boogerhead
New member
yeah Z Man you musta missed it...
...doesn't that look like a sufficient address of your question??? :chuckle:
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
yeah Z Man you musta missed it...
...doesn't that look like a sufficient address of your question??? :chuckle:
boogerhead
New member
instead of accusing Z Man of "trying to make God look bad" it may be helpful to really think about what is being presented...several scriptures in which God both decrees or ordains an action of His people and holds them accountable...
...Z Man is not trying to make God look bad (that's a rediculous charge considering we are so selfish and define what is "bad" as what doesn't suit us or make us feel comfortable)
...from what i gather, the whole objective of this thread was to determine whether or not it was accurate for a woman to attribute her cancer to God...several scriptures were shown that God DOES afflict (whether as a means of punishment or as a means of discipline)
...and this led to the debate over whether or not it is "just" of God to ordain an action and still hold one accountable...well if He does it (and the scripture presented shows that He does) then it's just because He is just...it's so much easier to just accept that scripture and stop looking at it with the misconception that God is obligated to comfort us...He does love us and shows His mercy but that's secondary to Him making His glory known (or glorifying Himself)...
what Z Man is saying here (correct me if i'm wrong buddy) is that your theology promotes an "unjust" God and therefore is flawed...
...Z Man is not trying to make God look bad (that's a rediculous charge considering we are so selfish and define what is "bad" as what doesn't suit us or make us feel comfortable)
...from what i gather, the whole objective of this thread was to determine whether or not it was accurate for a woman to attribute her cancer to God...several scriptures were shown that God DOES afflict (whether as a means of punishment or as a means of discipline)
...and this led to the debate over whether or not it is "just" of God to ordain an action and still hold one accountable...well if He does it (and the scripture presented shows that He does) then it's just because He is just...it's so much easier to just accept that scripture and stop looking at it with the misconception that God is obligated to comfort us...He does love us and shows His mercy but that's secondary to Him making His glory known (or glorifying Himself)...
what Z Man is saying here (correct me if i'm wrong buddy) is that your theology promotes an "unjust" God and therefore is flawed...
boogerhead
New member
ok that was a little harsh...my bad...not so much that your theology promotes an unjust God but that if you think that a "just" God would not afflict His people and ordain an action and STILL hold one accountable then you're saying that scriptures show God to be unjust b/c in scripture, He does the very things you say to be unjust...but God in His Word would not call Himself unjust...so we see that God does the things you say to be unjust but He is very much so just...
God_Is_Truth
New member
the way you interpret them, yes. not the way i interpret them though.
nothing you have presented there, if read as it's mean to be read, leads us to a contradiction in God's character. if it the calvinist interpretation however that leads us to contradictions in his character.
for example:
the bible says God is love. it also says love is not self seeking. thus, God is not self seeking.
the calvinists believe that God however is self seeking and that he always desires glory for himself.
thus, calvinism leads to a God who is self seeking, and not self seeking at the same time and in the same relationship.
this is called a contradiction in God's character. and with calvinism, it's unavoidable.
Z Man
New member
What do you mean 'the way I interpret them'??? And please, do tell us how in the world YOU interpret them to be??? You, nor any other OV'er has yet to tackle these verses:
- 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)
We have been over this already, GIT. Just the two of us, remember? And to my knowledge, you agreed with me that yes, God seeks to display His glory, because in doing so, He gives us what we desire most. So, for God to be 'self-seeking' is the most loving act any being could ever do!
If you don't remember our little agreement on the issue (and forgive me, but it's late, and I really don't have time to actually search for the post), then may I urge you to read this article. Thanks, and God bless.
:zman:
God_Is_Truth
New member
i actually DID explain them earlier. so did knight if i recall corectly :think:
buuuuuuut, in order to cease your cries of "no one wants to answer my questions"
i'll respond again.Luke 19
41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes.
Luke 10
21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
the first conflict Z Man has presented deals with these 2 verses.
the first thing to note is the context of each. they are NOT in the same chapter. in luke 19 Jesus has just come in on a donkey in the triumphal entry. the people cry out "38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
which the pharasees did not like and demanded that he rebuke his disciples. Jesus then says how that if they don't praise him, even the rocks would cry out. it is immediately after this that we read
"41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes. "
and what comes after it?
