My emphasis is on the Bible properly translated and interpreted, not on supposed traditions. I do not believe the Trinity because the Catholic church teaches it. I believe it because I see the evidence in Scripture. The same goes for spiritual gifts, non-Mid Acts, believer's baptism, conditional eternal security, etc.
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I want to clarify my remarks by saying that I didn't mean to imply that you believe what you believe based simply on emotionalism or tradition, either one. It's perfectly clear to me that you have studied the Bible at quite some length and I'm sure you've done so honesly and with due dilligence. However, it would be most profitable for you to give The Plot (or perhaps any number of other books on the subject) a more unbiased hearing than it seems you have up till now. The Plot presents a rather complete paradigm shift that cannot be accepted (or even understood for that matter) by anyone who is too closely married to their current theological position.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I agree with some, but not all conclusions from "The Plot". I still have not completed it, so I do not have a definitive position. I do not agree with every traditional Pentecostal idea. I like most of Open Theism, but there is variance in ideas among its proponents (I accept some of Pinnock's views, but reject some of his liberal ideas).
My desire is to know biblical truth. No single pre-packaged system usually has it all right (eschatology, etc.).
My desire is to know biblical truth. No single pre-packaged system usually has it all right (eschatology, etc.).
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
So then you need to stop reasoning your beliefs saying things like, Why don't we see a millions go with the mid acts view? And instead, start saying things like, you know, when I consider the great men of the bible, they commonly stood alone and had the godly respect and decency to go God's way no matter which way tradition was going. Or, you know many believe this, but after reviewing God's word, I believe that instead.
I agree with Clete that you have lots of bible study under your belt, but when you constantly point to man for reasoning your faith, the inappropriate dependency is obvious. Remember, was longstanding human tradition, or was it a rigorous and cogent understanding of God's word that trapped you into the false belief of the closed view? :think: , and then :think: some more!
And I hope everyone else here sees that until Godrulz does what should, that is to learn from His word to become a workman HIMSELF prior to resting on man's ideas, then he risks using us like he does the historical church by leaning on our understanding instead of God's. Although he might get lucky from time to time, it is precisely the world of human tradition that in the location of all false Christian doctrine. While conversely, God's word is precisely the location of all true doctrine.
Lets face it, in 3 or 4 posts in a row, and with the most polite and appropriate suggestions that you stop resting on man's views but instead hold them loosely until you have a solid understanding from God's word, instead of you honoring that godly concept, every single time you looked to man to explain why you believe what you believe, EVERY TIME!
I would say, ok, but remember, get a solid understanding of God's word first and foremost, and THEN deal with man's views, and you would not do that every single time.
We are not God, we don't write scripture, you have your bible, stop going elsewhere for what you should believe. You read a critique of the Plot, before you finished the Plot, to see if it is biblical or not. :freak: You quote manmade tradition to support why so far you believe that it is not right. :freak:
:freak:
You should reject all teachings in the Plot IF THEY DO NOT LINE UP WITH MAN MADE TRADITION!!!
Opps, I meant, if they do not line up with scripture!
I agree with Clete that you have lots of bible study under your belt, but when you constantly point to man for reasoning your faith, the inappropriate dependency is obvious. Remember, was longstanding human tradition, or was it a rigorous and cogent understanding of God's word that trapped you into the false belief of the closed view? :think: , and then :think: some more!
And I hope everyone else here sees that until Godrulz does what should, that is to learn from His word to become a workman HIMSELF prior to resting on man's ideas, then he risks using us like he does the historical church by leaning on our understanding instead of God's. Although he might get lucky from time to time, it is precisely the world of human tradition that in the location of all false Christian doctrine. While conversely, God's word is precisely the location of all true doctrine.
Lets face it, in 3 or 4 posts in a row, and with the most polite and appropriate suggestions that you stop resting on man's views but instead hold them loosely until you have a solid understanding from God's word, instead of you honoring that godly concept, every single time you looked to man to explain why you believe what you believe, EVERY TIME!
I would say, ok, but remember, get a solid understanding of God's word first and foremost, and THEN deal with man's views, and you would not do that every single time.
