ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Nathon Detroit]

Clete....

POTD :first:

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
You simply do not understand the concept of infinity Jim. You obviously think that you do, but you definitely do not.

Clete, sometimes I'm just struck by the boldness of your assertions. How could you possibly make that assessment on the basis of what I've said thus far? The annoying thing is your statement got me all excited, thinking that maybe I was finally dealing with an Open Theist who understood the conceptions and distinctions of infinity theory, only to see you make statements about only the abstract concept of infinity that has nothing to do with the infinite properties of God. The funniest part is how your cronies, who obviously know less about the concepts than you do, start drooling and swooning over a response that doesn't even come close to adequately addressing the subject.

Clete writes:
If you have an infinite set of numbers, must it include the number 21? No! Absolutely not! Don't believe me?

I believe you. Not to be unkind, but these examples made me laugh out loud, Clete. It's like someone saying, "You simply do not understand the concept of engine repair. You obviously think that you do, but you definitely do not." And then they proceed to give a lesson how to put air in the tires.

Clete writes:
There are 5 different sets of numbers that I just came up with off the top of my head that are all both limited in that they do not include every possible number and yet are all infinite in extent. (There is actually more than 5 sets. In fact, there are an infinite number of sets which do not include the number 21.)

You should've relied on more than what you could come up with off the top of your head. Your implied claim that you, in fact, understand the "concept of infinity," inferred from your bold assertion that I don't, is horribly undermined by the example that follows your assertion. You might be able to have a fun conversation with Leopold Kronecker or Georg Cantor about set theory, but that won't get you anywhere regarding the infinitude of God. If you were to bring up the infinitude of God in such a conversation, Kronecker and Cantor would've looked at each other and asked, "What does that have to do with God?" Five different sets of numbers barely scratch the surface of what is meant by the infinite properties, nature and character of God. There are two main categories of infinity, actual and potential, and I add a third, which describe the properties of God Himself. Some reject actual infinity and consider it an invalid concept. But I'm not talking abstract numbers (as regarding potential infinity, the use of which is limited to mathematical theory and computations). Nor am I talking about about quantifiable data sets and set theory (as in the concept of actual infinitude, which is somewhat of a misnomer because it doesn't actually exist). Nor am I talking about transfinite numbers, another form of actual infinite, that are mathematically abstract constructs that have no correlation to quantifiable matter, just as your abstract exercises have nothing to do with the infinitude of God.

Clete writes:
In fact, you know that a set of anything (numbers, grains of sand, time, space, size, power etc) is infinite if you can remove some of its elements without reducing its number or size or volume or whatever. That's how you know.

What happens if you add one grain of sand to an infinite number of sand grains, Clete?

Clete writes:
The very definition of infinity belies the stance you've taken on this issue. By its very nature, something does not have to include everything in order to be infinite, that's how we know that it is infinite.

Um ... what? Infinite is defined as having no limitations and not being subject to any boundary conditions; no limits, no boundaries. You say God is infinite. Yet you also say that God has limits. That is a contradiction. If you need a sylllogism to see it, here you go. You, based on your own statements, should embrace one of the following:

Premise A: To be infinite is to not have boundaries or limits
Premise B: God has limits
Conclusion: God is not infinite

Or ...

Premise A: To be infinite is to not have boundaries or limits
Premise B: God is infinite
Conclusion: God has no limits or boundaries.

In both syllogisms, you agree with both premises, right? But the fact that you disagree with both conclusions demonstrates this: You believe a contradiction.

Clete writes:
Now, can you as clearly and without logical incoherence explain how compatibilism isn't contradictory as I have with the ideas of infinity and limitation?

I have many times. Open Theists are unable to grasp it. It's like a short circuit happens in their brain. The light starts to shine through and then they realize where it's going and they slam the door shut. You haven't shown the contradiction, Clete. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Demonstrate the contradiction. You're a fan of syllogisms. Show me the syllogism.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Clete, sometimes I'm just struck by the boldness of your assertions. How could you possibly make that assessment on the basis of what I've said thus far?