43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
sounds just like the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 does't it?
sure does to me. so what does Jesus statement immediately preceding this mean?
in the first part of verse 41 Jesus weeps. that much we agree on
the question is really "why" did he weep? Jesus then says "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes."so Jesus is weeping over something that they do not know. they did not know what would have brought them peace. why didn't they know? "now it is hidden from your eyes".
so what would have brought them peace? what else but the embracing of their king? but that knowledge was hidden from their eyes (the knowledge that embracing their king would bring them peace). Jesus, thus, is weeping because he knows that they don't understand well enough to know that if they embraced their king, Jesus, then they would have peace.
anyway, i don't know why Z Man thinks this verse is a problem. God is more than allowed to hide things from us just like the government hides things from us. and certainly he can weep over their actions even though he knows that it's the best thing to do!
so hopefully Z Man sees how this isn't a problem for the OV just like it isn't for calvinism (although we will see how later ones are).
moving on to number 2.
1 Samuel 2
6 "The LORD brings death and makes alive;
he brings down to the grave [1] and raises up.
Exodus 4
11 The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ?
1 Samuel says NOTHING of God giving sickness to people, only death and life.
Exodus 4 talks about how God is able to give people certain abilities from birth. nobody else gives them the ability, only the Lord.
NEITHER of these establishes that God gives people sickness some of the time, let alone all of the time.
so if God doesn't give people diseases, it makes perfect sense why Jesus has compassion on the people.
the open view allows for Jesus to genuinely have compassion on the people because their diseases were not from God whereas the calvinist view makes no sense at all because Jesus would be feeling compassion on people for something God did to them.
Genesis 12
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
God is speaking to abraham here. he is initiating what is called a "covenant" which is a sort of "contract" or "agreement" between 2 parties. it involves work on both sides of the deal in order to work. so Genesis 12 is stating God's part. what was Abrahams?
Genesis 15:6
Abram believed the LORD , and he credited it to him as righteousness.
and as long as Abraham kept his part, God would keep his. if he was unfaithful though and turned away, God would also repeal his part (temporarily of course). that's how a covenant works.
so the real problem you are seeing comes from your statement "God opposes hatred toward his people" which you have taken to be unconditional. it is in fact, conditional. and with that understanding, there is no problem.
moving on to number 3.
God commands him to let his people go BEFORE he hardens his heart. pharoah says no and hardens his own heart and later, as a punishment, God hardens his.
the reason you see a problem Z Man is because you think that if one has a hardened heart, that it is impossible for them to repent. nowhere is this found in scripture. that is your own assumption.
moving on to number 4.
what was david's sin and why did he think it was a sin? use scripture please.
wasn't murder on God's part.
only a problem if you believe in unconditional election
i remember kinda temporarily agreeing with you because it wasn't something i'd thought out too much. having thought about it more, i have changed my position to this one.
i do not care if God that God is sovereign, the creator or all of the other things you have suggested as reasons for him to be the glory hog of the universe. the bible says that God is love and that love is not self seeking. put them together and you get God not being self seeking. i see it as unavoidable.
God bless
GIT
Z Man
New member
Your response was extremely weak last time, and did not face the contextual issue of God ordaining a person to do something, then holding them accountable.Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
i actually DID explain them earlier. so did knight if i recall corectly :think:
buuuuuuut, in order to cease your cries of "no one wants to answer my questions"
Knight? Hehe.. He started to do it, but I guess he realized that there was no way he could 'mis-interpret' the passages to work to his advantage, and gave up.. :chuckle:
So you do realize that God is weeping over the fact that thier eyes are hidden from things that God hid from them to begin with? Good, let's move on...in the first part of verse 41 Jesus weeps. that much we agree on
so Jesus is weeping over something that they do not know. they did not know what would have brought them peace. why didn't they know? "now it is hidden from your eyes".
so what would have brought them peace? what else but the embracing of their king? but that knowledge was hidden from their eyes (the knowledge that embracing their king would bring them peace). Jesus, thus, is weeping because he knows that they don't understand well enough to know that if they embraced their king, Jesus, then they would have peace.
anyway, i don't know why Z Man thinks this verse is a problem. God is more than allowed to hide things from us just like the government hides things from us. and certainly he can weep over their actions even though he knows that it's the best thing to do!
