God_Is_Truth
New member
that is absolutely not true.
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
that is absolutely not true.
Z Man
New member
It's amazing to me to see how stubborn you become towards Scripture just to prove your theology right. Where do you get the notion that 'before you were born' means 'during the 9 months in your mother's womb?
Besides, it doesn't matter, because your assumption, or idea, that the phrase 'before you born' is referencing to the time after conception but before birth is a grave error. The same verse tells us:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.
Sorry, try again.
In that one statement, you've already contridicted your theology.
First, for God to ordain that Jeremiah be a prophet means that obviously, Jeremiah has no say so about the issue. *Gasp*! No freewill? How dare God!
Second, to assume that Jeremiah is going to be born in the first place is to either
- a) Precisly know the future (which, if it didn't exist, would be impossible)
b) Has taken away the freewill of the mother. Since God has stated that Jeremiah will be a prophet, the mother will not abort the baby, or kill it, or what have you. She has no say so in giving birth to her own son. *Gasp*! No freewill? How dare God!
Either way, you've dug yourself in a deep hole...
This is not so, Z Man. Did Adam know something about God? How about Cain or Abel, did either of them know anything about God? Did Noah know God? How about Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? Need I go on?
So Noah and Job worshiped false idols? Is that what you are saying?
By God's Word, I meant the Bible, not Jesus. Of course you knew that when you wrote this idiotic statement, didn't you. Or are you suggestin that we should worship the Bible?
Why are you being so obtuse? There isn't even anything controversial about what I am saying here. Even famous Calvinists like R.C. Sproul teach this same stuff. Stop disagreeing with things just because I'm the one who happens to be saying it and think things through before responding.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Z Man,Originally posted by Z Man
So why bother reading Scriptures? According to you, we're all born with the natural knowledge of the true, living God. Toss the Bibles out! We don't need it!
You are about two inches away from making my ignore list. If you don't stop being ridiculous, and start offering something that demonstrates some mental effort on your part then you aren't worth the time it takes to participate with you.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
But that's not absolute sovereignty!
No, he is not, if God has delegated authority to others, which they can misuse, and do evil that God does not control or intend. I think you are trying to have it both ways here! You can say potential absolute sovereign, or eventual absolute sovereign, but not absolute sovereign, right now, according to the Open View.
Sure it can!
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
Not because we chose to! Now the more of God's love we receive, the more we can love him and others, and the more real freedom we can then have. So receiving love, being loved, comes before freedom, I would say, and makes a way for us to love God back, and this allows more and more freedom, and then love becomes freely given, too.
But it's not free at first, I believe!
Yes, but "love never fails" (1 Cor. 13). But how can this be, if people can resist God's love?
Song of Solomon 8:6-7 Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away.
And that's talking about human love!
That's true, if God is only guessing, then all the challenges to the idols fall down. A lot hinges on our view of God's foreknowledge! For if God knows the future, then he's not taking risks like we do.
Genesis 2:19 He brought them to the man to see what he would name them...
Let's read on, then!
Genesis 2:20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found...
So was God looking for a helper for Adam among the animals? Did he not know that he needed to create Eve, before he did this?
So I think this shows us that here God is speaking from man's perspective, not his own, and similarly with other verses like this one.
Genesis 6:6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
In verses such as these, the question to ask is: "What does this imply, that God didn't think would happen?" Now here, we have to say God did not think man would rebel so much. Well, that might be possible. But in other instances, we get some astonishing implications:
Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites, why did he send Jonah, and spoil his plan? Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? Jonah thought the Ninevites would likely repent, and God, apparently, did not.
Why didn't God think Moses would pray yet one more time for forgiveness for the rebellious Israelites, when he had done so, on each previous occasion?
And similarly, in other instances...
Well, it's the Open View's turn to explain some verses!
PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
PS 139:16 All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
I think there are quite reasonable explanations for the "apparently open future" verses, and no reasonable explanations, for the "predestination" ones:
ISA 46:9-10 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
Now if God doesn't know the future, and if it can get out of his control and cross his purposes, how can he do "all his good pleasure"? Doesn't the Open View hold that God can experience frustration? And yet this verse says clearly, that he cannot.
EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...
Everything includes, well, everything!