I based my comment on the equally bold assertion that infinity and limitation is a contradiction, which I have now proven not to be the case.

I believe you. Not to be unkind, but these examples made me laugh out loud, Clete. It's like someone saying, "You simply do not understand the concept of engine repair. You obviously think that you do, but you definitely do not." And then they proceed to give a lesson how to put air in the tires.

The number sets only served as an obvious example that was both easy to understand and easy to put into words. ANYTHING that is infinite will display the same property that I was discussing, that property being the one where if you removed any portion of something that is infinite, what remains is still infinite. That's how you know that it's infinite, because it has this property. The point being that it is not necessary to presume that because something is infinite, that it is without any exclusion. You just cannot make that assumption based simply on the fact that something is infinite. All-inclusive and infinite are not synonyms.

You should've relied on more than what you could come up with off the top of your head. Your implied claim that you, in fact, understand the "concept of infinity," inferred from your bold assertion that I don't, is horribly undermined by the example that follows your assertion. You might be able to have a fun conversation with Leopold Kronecker or Georg Cantor about set theory, but that won't get you anywhere regarding the infinitude of God. If you were to bring up the infinitude of God in such a conversation, Kronecker and Cantor would've looked at each other and asked, "What does that have to do with God?" Five different sets of numbers barely scratch the surface of what is meant by the infinite properties, nature and character of God. There are two main categories of infinity, actual and potential, and I add a third, which describe the properties of God Himself. Some reject actual infinity and consider it an invalid concept. But I'm not talking abstract numbers (as regarding potential infinity, the use of which is limited to mathematical theory and computations). Nor am I talking about about quantifiable data sets and set theory (as in the concept of actual infinitude, which is somewhat of a misnomer because it doesn't actually exist). Nor am I talking about transfinite numbers, another form of actual infinite, that are mathematically abstract constructs that have no correlation to quantifiable matter, just as your abstract exercises have nothing to do with the infinitude of God.

I'm not really interested in how well read you are on the subject Jim. The simple fact is that regardless of how familiar you are with the subject you do not understand it. You can't and make the claims that you've made in the last few posts. You might like the definition of infinity that you've presented because it serves your theological ideas but that simply isn't the definition of infinity, it just isn't.

What happens if you add one grain of sand to an infinite number of sand grains, Clete?

Infinity is not a real number or quantity. You question is almost an incoherent one. It's similar to asking what happens when you divide any real number by infinity? Well you can't really do that because infinity is not a number like 1 or 2 or 3 are (actually you can, there are some new areas of mathematics known as "surreal numbers" which is making such computations possible but since neither of us a mathematicians, we'll leave that alone for now). The point wasn't about how math works in the first place but about what it means to be infinite so your question is irrelevant to begin with.

Um ... what? Infinite is defined as having no limitations and not being subject to any boundary conditions; no limits, no boundaries.

That's your definition not mine. This might serve well for some theological definition but I see no reason to retool the English language in order to maintain a theological position. The regular definition will do just fine for me, thanks.
It is interesting that you always seem to have somewhat less than standard definitions of words that have gigantic theological implications. I think this is perhaps the source of a lot of our inability to communicate effectively.

You say God is infinite. Yet you also say that God has limits. That is a contradiction.

By your definition of infinite only.

If you need a syllogism to see it, here you go. You, based on your own statements, should embrace one of the following:

Premise A: To be infinite is to not have boundaries or limits
Premise B: God has limits
Conclusion: God is not infinite

Or ...

Premise A: To be infinite is to not have boundaries or limits
Premise B: God is infinite
Conclusion: God has no limits or boundaries.

In both syllogisms, you agree with both premises, right? But the fact that you disagree with both conclusions demonstrates this: You believe a contradiction.

I do not agree with Premise A is either syllogism.