Where in Exodus 4 does it say that 'God give's people certain abilities from birth'? It never stated that God could only make a man blind or mute from birth; the implication is that God could do that to anyone during anytime in their life.
Also, you have got to be kidding me in stating that "God doesn't give people diseases". Must I post the numerous verses that state otherwise? I've proven to Knight already that the same statement made by him was wrong; I'm sure I don't have to prove it to you either... or do I?
What?
You just totally contridicted yourself, and now I'm confused. Please clarify. You just stated earlier that
"God is more than allowed to hide things from us just like the government hides things from us. and certainly he can weep over their actions even though he knows that it's the best thing to do!"
Indicating that you agree that God hid "things from their eyes", and then wept over it. And now you are saying that that 'view' makes no sense? That it wouldn't make sense to you if Jesus had compassion on those whom He gave the sickness to to begin with???
If you agree that God did in fact weep because Jerusalem's eyes were 'covered', yet it was God who covered them, then why do you have a hard time understanding that God grants people diseases, and yet, has compassion on them? It's the same principle...
Are you stating that you believe '[God] turned [the Egyptians] heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants" (Psalm 105:25) because the Israelites had done 'wrong'? Tell me, what did they do 'wrong'? And, how come the Eyptians are the one being punished for Israel's wrongdoing?
The fact is, you totally missed the whole context of these two passages of Scripture (Gen 12:3, Ps 105:25); God opposes hatred toward His people, yet we find that He ordains the Egyptians to hate His people. Hmmm....
Where does it say that? I don't ever remember Moses coming to Pharaoh first, THEN God hardening his heart. What Bible did you read that from? Mine says exactly this:
Exodus 4:21-23
And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. THEN you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me.
It's obvious that God told Moses, before he had even entered Egypt, that He was going to harden Pharaoh's heart SO THAT HE WOULD NOT LET HIS PEOPLE GO! There was no way Pharaoh could've repented, because that's the very reason God hardened his heart; so he wouldn't let the people go. After God hardened his heart, He THEN asked him to let his people go! And, of course, we all know the story. Pharaoh never lets the Israelites go, and God plagues the Egyptians. God 'turns their heart to hate His people', then plagues them for it. Hmmmm.. according to your view, that makes God unjust...
:think:
Why else would their heart be 'hardened'? God hardened Pharaoh's heart 'so that he will not let the people go.'
David's sin was taking that census when he knew it was wrong.
Don't avoid the context by asking questions. You believe wholeheartedly that if God ordains someone to do something, then hold them accountable for it, that He would be unjust. Well then, explain this:
2 Samuel 24:1, 10, 15, 25
Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
And David's heart condemned him after he had numbered the people. So David said to the Lord, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done; but now, I pray, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have done very foolishly."
So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died.
And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the Lord heeded the prayers for the land, and the plague was withdrawn from Israel.
You missed the point. God opposes murder, yet ordained that His Son be murdered. Explain that one...
On the contrary, it PROVES unconditional election.only a problem if you believe in unconditional election
God_Is_Truth,
Good attempt, but you failed miserably. You're only dancing around the issue. Also, you failed to comment on these two passages of Scripture:
- 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).
I think it's the opposite; Having thought about it a lot when we were debating, you finally saw the point I was making. Now, having not thought about it much at all, you suddenly 'change your mind'...
And I see your comments as un-Biblical. Please read this article, then we'll talk...
God bless.
:zman:
Rolf Ernst
New member
There he goes again--Clete referring to God FORCING Pharoah to harden his heart.
I don't believe that an OVer has the biblical understanding it takes for someone to REALIZE that what man is in himself, as a consequence of Adam's sin, is NOT God's fault. Some will never understand that without God's restraining grace--which God is in no way obliged to extend to ANYONE--man will act in accord with his own nature. God was not pleased to extend that restraining grace and Pharoah, consequently, hardened his heart. That is why the Bible says that both God and Pharoah hardened Pharoah's heart. God hardened Pharoah's heart by merely refusing to extend the common grace to him that would have enabled him to do that which was right. God was NOT obligated to give Pharoah ANY measure of grace, and when Pharoah was given up to his own ways, he hardened his own heart. Those who think God did any wrong in this must believe that Pharoah, in himself, would have done right if God had not MADE him harden his heart.