Blessings,
Lee
But that's not absolute sovereignty!
No, he is not, if God has delegated authority to others, which they can misuse, and do evil that God does not control or intend. I think you are trying to have it both ways here! You can say potential absolute sovereign, or eventual absolute sovereign, but not absolute sovereign, right now, according to the Open View.
Sure it can!
1 John 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
Not because we chose to! Now the more of God's love we receive, the more we can love him and others, and the more real freedom we can then have. So receiving love, being loved, comes before freedom, I would say, and makes a way for us to love God back, and this allows more and more freedom, and then love becomes freely given, too.
But it's not free at first, I believe!
Yes, but "love never fails" (1 Cor. 13). But how can this be, if people can resist God's love?
Song of Solomon 8:6-7 Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away.
And that's talking about human love!
That's true, if God is only guessing, then all the challenges to the idols fall down. A lot hinges on our view of God's foreknowledge! For if God knows the future, then he's not taking risks like we do.
Genesis 2:19 He brought them to the man to see what he would name them...
Let's read on, then!
Genesis 2:20 But for Adam no suitable helper was found...
So was God looking for a helper for Adam among the animals? Did he not know that he needed to create Eve, before he did this?
So I think this shows us that here God is speaking from man's perspective, not his own, and similarly with other verses like this one.
Genesis 6:6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
In verses such as these, the question to ask is: "What does this imply, that God didn't think would happen?" Now here, we have to say God did not think man would rebel so much. Well, that might be possible. But in other instances, we get some astonishing implications:
Why didn't God just destroy the Ninevites, why did he send Jonah, and spoil his plan? Why did Jonah seem to have a better grasp of the situation than God did? Jonah thought the Ninevites would likely repent, and God, apparently, did not.
Why didn't God think Moses would pray yet one more time for forgiveness for the rebellious Israelites, when he had done so, on each previous occasion?
And similarly, in other instances...
Well, it's the Open View's turn to explain some verses!
PS 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.
PS 139:16 All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
I think there are quite reasonable explanations for the "apparently open future" verses, and no reasonable explanations, for the "predestination" ones:
ISA 46:9-10 Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
Now if God doesn't know the future, and if it can get out of his control and cross his purposes, how can he do "all his good pleasure"? Doesn't the Open View hold that God can experience frustration? And yet this verse says clearly, that he cannot.
EPH 1:11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will...
Everything includes, well, everything!
Blessings,
Lee
You are affirming the same proof texts I do to show that some of the future is determined and settled. You then extrapolate this to mean that ALL of the future MUST be settled. This is not possible, since other sets of verses show that God changes His mind or does not settle all of the future. The Revelation judgments will happen. The exact details of where every molecule in the universe is in the future does not have to be settled for God to bring the general future to pass. Exhaustive foreknowledge is only possible with meticulous control of every moral and mundane choice in the future. This is problematic and unnecessary and makes God responsible for heinour evil and negates genuine freedom and responsibility. God is omnicompetent, not all-controlling.
Extreme Calvinism (TULIP; double predestination) limits the love of God, one of His essential attributes. "God is love", not "God is sovereign". Open Theism does not limit the omniscience nor the sovereignty of God. It simply affirms the biblical understanding of these concepts (knows all that is knowable; providential vs meticulous control).
God_Is_Truth
New member
'before i formed you in the womb' is what it says. not before you existed in the womb. surely there could be a period in the womb where God has yet to begin forming him?
it means that Jeremiah was God's chosen instrument to the people, just like the apostle Paul. did Paul suddenly lose his free will when Jesus appeared to him on the road? of course not, neither do i see any reason why Jeremiah would lose his free will because God had chosen him to be a prophet.
well first off i already stated that i don't believe it was before he existed, but while he was in the womb. secondly, even if it was before he existed, all that would require is partial settled knowledge of the future, not precise and complete knowledge of it.
where does it say the mother couldn't do those things? the passage says he ordained Jeremiah as a prophet, not that it was undeniably going to come.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Originally posted by Z Man
So why bother reading Scriptures? According to you, we're all born with the natural knowledge of the true, living God. Toss the Bibles out! We don't need it!
i believe in dual revelation, both through creation and the scriptures. why would i want to throw out half the revelation? all i'm saying is that you don't need the entire revelation to be saved.