Here's a better syllogism...
Premise A: If some aspect of a thing is removed from something and that removal does not effect its extent relative to the aspect removed, that something is infinite in that respect.
Premise B: If God removes Himself from a particular location it does not effect the extent of His presence at all.
Conclusion: The extent of God's presence is infinite.

The same syllogism can be applied to God's power, grace, atonement, existence(age), etc.

I have many times. Open Theists are unable to grasp it. It's like a short circuit happens in their brain. The light starts to shine through and then they realize where it's going and they slam the door shut.

This is flatly not true. If we (plural) do not understand you (singular) the correct assumption to make is that you are not communicating your message clearly. If your approach is failing scrap it and try another approach. Projecting your failure to communicate onto your audience is the only way I know of to guarantee permanent failure to communicate.

You haven't shown the contradiction, Clete. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Demonstrate the contradiction. You're a fan of syllogisms. Show me the syllogism.

Premise A: Freedom requires that one be able to do OR to do otherwise.

Premise B: If God has predetermined our actions then we are not able to do otherwise.

Premise C: For God to hold us responsible for actions that were not freely committed would be unjust.

Premise D: God is not unjust.

Premise E: God does hold us responsible for our actions.

Conclusion A: We choose our actions freely.

Conclusion B: We are able to choose to do or to do otherwise.

Conclusion C: God has not predetermined our actions.



That was my syllogism, now here's how I see the way yours works...

Premise A: God predetermines everything.

Premise B: We are not free to do other that what God has predetermined.

Premise C: God holds us responsible for those actions anyway.

Conclusion A: God is just because the Bible say He is, His actions not withstanding.

Based on this conclusion, all three premises are irrelevant. The conclusion bares no relationship to the premises at all! So perhaps contradiction isn't the right word, maybe non-sequitor would be better. One way or the other, your position makes no sense to me at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. For the record, I don't actually think that this last syllogism is actually representative of the way Jim thinks. That is sort of the whole point. The syllogism is complete nonsense and I'm convinced that I've missed something somewhere because no one could actually think in such convoluted ways and be able to feed themselves with a fork. The intent was to communicate the total disconnect in communication between myself of Jim on this issue, not to suggest that Jim is retarded! :freak:

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Hilston
That is correct. And now you will tell me that that makes us robots. And I will then tell you that you misunderstand and do not grasp the concept of compatibilism.

Perhaps we should go back farther than that and you can tell us the mechanics of "decreeing". It isn't controlling, but everything that is decreed is foreknown. Also, God couldn't have decreed everything, He did start with causing things, at least in the beginning, right?

Originally posted by Hilston
I can agree with the statement you've made, but I'm not convinced that you know what you're talking about. Do you know the difference between "decree" and "cause"? It isn't a matter of "what view is more in line with God's view," because what you perceive as God's view is filtered through Open Theist lenses. You see every verse as a Open Theist proof text, just as I see every verse as theodeterministic proof text.

A decree sounds more like a plan, while a cause would be what is happening when a plan is carried out.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Regardless of what God would do to a man being upset with Him, and regardless of a man's inability to do anything to or about God, doesn't the man have the right to be upset at God if God has a man do something that is contrary to the understanding of good that God revealed in man?

Originally posted by Hilston
No. Man should be thankful for being given a single breath to breathe.

I would guess this can be taken back even farther and one could say that we should be thankful for a single set of DNA.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
and men have the right to be angry at God when they are punished for "God's control".

Originally posted by Hilston
What I mean is: Open Theists sit in judgment of God. If they couldn't find a way to clear God of the embarrassing things it says about Him in scripture, they would judge Him as unworthy, unrighteous and unjust. But since Open Theists have a convenient number of figurative passages to use for the purpose of clearing God of these embarrassing things, they can reinvent God into something more palatable and more tolerable to insolent and self-righteousness and self-declaring autonomous people. The fact is, men have no right to be angry at God, EV. VER. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever. EV.VER.

So you are saying that if God were to control a man (not decree, but overt control) to do something wrong, and then punish the man for doing it, that man would still not have the right to be angry at God. Is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Then if we cannot say that God is responsible; can't we say that a person that is being controlled is divested of responsibility for the things they are controlled to do?

Originally posted by Hilston
No, because they are responsible, that is, they must answer for their choices and actions, which are all in accordance with God's decrees.

They are responsible because they are responsible. I see, the italics makes all the difference. That doesn't explain why a person cannot divest themselves of responsibility if they have been decreed to do something they know is wrong.

Originally posted by Yorzhik
But man would also have the right to be upset (regardless of his ability to do anything about his anger) at being held responsible for something that he was decreed to do that was wrong when God told him it was wrong and not to do it, and even put in his heart that he would naturally understand it was wrong, and (according to the words "arbitrarily hold men responsible") would still be unable to divest himself of the responsibility for doing that wrong.

Originally posted by Hilston
Not true. We determinists understand the evil that is in our sin natures. We understand that God decreed those evil sin natures, and our sinful desires and inclinations and proclivities. We also understand that we are responsible for our decisions and actions because, while God did indeed decree these, He also commands us to strive for obedience in spite of our sin natures, and has empowered us through His Holy Spirit to obey. Our own inability to fully comprehend the tension in the facts doesn't preclude us for worshipfully acknowledging and believing them to be true.

So we have a group of humans that are decreed will reject God and go to hell. Can we at least say that these humans have no value to God?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Because God is the biggest on the block, that doesn't allow righteous anger? Can you concede that man has the ability to get angry at God if they perceive that God is treating them unfairly?

Originally posted by Hilston
No. That's what Job did, and he had to put his hand over his mouth and shut up. God taunted Satan, dared Satan to smack Job around, and Job was not allowed to consider that unfair.

I was speaking of abilities, not rights, in this case. Man has the ability to be angry at God, correct?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

A part of Rom 9 which is a chapter chock full of seemingly predestination verses.

Originally posted by Hilston
The point is, no one can resist His will. So Paul is addressing the question, "If no one has resisted his will (i.e. decrees), why does he still find fault?" Paul's answer is the same answer God gave to Job: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Ro 9:20)"

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

That is what getting angry with God amounts to: Condemning God and making oneself righteous. But by what standard? It is self-righteousness, being one's own lawmaker, which is the sin of Adam.

In Jeremiah 18, did the potter intend to make the first vessel? the one that was later marred in his hand?

Originally posted by Yorzhik
So among the games that start with King pawn to King 4, if all possible lines were known in advance, then whatever the reply is, only those lines that start with "King pawn to King 4 …" and "whatever that reply was" need to be considered. And of those [paths] that need to be considered, they will [all without exception] end in white win/black loss or white loss/black win or draw. And so if white wanted to eventually win the game, the next move white would make would come from the pool of moves that came next in the paths that need to be considered that ended in white win/black loss. Is that clear so far?

Originally posted by Hilston
Yes.

So if one has knowledge of the all paths, they can always guide the game to a white win/black loss, without ever knowing what path the next opponent might take next. Victory is assured irregardless of what the opponent might do.

 

[Yorzhik]

:bump:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Yorhzik--you just said that God couldn't decree everything. Question: Did you give Him that stipulation? What is the basis for your knowing that??

 

[godrulz]

Evil is explicity contrary to the revelation of God's character and ways. It would violate explicit Scriptural revelation to say that God decrees all evil in the world. Evil is better explained by free will, the nature of fallen creation, and demonic forces.

 

[1Way]

Rolf, please allow me to respond to your question to Yorzhik.

God says He is honest and true.

God says that not all things happen according to His plans or desires, in fact, He makes it clear that most people go against God by sinning and going to hell even though God desires that all man become saved.

So the fact that God is true, and the fact that God is clear that not all things happen according to the way He wants them to happen, it is true that God does not decree everything... Ah, but that was not your question, it was about if God "could" decree everything or not.