We are not God, we don't write scripture, you have your bible, stop going elsewhere for what you should believe. You read a critique of the Plot, before you finished the Plot, to see if it is biblical or not. :freak: You quote manmade tradition to support why so far you believe that it is not right. :freak:
:freak:
You should reject all teachings in the Plot IF THEY DO NOT LINE UP WITH MAN MADE TRADITION!!!
Opps, I meant, if they do not line up with scripture!
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
So where's the source of truth Godrulz?
A - Human tradition
or
B - God and His word
A or B?
And which do you need to understand first and foremost PRIOR to caring about the other?
A or B?
And if you get those two right, then why oh why do you keep focusing on manmade tradition BEFORE focusing on and sufficiently understanding God's word?
Why?
A - Human tradition
or
B - God and His word
A or B?
And which do you need to understand first and foremost PRIOR to caring about the other?
A or B?
And if you get those two right, then why oh why do you keep focusing on manmade tradition BEFORE focusing on and sufficiently understanding God's word?
Why?
Rolf Ernst
New member
Godrulz--Your post #1367 is excellent. Very well said, friend!!
It never fails that when God justs instruments of wickedness for His just purposes, He afterward punishes them because even though they were used by Him as tools so to accomplish His just and holy cause, they did not do so with a proper motivation and therefore they were later punished. This is repeated, God clearly informing them of the reason He was going to punish them so many times in scripture that no one can dispute you on that point.
It never fails that when God justs instruments of wickedness for His just purposes, He afterward punishes them because even though they were used by Him as tools so to accomplish His just and holy cause, they did not do so with a proper motivation and therefore they were later punished. This is repeated, God clearly informing them of the reason He was going to punish them so many times in scripture that no one can dispute you on that point.
Last edited:
Rolf Ernst
New member
Clete--your post #1378 reflects what you think the text means. THAT IS your interpretation--not mine. That text doesnot fly in the face of
reformed theology. It rebukes open theists and arminians.
reformed theology. It rebukes open theists and arminians.
It does no such thing. I very intentionally did not give my interpretation of the passage. I want to know what yours is.
You haven't said what your interpretation is yet, you've only quoted the verses. I want to know what you think those verses are telling us.
I don't care whose face it flies in, I care about the truth.
Now, are you going to answer my question or not?
What does II Sam. 12:11-12 mean in your own words?
I want to see you do it without accusing God of ordaining adultery.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Z Man
New member
Clete,
I'm not Rolf, and sorry for butting in, but, I think the Scriptures are extremely clear on what is being said here in these verses:
2 Samuel 12:11-12
"'Because of what you have done, I, the LORD, will cause your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man, and he will go to bed with them in public view. You did it secretly, but I will do this to you openly in the sight of all Israel.'"
God said that sometime in the future, He was going to give David's wives to another man. In other words, God ordained adultry.
What else do you call giving someone's wives over to another man?
I rest my case.
Calvinism (reformed theology, whatever you want to call it) openly accuses God of sin (or ordaining it, same thing). What more needs to be said?
And I don't mind your "butting in" at all, at least your honest enough to state plainly what your position is.
Resting in Him,
Clete
B.
B.
Your assumption is that all your views are biblical while every other Bible scholar or student who disagrees with you is man-made tradition.
My understanding comes from the Word of God. Few believers translate and interpret every passage the same. Part of the problem is MSS and a lack of understanding the original languages. Proof texts often fall apart when a passage is exegeted with an understanding of grammar. Few of us here, including yourself, are not free from influences and preconceived ideas that we tend to skew our interpretation to support. Some focus on predestination passages only. Others focus on the verses that show that the future is open and God changes His mind. The truth is that God predestines somethings as settled, while other things are unsettled and open. Calvinists do not see this. Open Theists have found a system to reconcile the passages. Having the insights of others who have wrestled with these issues is not negating the authority of the Bible or believing man made tradition. A superficial reading of one translation and proof texting may lead to wrong conclusions. This is laziness, not commendable superspirituality.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Clete, do you agree with Z Man that God ordained the adultery?
Rolf Ernst
New member
Clete--If you are really interested in my understanding of these verses, I will see how far we can go together in their meaning. there is no point in me going further than you are willing to agree with me. Once there is a block between agreement, it is pointless to continue.
But our further explanations of what we mean to say may clear up what we thought were disagreements between us.
First point that must be cleared: Motivation is important. What wicked men do with evil intent may serve some just cause which God has. This means that there are two perspectives--one from heaven and the other from earth; the perspective of evil men with wicked intent in what takes place, and God's holy and good purpose in the event
Examples: the selling of Joseph into slavery by his brothers. They intended only evil, but God meant it for good.
The crucifixtion of Christ was the ultimate clash of cross purposes. God's purpose was pure and just. From His perspective it was the ultimate display of sacrifice and love on the behalf of others; but from the earthly perspective, the enmity men had against Christ was the greatest display of man's wickedness.
There are numerous examples in the old testament of God using wicked men as instruments in bringing judgement upon His disobedient people. From God's perspective it was just recompense for His people's rebellion, but from the perspective of the evil men whom He used in those judgements, their heart was set only upon rape and pillage; and God later executes judgement upon them because their intent was evil.
Second point that must be cleared: The perspective of one must NEVER be ascribed to the other. The fact that men who are His instruments may have wicked motives CANNOT justly impugn God's just motives in His providences. Though they do evil, that does not mean God shares in their evil anymore than they share in His just and holy purpose in the event.
I will go no further right now. If you cannot agree with me on these two points, I doubt that there is any point in doing anything more except perhaps for discussing WHY we disagree on either or both of these points. See ya, Clete. Think about it and lemme kno whadee tink.
But our further explanations of what we mean to say may clear up what we thought were disagreements between us.
First point that must be cleared: Motivation is important. What wicked men do with evil intent may serve some just cause which God has. This means that there are two perspectives--one from heaven and the other from earth; the perspective of evil men with wicked intent in what takes place, and God's holy and good purpose in the event
Examples: the selling of Joseph into slavery by his brothers. They intended only evil, but God meant it for good.
The crucifixtion of Christ was the ultimate clash of cross purposes. God's purpose was pure and just. From His perspective it was the ultimate display of sacrifice and love on the behalf of others; but from the earthly perspective, the enmity men had against Christ was the greatest display of man's wickedness.
There are numerous examples in the old testament of God using wicked men as instruments in bringing judgement upon His disobedient people. From God's perspective it was just recompense for His people's rebellion, but from the perspective of the evil men whom He used in those judgements, their heart was set only upon rape and pillage; and God later executes judgement upon them because their intent was evil.
Second point that must be cleared: The perspective of one must NEVER be ascribed to the other. The fact that men who are His instruments may have wicked motives CANNOT justly impugn God's just motives in His providences. Though they do evil, that does not mean God shares in their evil anymore than they share in His just and holy purpose in the event.
I will go no further right now. If you cannot agree with me on these two points, I doubt that there is any point in doing anything more except perhaps for discussing WHY we disagree on either or both of these points. See ya, Clete. Think about it and lemme kno whadee tink.
An act, thought, motive, word is either inherently evil or righteous. Motives cannot be mixed. A choice is either praiseworthy/virtuous or blameworthy/vice. If something is evil for man, it is not seen as good by God. His holy law and standards apply to Himself and man. He sees reality as it is. Either the act is pure or putrid. The fact that God can work redemptively despite evil and even use inherent evil for a higher purpose does not make an evil act pure in God's sight.
Rolf Ernst
New member
PERSPECTIVE. PERSPECTIVE.
Rolf Ernst
New member
IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF HEAVEN, OR OF THE EARTH?? Do we view things as God does, with regard to God and His ways?? Or do we view events as men of earth, with regard to men and their ways??
Do we view the crucifixtion from God's perspective--Christ the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, or do we view it from the view of men who with wicked hands slew Him?
Do we see in it the greatest possible expression of God's love for fallen men? or do we see it as those who watched it unfold without any understanding of God's purpose in it?
PERSPECTIVE. PERSPECTIVE.
Do we view the crucifixtion from God's perspective--Christ the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, or do we view it from the view of men who with wicked hands slew Him?
Do we see in it the greatest possible expression of God's love for fallen men? or do we see it as those who watched it unfold without any understanding of God's purpose in it?
PERSPECTIVE. PERSPECTIVE.
Last edited: