shorten, and how does that affect Israel? It is because God is not talking about His hand, but His ability. So we can replace the words "waxed short" with "ability weakened" and you will get the same meaning. Not as good as God can say it, but it is good enough to demonstrate the figure.

You're missing the point, Yorzhik. God could have said "ability weakened," but He didn't. Figures are always used for emphasis, to get our attention. Not only is God saying that His ability is not weakened, but more importantly (and here is the point of the figure), God is also chiding Moses for his sinful doubting. Remember what Moses said that prompted this response:

21 And Moses said, The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand footmen; and thou hast said, I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month.
22 Shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them? or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them?

God is not just saying, "I'm strong enough and powerful enough to do whatever I want," He is saying, "Moses, have you forgotten who I am? Do you really think my hands are tied, or not long enough to accomplish what I have declared?" It is not meant to teach anything about God, but rather to correct and to humble Moses. See how there is always emphasis associated with the figure?

Yorzhik writes:One more note on figures. One thing we know the figure does not mean, before we try and figure out what it does mean, is that it cannot mean the opposite of what was literally said. Therefore, the figure cannot mean "God's hand has grown longer".

This comment is irrelevant in light of what is stated above. What you should've written was, "the figure cannot mean that God's strength has indeed been weakened." And my response would have been, "Right, but that's not the point. The point is what the figure is emphasizing, and to whom, and for what reason."

[snip]

Jim wrote: 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."

Yorzhik writes:
I cannot improve on them. I wasn't asking you to do such a thing, why do you ask me to? But I can tell you what was meant when God asked where Adam was and when He asked if Adam had done something he wasn't supposed to do. It simply isn't a figure, but another convention of communication.

If it cannot be taken literally, then it is a figure, Yorzhik. And you're right, God is communicating to Adam, not describing His own attributes or character. Why do you recognize this here, but not in Gen 22:12? Surely we can both understand what God was really saying to Adam. He wasn't wondering where Adam was, but He was emphasizing to Adam the fact that he was hiding from God. Emphatic communication is the point. "Where is Abel thy brother?" (Gen 4:9) "What men are these with thee?" (Nu 22:9) "What doest thou here, Elijah?" (1Kg 19:9,13) "The Lord thy God led thee ... to know what was in thine heart." (Deu 8:2). The Lord already knew, of course, for "He knoweth the way of the righteous." (Ps 1:6 31:7,8 2Ti 2:19)

Yorzhik writes:
When God was asking these questions, it was closer to sarcasm. I use the same convention on my little children frequently because I want them to think about what is taking place.

You've proven my point by your own example.

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

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

Yorzhik writes:
I'd trust my dad to save me, or do what he could to save me if I were in dire peril. He saves on one level (or could), ...

I didn't ask if you trusted your dad to have good intentions; I asked if you trusted him to save. Not just in certain circumstances, but in all without exception. Of course you don't. That would be foolish. The Bible tells us not to put our trust in man, even our dads.

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Ps 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Yorzhik writes:
and God on another level, a much higher level.

It isn't a question of degrees, Yorzhik. Either you absolutely trust, or you do not. Absolute trust in God is based on His exhaustive knowledge and infinite power and wisdom. If He didn't have exhaustive knowledge, then you couldn't absolutely trust Him. You might feel safer with God than with a human, but it can't be absolute.

Yorzhik previously wrote: 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?

Jim replied: 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)_________."

Yorzhik writes:
"I trust God to take me to heaven when I die, or at the end of this age, whichever comes first."

Will He take you to heaven if you choose to rebel against Him from this moment forward, until you die?

Yorzhik writes:
And there is no assurance… why? Because God does not know the future exhaustively?

Right. In what do you place your assurance? That God will try the best He can? What if His best isn't good enough? What if He gets totally surprised and has no backup plan?

Yorzhik writes:
I'm sure you've heard of the chess master analogy, correct? For anyone that hasn't heard it, it goes like this:

quote:
God is like a chess master that has solved the game of chess. He doesn't need to know what moves His opponent might make, He might even be surprised by some of the moves the opponent makes, but that can never change the fact that since God has solved the game, His will must be done in the end.

This is a logical impossibility. He cannot know the outcome absolutely without knowing every move. He might have a good guess, He might even have odds in His own favor, but He cannot know absolutely the outcome.

Yorzhik writes:
So, could you be confident that the chess master that has solved the game will win? He doesn't know the future exhaustively.

I wouldn't be. Not unless I was confident that the player knew, without fail, every move the opponent would make.

 

[Clete]

Z Man,

I do not believe that God decrees evil, period. That's what you believe not me, remember! Seems like that's how this whole debate got started in the first place!
I believe that God holds people accountable for the things that they themselves choose to do, that's called justice. He pardons those who respond to Him in faith, that's called mercy.
Even God's punishments are merciful because those punishments serve to help prevent even more evil and conversely, His mercy is also just in that Jesus paid a price sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world and that many times over. Thus God is both just and merciful.
ANY INTERPRETATION OF ANY STORY IN THE BIBLE THAT LEADS TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION IS A WRONG INTERPRETATION!!!
And it is not that our definition of justice is wrong or simply that we decide arbitrarily to believe, in spite of appearances to the contrary, that God is just, but it is our interpretation that must be false.
We have already agreed upon what justice is and even if we hadn't, what is just is just and what is unjust is unjust whether you want to call it that or not. Our agreement is not an issue with regards to the truth of the matter. The plain and simple fact is that if Pharaoh, to take just one of your examples, was incapable of doing other than what he did then for God to punish him for it would be unjust. We can, therefore, KNOW for an absolute undeniable fact that Pharaoh was not forced to rebel against God! Manipulated, yes; FORCED, definitely not!
And as for several of you other examples which I will not address individually we can know that God did not command any wrong doing. Even my 4 year old daughter knows better than that! Do you really want to debate me on it? I should hope not. It would lead you in directions you do not want to go, not the least of which is blasphemy! I seriously recommend that you let this particular sleeping dog lie unless you just like getting bit.

Resting in Him,
Clete