On the basis that God's word is true, God gives us the choice to choose life or death, good or evil, right or wrong, etc. The fact that we have these choices, and the fact that apparently God thinks it's good that we have such freedom, then the converse seems naturally true as well, in that it would not be good if we did not have such freedom. God teaches the existence of realistic conditionality on an almost nonstop basis. For example, "If the unbeliever still wants to leave, let them go, you are not bound under... "If"?!?!?!?!?

If after the second and third admonition... "If"?!?!?!?!?

If he is corrected, you have won a brother... "If"?!?!?!?!?

Contingency teaching times thousands of bible examples... "If" this then do that?!?!?!?!?

"If"?!?!?!?!? If is a contingency word/idea, it operates under the prerequisite that things could happen in at least more than one different way. BUT, If EVERTHING had to happen only according to one way, God's decree that is over EVERTHING, then there is no alternative that might happen differently! Contingency is an idea that is mutually exclusive to "decree everything", i.e. "exhaustive decree", and since the bible is huge on honest truthful contingency, and God is good and true and consistent, God cannot decree everything.

Is it "possible", could God create a world that has no option but to always do exactly as God decrees? Remember, God's decree is over "everything", not just some things. I say that yes, technically speaking, God has that power and capability, but more to the point, let's include God's personality and not just His power. Does God's character and righteousness lend to such a thing as decreeing everything that happens without exception, and the answer is pretty obvious, instead of God being a control freak, God is healthy and can take it when people freely choose to reject Himself. It seems obvious that God values personal freedom in an authentic and realistic way, He thinks is good and righteous that moral agents are free in their own choosing.

To suggest otherwise makes the entire bible's teachings on contingency a complete mockery of inconsistency and contradiction.

Goodrulz, what a great summation of my post in the making, chuckles, very well put.

Yorzhik (my friend), what do you say?

 

[godrulz]

Very good insights, 1way. It is good to see you back in the saddle. In light of the above self-evident truths, are we still not free and experience 'if...then' contingencies after conversion? I ask because I think the above truths you posted would support conditional eternal security rather than OSAS (once saved always saved...P of TULIP; unconditional eternal security)? I do not understand why one could not apostasize from the faith (Hebrews). We are having this discussion elsewhere. Some argue that if one rejects Christ in the end that they were never really saved all those years. I think this is true in some cases, but not all cases (I assume you believe as Enyart that one cannot 'lose' their salvation through free will). We should not sidetrack the discussion, but I would be interested in a brief explanation of how you would reconcile OSAS with your correct observations in the last post (though it is related to Calvinism...OSAS is usually, but not always, identified with that teaching).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Evil is explicity contrary to the revelation of God's character and ways. It would violate explicit Scriptural revelation to say that God decrees all evil in the world.

Really?

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

Really?

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

We've looked at this verse several times on other threads. There is a difference between moral evil (Hitler killing Jews) and God sending natural 'evil'/disaster (archaic use of evil) in righteous judgment. A Hebrew word study and context will not allow this to be a proof text for making the Holy God responsible for moral evil. Natural disasters are not moral evil, but have wrongly been translated as evil. Even secular ethicists recognize this distinction.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz, thanks for the welcome and provocative inquiry.

Keep what is different, "different"
The issue of "at least some contingency" does not mean there can be no absolute certainty. I believe that most things that happen involve contingency, but that the foundation of life is based upon absolute righteousness and justice and goodness, etc. Plus, what God will do that depends simply upon His own character and ways, is as certain as His character and ways are certain. So we always need to differentiate between

• that which is absolute, and that which is contingent,
  that which changes, and that which does not.

As to the particular relationship of salvation, there is more than one group being saved by God, and He has determined specific differences in each group's salvation. Although at the very core of any salvation in God, there is a "common" savior and righteousness and love and grace, and forgiveness etc. But, if you are under this current dispensation where God temporarily stopped His prophetic plans with Israel and instead is working with a new mystery laden non-national preference plan as revealed through our one Apostle to us in this dispensation, then we find that God teaches OSAS.

But, if you look at the rest of the bible, which represents about 85% (my personal estimate) of the bible's teachings, then you have a salvation taught primarily through Israel's leadership, and that salvation is conditional. You may loose your salvation by your own free will, but not because man is Lord over his salvation, but because God is, and He has the right to enter into different covenants and dispensations. God consistently teaches that "if" you are under the law, you are bound to keep it for the rest of your life, and if you sin against that otherwise saving requirement, then you loose that saving relationship. "Persevering to the end" is not a superficial suggestion, it's essential to the law based covenant relationship. Again, that teaching is not for our current group of believers and dispensation, it's for the other group that we are separate from. Two different groups are not one same group. Really, it's the honest truth.

Stop false doctrine, understand all of God's word at least in a comprehensive overview sense before staking claims on controversial details. We who are "in Christ today" are not in two different groups! We are in our own separate group, and we do not have the ability to translate ourselves into being in the other group just because we want to or are confused about the differences involved.

You do agree don't you that God has the right and capability to create more than one dispensation? Right? How about God having more than one gospel unto salvation (different requirements to become saved)? Doesn't God have the right to choose and even change what is required to become and remain saved? Not whether or not God did indeed do that, but doesn't God have such Lordship capability?


In a nutshell
and forgetting manmade tradition (as if that is likely)
If you can nicely separate the teachings for us in the current dispensation of Mystery and Grace, and you examine just the teachings given to Paul to give to us, then you have a solid case for OSAS. But if you consider the rest of the bible apart from our current dispensation, you have a conditional salvation that you can loose once you become a part of God's people (who He will save IF you continue in the faith).

Always remember, and don't ever forget, that Paul is "the one" who understands both groups without apology, but the leaders of the law based group admit that they do not understand some things that God through Paul teaches, or they openly contradict these teachings with their lives and with their God given beliefs. Reference Peter's humble and righteous confession of subordination to some of Paul's teachings, and James contradiction about faith without works verses faith with works. Also that it's ok to eat anything verses it's wrong to teach eating meats sacrificed to idols. These differences are contradictions if you do not understand the context changes for the two different groups of believers.

The question is simple, who do you think God gave the latest and most clear instructions too, Paul or otherwise? God truly fulfilled the scriptures when He gave the teachings for this dispensation to Paul, which is a huge divergence from the rest of God's revealed word and prophetic program with Israel.

Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,

Paul wasn't being self centered by excluding the rest of the apostles, instead, "God" has a purposeful intention of separating the two main groups of believers. God even spelled out the transmission path for how to get this most current fulfilling instruction set having entrusted or commissioned our current dispensation to Paul, and for him to specifically give it to us!

So God fulfilled the scriptures through Paul's ministry and teachings, even though the bible's end times have virtually nothing to do with Paul's teachings what so ever, they have to do with the teachings He gave through Israel that are of course found in the circumcision writings which come before and after Paul's stuff for us.

Stay on God's page, keep the differences,,, "different".

 

[1Way]

The closed view rears it's ugly head again

The closed view rears it's ugly head again

Z Man,
For those who strive to remain consistent with the context involved, "evil" as in good verses evil should never be misconstrued or confused as you just did.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man!

Next we find God bringing terrible punishment against those who dared to do such ungodly things, yet today the average closed theist promotes evil as being something that God not only promotes, He causes it to happen...

It's "conform" to the bible,

not "contradict" the bible.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

We've looked at this verse several times on other threads. There is a difference between moral evil (Hitler killing Jews) and God sending natural 'evil'/disaster (archaic use of evil) in righteous judgment. A Hebrew word study and context will not allow this to be a proof text for making the Holy God responsible for moral evil. Natural disasters are not moral evil, but have wrongly been translated as evil. Even secular ethicists recognize this distinction.

Then what do you do with these texts from the Bible:

- 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 opposes 'bearing false witness', but ordains that some of His prophets lie (2 Kings 22:22-23; 2 Chronicles 18:21-22).

- 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).

 

[Z Man]

Re: The closed view rears it's ugly head again

Re: The closed view rears it's ugly head again

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man,
For those who strive to remain consistent with the context involved, "evil" as in good verses evil should never be misconstrued or confused as you just did.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!
22 Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man!

Next we find God bringing terrible punishment against those who dared to do such ungodly things, yet today the average closed theist promotes evil as being something that God not only promotes, He causes it to happen...

It's "conform" to the bible,


not "contradict" the bible.

No one is calling 'good evil' or 'evil good'.

 

[1Way]

The idea is not just to "label", or "call", it's also "to put" the one for the other.

You argued

God (who is the ultimate GOOD)
does EVIL,

and worse, you argued that in a discussion about moral good and evil!

The unmolested truth denies your view. Such things as truth and logic necessarily apply. Continue neglecting them to your own peril and against my suggestion to stop doing so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• A special note to onlookers
  Z Man represents the closed view as well as what happens when you throw logic and reason out of Christian beliefs. Fortunately there are those who humble themselves enough to willingly remain reasonable and logical and conform their faith to the bible instead of contradicting it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[1Way]

Z Man, none of your passages are as you depicted them. Not a single one. And to again (and now repeatedly) argue that it is God's will that evil should happen or that He brings about moral evil is blasphemy in the purest sense. Stop blaspheming God and His ways, He is not evil, He does not do nor promote evil. Only a willfully ignorant person can suggest such things of God in light of all He has done for us and taught throughout all of scripture.

Thanks again for demonstrating where the false teaching of the closed view naturally leads.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

Then what do you do with these texts from the Bible:

- 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 opposes 'bearing false witness', but ordains that some of His prophets lie (2 Kings 22:22-23; 2 Chronicles 18:21-22).

- 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 looked at most of these before with an alternate interpretation. Good questions with good answers. I am not prepared due to lack of time and energy to revisit them.

e.g. the last sentence assumes that effectual calling/election vs non-elect, irresistible grace, etc. are explicit concepts...this is circular reasoning.

e.g. murder...there is a difference between premeditated murder and the death of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (God's plan of redemption). He came to die. It was not predestined which soldier would pierce His side after death. It could have been any soldier. Jesus had control even in His death.

 

[godrulz]

1way: Thank you for the time and insights of your recent post. It helps me understand Mid-Acts and how that relates to the eternal security question (I did not see that before). Since I reject Mid-Acts at this point, it is not a solution for my understanding. I try to base my understanding on all the verses without trying to figure out which apply to NT believers and which do not.

Can I assume you do not think Paul wrote the book of Hebrews (there is controversy about the authorship of the book)? Hebrews is one book that I think targets Messianic believers in Christ (former followers of Judaism). There is neither Jew, nor Gentile, but we are all one in Christ. I feel at the time of Hebrews, this was the case (post-resurrection; early church). One specific issue was Messianic believers apostasizing back to Judaism (shadow/type) rather than continuing in their new faith (e.g. Heb. 6:4-6). Likewise, the issues in Corinthians (more Greek/Gentile believers) were different. They were not tempted to go to Judaism, but immorality was a threatening issue. Some no doubt went back to their immoral ways never to return to Christianity.

OSAS is usally Calvinistic (TULIP). I now see why Mid-Acts might come to that conclusion (I would not be surprised if there is Pauline teaching that would refute OSAS). C. Gordon Olson disagrees with Calvinism, some of Arminianism, and Open Theism. His book on a mediate theology has interesting insights and exegesis. I agree with many of his non-Calvinistic ideas at this point. Interestingly, he also concludes that OSAS is valid. He would reject Mid-Acts (if he even heard of it). So, I will be interested to see the texts that he uses and if there is an alternate understanding. In addition to the Bible, of course, I am still stuck part way through "The Plot". I promise I will finish it. Robert Shank's "Life in the Son" (which I have not read, but I do reference it) still seems a definitive refutation of the proof texts of OSAS. It is interesting that some verses are claimed by both views, but their interpretation or translation differs. Other texts seem to fall into one side of another (probably similar to Mid-Acts).

I do not think this topic is generally a salvific issue (heaven or hell). Do you concur it is possible to be a Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist, etc. and still know and love Jesus?

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
Your very welcome. As to my being here, consider this post.

http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17806

Para 1
The mid Acts, nor the open view, requires that you believe it before you understand it, however logic requires that you understand it before you refute it, and reason requires that you understand it before you disbelieve it. More specifically, it is intensely NOT about OT verses NT believers, that is a far cry from the mid Acts view. The differentiation between the two different groups of believers are spelled out in the NT, and are demonstrated between the circumcision and the uncircumcision writings.

Para 2
Right, I don't believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, the author of Hebrews explained that his gospel was verified before men, but Paul made it clear that his gospel was given to him and apparently God kept him from the 12 Apostles to have it officially verified, on the contrary, Paul stayed away from 12 while he established his gospel and ministry deliberately without them, then when they finally did meet up, he argued for his ministry as it was established without their verification! That plus the name of the book along with it's overall message in light of the two very different Apostolic commissions makes the issue rather clear that it was not Paul's writing.

Don't forget that the men who came from James, the men who Paul withstood against, and who the leadership in Jerusalem "agreed" to have the famous Jerusalem council because what Paul preached concerning the gospel was the same as what the 12 preached!!! :doh: Just kidding, of course the 12 had a hearing against Paul because the teachings of the circumcision and the uncircumcision were so "different", not "the same".

So I find the Acts and Galatians account to be incredibly relevant to these two different NT groups of believers. And of special note, they did not agree to homogenize their differences the way most Christians do, instead they charged "Paul and his followers" (the uncircumcision) to keep from violating the them (the circumcision) with their unique beliefs!

Para 3
Too much studying manmade writings in order to determine the biblical truth. Yes, some study is fine, God expects man to teach man, YES, but lets move on to a serious understanding of God's word BEFORE we stake out on so many bible details.

Para 4

I do not think this topic is generally a salvific issue (heaven or hell). Do you concur it is possible to be a Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist, etc. and still know and love Jesus?

Of course you can be wrong and get into heaven and have a sincere love for God. But does God love it when men teach and promote false things about Him and His word? Of course not. In other words, to the extent that we are able, we should promote righteous godly truth, and oppose the opposite. Instead of simply agreeing that we can "agree to disagree" about what God is like and how He saves people, lets use our love and grace to work out these contradictions over some open bibles. God has to be very distressed about the overwhelming contradictions that Christians glibly accept instead of seeking and finally finding biblical unity.

It's been a while, but my impression is that you have become a pretty strong open theist, so I think you are uniquely qualified to appreciate what I'm about to say.
Before you were open view, you most likely promoted things like,
"well, God somehow both
knows the entire future,
and we have free will,
somehow they are both true.
And as long as we love God, lets just focus on that.
And how folks who don't like the open view would try to get out of a cogent understanding of it by leaning on the traditional concept that since it's not a salvic issue, lets just walk softly about it and not step on anyone's toes. I'm a little more concerned about the destruction that false doctrine causes even though it may be less obvious than occult activity for example. I want to keep people uncomfortable and keep their feet to the fire who are honestly harming the efforts of God to win a dying world to Christ by promoting so much false doctrine. It's the truth that sets men free, not just loving God in some generic sense.

I hope you see the immaturity and destructive nature of being too accepting of those who actively promote false teachings. With love and grace, we stand up for the truth and oppose false doctrine, and it would be unloving to do otherwise. Not that you are necessarily suggesting otherwise, just taking things to a next level progression. What do you think?