Everyone who believes that is like Adam in Eden--"The woman you gave to be with me..." In other words, Adam was falsely charging God with the evil that Adam himself had done--they say, "your fault, God!"
That blasphemous tactic was first tried by Adam and Eve, and people are still making such charges against God. If anyone doubts that we are descended from the transgressor who brought mankind under the reign of death, all they have to do is consider the charges that men are still making against Him.
I don't believe that an OVer has the biblical understanding it takes for someone to REALIZE that what man is in himself, as a consequence of Adam's sin, is NOT God's fault. Some will never understand that without God's restraining grace--which God is in no way obliged to extend to ANYONE--man will act in accord with his own nature. God was not pleased to extend that restraining grace and Pharoah, consequently, hardened his heart. That is why the Bible says that both God and Pharoah hardened Pharoah's heart. God hardened Pharoah's heart by merely refusing to extend the common grace to him that would have enabled him to do that which was right. God was NOT obligated to give Pharoah ANY measure of grace, and when Pharoah was given up to his own ways, he hardened his own heart. Those who think God did any wrong in this must believe that Pharoah, in himself, would have done right if God had not MADE him harden his heart.
Everyone who believes that is like Adam in Eden--"The woman you gave to be with me..." In other words, Adam was falsely charging God with the evil that Adam himself had done--they say, "your fault, God!"
That blasphemous tactic was first tried by Adam and Eve, and people are still making such charges against God. If anyone doubts that we are descended from the transgressor who brought mankind under the reign of death, all they have to do is consider the charges that men are still making against Him.
GIT,
While I understand why you posted what you did and I agree with the bulk of what you said, I really wish you hadn't said it. Z Man's response is the reason why. Now Z Man will focus on all these individual passages and our interpretation of them instead of focusing on the issue, which was his plan from the beginning.
I had responded to the point he was making by asking those questions in more than one way and more than sufficiently for us to continue on track on the issue of whether or not God's actions are consistent with a correct understanding of justice. All Z Man has done is muddy the water with this line of questioning. The debate is not about these individual passages. Even if you undeniably and unarguably proved that our interpretation was correct all Z Man would do is post another half dozen passages for us to discuss. None of them matter in regards to this discussion!
All the details in the world make no difference whatsoever. If whatever interpretation you have says that God commands evil or that He punishes someone for something that they could not have kept from doing then that interpretation is wrong. God does not have the authority to be unjust!
God did not make Pharaoh do evil.
He did not command David to do evil.
He has not ever commanded anyone to do evil, period. Going over every detail in the Bible is not necessary; If you read a passage and come away from it thinking that God just did something that would be unjust for me to do to someone else then you have misunderstood the passage and need to read it again. If it is wrong for me to be unjust then it not only is wrong for God to be unjust, it is impossible! Yes that’s right, the omnipotent God who created everything that exist by the power of His spoken word CANNOT do evil!
Z Man,
I'm sorry for having been so ugly yesterday. I was just frustrated. I'll try to keep my emotions in check!
I knew that you would do this though! That is why no one was responding to them directly, it could only serve to derail the issue! Please drop this line of questioning and respond to the conceptual points being made. We are talking about big picture type issues here, getting bogged down in a hundred details that we could spend the next hundred years debating will never get us any closer to a resolution on our main topic. I really don't want for this debate to disintegrate into meaninglessness! Please keep the main thing the main thing!
Resting in Him,
Clete
While I understand why you posted what you did and I agree with the bulk of what you said, I really wish you hadn't said it. Z Man's response is the reason why. Now Z Man will focus on all these individual passages and our interpretation of them instead of focusing on the issue, which was his plan from the beginning.
I had responded to the point he was making by asking those questions in more than one way and more than sufficiently for us to continue on track on the issue of whether or not God's actions are consistent with a correct understanding of justice. All Z Man has done is muddy the water with this line of questioning. The debate is not about these individual passages. Even if you undeniably and unarguably proved that our interpretation was correct all Z Man would do is post another half dozen passages for us to discuss. None of them matter in regards to this discussion!