Yes it is. God is the absolute highest authority that exists, period. By your convoluted definition of absolute sovereignty love is impossible.
Further, your definition of sovereignty cannot be established Biblically; it is logically derived from the Aristotelian idea of the immutability of God which is a faulty premise to begin with.
Augustine on The Absolute Foreknowledge of God
Yes He is and it makes no difference what you call it. The Bible makes it clear that people do evil all the time that God does not control. The very idea that He does control evil is blasphemous, anyway. How could you hold to such a position?
Only if I hold to your convoluted definition of absolute sovereignty, which I do not. The king of a nation is sovereign over his nation but he is not the absolute sovereign power because he does not have authority over another king for example or over God. But God is the King of kings. There is no higher authority that either does or even could exist. He is, therefore, by definition, the Absolute Sovereign of the universe because all power and authority has its genesis in Him and can be recalled by Him at any time.
No offense, but this is silly. The same definition of love applies whether it is God who is loving or us. The source of the love doesn't change the definition of the word. You simply cannot love someone unless you choose to do so. It is a contradiction to say that God made me love Him. He could no more do that than He could travel to a place that does not exist, or make dodecahedrons with only 4 sides. It is a logical absurdity. Thus we MUST have free will because the logical impossibility of the contrary.
This entire statement is in contradiction to your own stated position (Except the first sentence)! Again I ask you, are you sure you aren't an Open Theist? If you removed the sentence "Not because we chose to!", you'd sound just like Knight or Turbo!
Are we concerned with our beliefs, or with the verifiable truth.
I truly do not understand how you could be seriously asking this question.
All I can think to say is that this as good an example as I've ever seen of why proof texting is an insane and dangerous way to teach doctrine.
Again! You can't be more than six inches away from being an Open Theist! You know all our "proof texts"! How does the above verse contradict even one syllable of my stated position? It doesn't! You may as well have argued my side of the issue.
Resting in Him,
Clete
lee_merrill
New member
Hi Clete,
Then God is not absolutely sovereign! That's my point here. Your view here needs to explain how God can be called absolutely sovereign now, when evil happens outside of God's control, and causes harm he didn't want to happen.
Which is one reason I believe God does control evil! If there's a lion in town, wouldn't you rather it be under complete control? How is it better, if it's not?
I agree! But "highest authority" does not mean "absolute sovereignty" (let's keep the suffix on this word! Absolute Sovereign is different) in the way I think it was being described. I think Open Theists want to say this about God, but I don't think they can do this, and remain consistent.
But that's not what this verse says! Being loved by God is a necessary and sufficient condition, for us to love. God's love, in and of itself, causes love.
It's pejorative, too! No, I wouldn't put it that way, it's not "He loved Big Brother" against his will, like in George Orwell's story. But does free will even play a part in human love? There's indications to the contrary, in Scripture:
Song of Solomon 2:7 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.
So don't love even in this human way by your own choice! Don't we even have this in our language expressions? "Falling in love," "A match made in heaven," "They were meant for each other."
The truth is what we need, for sure! I think the problem here is that people tend to view the end of the process, when people can indeed love freely, and forget about how they got that way! They didn't get that way by generating love on their own, they got that way, I believe, because someone loved them, because God did.
Well, so then show me how my interpretation is wrong! If "love is as strong as death," human love, then what about God's love?
Indeed, I agree with what Open Theists (and Arminians and others) say about the love of God for everyone. Don't know about the measurement, but I'm just trying to hug the truth! Prov. 3:18...
Blessings,
Lee
Then God is not absolutely sovereign! That's my point here. Your view here needs to explain how God can be called absolutely sovereign now, when evil happens outside of God's control, and causes harm he didn't want to happen.
Which is one reason I believe God does control evil! If there's a lion in town, wouldn't you rather it be under complete control? How is it better, if it's not?
I agree! But "highest authority" does not mean "absolute sovereignty" (let's keep the suffix on this word! Absolute Sovereign is different) in the way I think it was being described. I think Open Theists want to say this about God, but I don't think they can do this, and remain consistent.
But that's not what this verse says! Being loved by God is a necessary and sufficient condition, for us to love. God's love, in and of itself, causes love.
It's pejorative, too! No, I wouldn't put it that way, it's not "He loved Big Brother" against his will, like in George Orwell's story. But does free will even play a part in human love? There's indications to the contrary, in Scripture:
Song of Solomon 2:7 Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.
So don't love even in this human way by your own choice! Don't we even have this in our language expressions? "Falling in love," "A match made in heaven," "They were meant for each other."
The truth is what we need, for sure! I think the problem here is that people tend to view the end of the process, when people can indeed love freely, and forget about how they got that way! They didn't get that way by generating love on their own, they got that way, I believe, because someone loved them, because God did.
Well, so then show me how my interpretation is wrong! If "love is as strong as death," human love, then what about God's love?
Indeed, I agree with what Open Theists (and Arminians and others) say about the love of God for everyone. Don't know about the measurement, but I'm just trying to hug the truth! Prov. 3:18...
Blessings,
Lee
servent101
New member
Rolf - quite typical of a person who believes nothing except the Bibel, and the Bible only - then quotes Clint Eastwood
With Christ's Love
Servent101
By the way you never responded to post
With Christ's Love
Servent101
By the way you never responded to post
Last edited:
Z Man
New member
Calm down and don't have a cow. I simply misunderstood you. This whole debate started because you said deductive study was better than inductive, which is not true concerning Biblical study. We must study it inductively. And then, from the tone of your posts and the topic at hand, I thought that you had continued on to prove to me that we do not need the Scriptures to understand God at all, which I think is absurd. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.
Z Man
New member
This is hilarious! A period in the womb in which God has yet to begin forming Jeremiah??? Now that's 'reaching'! You are obviously a stubborn man, unwilling to give in to overwhelming support AGAINST your beliefs, even if they are Scriptural. :kookoo:
If God has not created Jeremiah in the womb yet, how can he exist?
Could Jeremiah have NEVER been a prophet?
Why only give God the credit for knowing a 'partial' future? Why won't you allow Him to know ALL of the future? Afraid to give Him too much control?
So you do believe that Jeremiah could of made God out to be a liar... Interesting...
:freak:
LightSon
New member
I'm not referring to G-I-T specifically, but in general, I observe that there is no length most will not go in order to defend their doctrinal position. One's doctrine is most important, after which comes an honest exegesis of God's word.
Sadly, I'm not imune from the desire to defend my position against all evidence to the contrary. Men are a stubborn ilk.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Originally posted by LightSon
I'm not referring to G-I-T specifically, but in general, I observe that there is no length most will not go in order to defend their doctrinal position. One's doctrine is most important, after which comes an honest exegesis of God's word.
Sadly, I'm not imune from the desire to defend my position against all evidence to the contrary. Men are a stubborn ilk.
if it can be shown that my position is false, then i will change it. in case you didn't know, when i first came to this board i was not an open theist. thus, i am flexible in my doctrine in that if i am shown to hold a position falsely, i will discard it and look to see what should replace it.
God_Is_Truth
New member
mockery gains you no ground. my position here however is not even one of necessity. here is greg boyd's thoughts on the verse, with which i agree.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=463
Jeremiah did not have to be a prophet, certainly not for all of time.
it's not that i won't let him at all, it's that i don't believe that's how the future exists nor is it how i see things in scripture. in short, i see neither scriptural support nor philosophical support for a closed/settled future.
how would God become a liar?
I also agree with Boyd. He expands in more detail in his book. It is at least a plausible interpretation, if not probable. He also deals with Saul/Paul's calling which is similar.
Jer. 1:5 has also been understood as simple foreknowledge (Arminian) or predestination (Calvin). The Open View is the most reasonable explanation lest we proof text to support our pet ideas.
Jer. 1:5 has also been understood as simple foreknowledge (Arminian) or predestination (Calvin). The Open View is the most reasonable explanation lest we proof text to support our pet ideas.
Apology accepted!
I wasn't saying that the Bible was unecessary at all. I was only pointing out that deduction is unavoidable. Inductive Bible study has it's place to be sure but you cannot even come to the conclusion that "we must study the Bible inductively" without having used deductive reasoning to get to that conclusion. Nor can you even know that the Bible (or anything else) is true without deductive reasoning and so throwing it out in favor of induction is exactly like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Resting in Him,
Clete