All the details in the world make no difference whatsoever. If whatever interpretation you have says that God commands evil or that He punishes someone for something that they could not have kept from doing then that interpretation is wrong. God does not have the authority to be unjust!
God did not make Pharaoh do evil.
He did not command David to do evil.
He has not ever commanded anyone to do evil, period. Going over every detail in the Bible is not necessary; If you read a passage and come away from it thinking that God just did something that would be unjust for me to do to someone else then you have misunderstood the passage and need to read it again. If it is wrong for me to be unjust then it not only is wrong for God to be unjust, it is impossible! Yes that’s right, the omnipotent God who created everything that exist by the power of His spoken word CANNOT do evil!
Z Man,
I'm sorry for having been so ugly yesterday. I was just frustrated. I'll try to keep my emotions in check!
I knew that you would do this though! That is why no one was responding to them directly, it could only serve to derail the issue! Please drop this line of questioning and respond to the conceptual points being made. We are talking about big picture type issues here, getting bogged down in a hundred details that we could spend the next hundred years debating will never get us any closer to a resolution on our main topic. I really don't want for this debate to disintegrate into meaninglessness! Please keep the main thing the main thing!
Resting in Him,
Clete
God_Is_Truth
New member
Clete,
you are probably right but at least now he can't say no one has tried to answer them he may not like how i answer them, but that's life.
Z Man,
instead of going point by point over your post, let's try to focus things here. i will ask you a couple of specific questions that i've wanted to ask and perhaps you can ask me a couple of specific questions. it would take way too much time to go over specific verses from the bible as there are many on each side.
Question 1:
Does God ever contradict his chracter?
in other words, will God ever do something that is against his own character? will he ever violate his character?
going on the assumption that your answer is no (as you said before), what happens if you find that your theology leads a God who contradicts his character?
Question 2:
the bible says that God is love and that love is self seeking. why do you then reject the conclusion that God is self seeking?
you are probably right but at least now he can't say no one has tried to answer them
he may not like how i answer them, but that's life.Z Man,
instead of going point by point over your post, let's try to focus things here. i will ask you a couple of specific questions that i've wanted to ask and perhaps you can ask me a couple of specific questions. it would take way too much time to go over specific verses from the bible as there are many on each side.
Question 1:
Does God ever contradict his chracter?
in other words, will God ever do something that is against his own character? will he ever violate his character?
going on the assumption that your answer is no (as you said before), what happens if you find that your theology leads a God who contradicts his character?
Question 2:
the bible says that God is love and that love is self seeking. why do you then reject the conclusion that God is self seeking?
add yasaf
New member
hello mcfly!
hello mcfly!
Rolf you never answered this post - http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=544206#post544206
hello mcfly!
Rolf you never answered this post - http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=544206#post544206
I'm running with much less time than I used to, so this is rather thrown together. I hope I don't disappoint.
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."
Second, because our innate understanding of conscience, that God imparted a will in us.
"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: see, Abraham? You passed the test, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"
There. Now that makes sense. Now just do that with all the figures in the bible where God is saying He does things in a human way and you'll have a theology makes sense.
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."
No, it's not a violation if it is out in the open, because it would be God interacting, not God changing the rules.
It wouldn't be a violation.
And by living longer, aren't you saying that would be more favorable for those men to come to love Him? Isn't your statement and mine making the same point? Why did you say "no", and then restate what I said?
So being a supreme intellect He can violate His own rules? If He steps in sometimes, secretly, He obligates Himself to step in all the time. Any situation can be improved.
But He doesn't predetermine our desires or preferences.
"So to speak" He has removed freewill if He predetermines our wants.
Sure, if God has predetermined everything, then our will is not free of God's. But we don't find this in scripture.
It is an example of free wills that are captive (to themselves) but free from each other. By the many passages that tell us that God has a separate will from our will, I'll go with the bible.
By God Himself, in some cases. Reality, in other cases.
We aren't sure, God doesn't tell us.
We aren't sure if the innocent go straight to hell.
We'll have to ask God, or observe when we got to heaven.
The God of the bible won't secretly manipulate physics for some people because that would obligate Him to change physics for everybody.
Why this limitation? Is there something in the bible where you get this from?
We agree.
Did not deserve? By what measure?
God can calculate. But the influence of those longer living people He could just as easily calculate will do more harm than good to group C. So instead of manipulating behind the scenes, He tells everyone the rules up front and lets the chips fall where they will. If they don't love God, they were warned.
No. The damage done would outweigh the goodness.
Okay. So you think if God is a big super human that He is not much more?
But they don't help us to relate and understand if they are figures. They help us throw up our hands and throw away the bible because it is meaningless.
Because they don't show God as transcendent. They show God to be unable to communicate.
First, because we can do no other. We don't take something that we read that makes sense, and confuse the meaning in our minds for no reason.
Second, because our innate understanding of conscience, that God imparted a will in us.
If you can point out something that makes sense, I'll listen. I've changed my view before.
Right, but not in the context that you are arguing.
What is clear from the story is that God's decree and subsequent change from that decree depended on the will of the King of Nineveh. He does exactly what He said He could do in Jer 18.
That's not what the text says.
"Now I know"
Thank you. You are the first person to actually answer the question. So we can replace the figure with what you wrote:
"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: see, Abraham? You passed the test, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"
There. Now that makes sense. Now just do that with all the figures in the bible where God is saying He does things in a human way and you'll have a theology makes sense.
The only way we can find out if God can have the same feelings we have attributed to Him is if He tells us.
Right, the figure is lost. But we have no reason to not attribute the same feelings that humans have to God because He does not deviate from a consistent presentation of Himself in any other way. Perhaps you should consider that we exhibit feelings in the same way that God does, but in a lesser way because we are finite.
Because each figure is taken in context. The context of the discourse with Adam is of one type, and the context of the discourse with Abraham another.
I've proven your point because God can use figures, speak literally, ask rhetorical questions, and use sarcasm?
He will let me reject Him and leave heaven when I get there. At least that is what "until" seems to mean.
Because God has solved the game of life, as it were.
What do you think "solved the game of chess" means?
Jim, that was a rhetorical question. You can say, "I wouldn't be", but that is unreasonable if you understood what was written.
Z Man
New member
My plan from the beginning was to get you guys to see that according to Scripture, your statement that "God would be unjust for ordaining people to do things, then hold them accountable" is wrong.
This thread started with Knight claiming that a women was 'stupid' for declaring God gave her cancer. I proved him wrong in that indeed, God does grant people 'diseases'. Job gave God credit for his boils, and did not sin with his lips. And so, the woman too has credited God for her cancer, and she has not sinned with her lips either.
The Scriptures do matter in this arguement!!!
You can only argue about opinions for so long without the basis of Scripture to support either view. Both of us look to Scriptures for truth; that's where we should both base our 'opinions' and belief and doctrine upon. You can tell me all day and try to prove to me how it is 'illogical' to believe in a God who predestines and holds people accountable at the same time, but your opinions do not matter to me if you cannot support them with Scripture. As far as I'm concerned, the Scriptures I have been constantly presenting show us a God who ordains and holds us accountable. Thus, although you have repeatedly stated till you were blue in the face that in doing those things, God would be unjust, since the Scriptures proclaim that God ordains and holds us accountable, God is not unjust for doing so. Yes, He does ordain and hold accountable, and despite what you believe, He is not unjust for it! No matter how 'illogical' you find that to be!
And that's why I really and truly want to know how you deal with those passages of Scripture!!! Who do you think told David to take that census, then punished him for it? How do you interpret it to NOT read that God ordained David to sin, then held him accountable? How?
Who hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go, THEN commanded him to do that very thing? Who Clete? How do you interpret it to NOT read that God commanded Pharaoh to do something that he could not do whatsoever? Who opposes adultry, yet ordained that Absolom should sleep with his fathers wives??? Who did 'such a thing' Clete? Who opposes murder, yet ordained that their own Son be murdered? Who?
Clete,
If these passages of Scripture do not mean what they blatantly tell us (that God ordains, then holds us accountable; and that God decrees 'evil'), then what do they mean Clete? How do you interpret them to NOT say what they say?
Clearly, it can't be done unless you are willing to rip pages out of the Bible, or to just totally ignore them, as you are very eager to do. Why do you find them so hard to confront?
Who hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't let the Israelites go, then commanded him to let the Israelites go?
Who commanded David to take that census, then punished him for it?
You are not allowed to kill. Is God? You are not allowed to command the praises of other people. Is God? You are not to boast in your ways. Is God?
Can God do nothing unless you can do it? Please... :down:
No one is proclaiming that God does evil Clete. Let's get that straight. I've only said it a million times, but you refuse to accept that. You want to continue to believe that I am claiming that God does evil, because it is easier for you to hate my view that way...
That's ok. I didn't really think you were all that 'ugly' yesterday. Anyways, thanks for the apology.
I'm not trying to derail the issue! I thought I couldn't have been more on the issue! Are we not debating whether or not God would be unjust for ordaining people to do things, then hold them accountable for it? Then those Scriptures I represent could not be any more clearer:
GOD CANNOT BE UNJUST FOR ORDAINING PEOPLE TO DO THINGS, THEN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE! HE DOES IT ALL THE TIME!
I am so confused. Talk about 'muddying the water', or 'clouding the issue'! I'm not bringing in ' a hundred details' into this debate; I'm simply proving that your wrong and I'm right, through the evidence of SCRIPTURE!!! Do you not believe that the Scripture is the final authority? Do you not base your doctrine upon it? If so, you must see and now believe that indeed, God cannot be unjust for ordaining people to do certain things, then hold them accountable for it. The Scriptures tell us that He does those very things!
I do not want this debate to dissolve either. But frankly, I don't think it's a matter of me trying to derail the issue and get off topic that is the problem; I think it's your lack of support for the claim that 'God is unjust for predestining and holding us accountable'. You've simply ran out of 'fuel'.
God bless.
:zman:
LOL... the only thing I gave up on was... trying to dialogue with you!
Z Man
New member
You didn't 'answer' them; and I wasn't necessarily looking for an 'answer'. I just wanted to see how you guys interpreted them to NOT say what they clearly say.Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
Clete,
you are probably right but at least now he can't say no one has tried to answer them
Obviously, you failed GIT, in showing us how God is still unjust for ordaining people to do stuff, then hold them accountable for it. Unless you can manage to interpret those passages of Scripture to NOT say what they say, you will always be wrong, because Scripture can never be wrong.
No.
No.
No.
It would be wrong.
Ummm.. I think you worded that question backwards. I'm the one who believes God is 'self-seeking', remember?
God bless.
:zman:
Its true Z Man... you really are terrible at dialogue. You're pretty much like Freak or smaller... in that you pay little or no attention to those you are debating. Instead you plow through the thread ignoring responses and questions and act as if it is we aren't addressing your concerns.Originally posted by Z Man
:chuckle:
Uh huh.. surrrrrrre you did....
Debating you is a waste of time because it's like debating someone who can't hear you.
At least guys like Hilston and even Rolf have the courtesy to acknowledge those that are debating them.
The only thing I determine is that you aren't interested in actual debate. Maybe you are afraid that you are wrong or maybe you are afraid you will lost your investment in the debate... I don't know and I really don't care.
Z Man
New member
I admit, I am picky in 'hearing' the answers or responses to my post. Usually, if it is nothing more than someones 'opinion' on the matter, with no Scriptural support, I don't give a hoot.
'Sola Scriptura' I always say...
I think you are going to far in saying that I don't even 'acknowledge' who I am debating with. Granted, I may be picky in what I hear (selective hearing), but I do have a sincere heart in listening and trying to reason and 'see' the other's persons views. A lot of times though, if it's not Scriptural, like I've said before, I stop 'listening'. There comes a time when it gets really repetitive, and its like the other person continues to repeat to me thier 'views', as if I did not understand them or read them before. And at the same time, I'm screaming back to them Scriptural support to show them their error, or whatever. And until the other person confronts those passages of Scripture and gives some kind of effort in explaining how they reconcile those passages with their view, I don't listen. I'm not interested in a person's view being 'logical' or not; I'm more interested in what the Scriptures say regarding the issue.
I'm not interested in 'debate' for debate's sake; I'm more interested in getting people to see the TRUTH of Scripture. I wanna share Scripture with people and to see them have thier minds blown away by it. Too many people believe in what they've been taught, and not in what the Scriptures teach...
God bless.
:zman:
LOL... that's funny coming from someone who preaches that everything we do was predestined ages ago. :chuckle: