ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Poly]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

See, Clete, that is a demonstration of your problem. Just because you THINK you have found a verse that contradicts a verse whose message you don't like, you run to the verse whose message SEEMS
contradictory to the other and choose the verse whose message you THINK is the one agreeeable to your own doctrine.

Rolf, you truly have to be one of THE most hypocritical posters I have ever encountered in all my time at TOL.

 

[godrulz]

Clete's verses stand on their own merits. The only thing they contradict is a wrong view of sovereignty, not other verses.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
BUT this you can be sure of, Clete--God is infinitely perfect in all His attributes.

innability to change is an imperfection Rolf.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

The truth is that the verses you prefer do NOT contradict the other verses.

Correct, because the "other verses"don't imply what you infer.

You are so far from seeking to understand how all verses are woven into a faultless whole that you take delight in verses which SEEM to contradict. THEN, without fail you always adopt between the two the verse which, according your interpretation, diminishes the glory of God.

Nothing can diminish the glory of God

For Example, there are many verses which teach that God that God is immutable in His being and purposes; but you don't like that, so you look for one that SEEMS contradictory to the verse which clearly states that Gods IS immutable. Having found that SEEMING contradiction you make no effort to understand how both verses fit together without contradiction. You are happy to leave the tension there in your mind. The important thing to you is that you found a verse which--to your mind--refutes the doctrine of God's immutability which you find distasteful.

Indeed God is unchanging in his righteous character, but you would be correct to say that I find the doctrine of God's immutability, as you describe it, distasteful. He is the living God not a stone idle! That which lives is able to respond to circumstances.

To maintain that idea, you disallow any anthropomorphisms OR any
possibility that God may be speaking in scripture through the perspective of men

NO

both of which are often the case in scripture; but you will accept nothing other than the idea that God is NOT immutable

I just think it's an anthropomorphism.

OR all knowing OR really ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN.

God is all knowing and ABSOLTLEY SOVEREIGN. Even though those terms do not imply what you infer.

BUT this you can be sure of, Clete--God is infinitely perfect in all His attributes. There is no excellence which He does not possess to an infinite degree.

AMEN BROHTER!

Therefore, if you see two verses which SEEM to be contradictory, that verse which more fully ascribes glorious perfection to God is the verse whose clear meaning should be accepted as the clearer statement in regard to Him, and the theologian who prefers to honor God rather than accept a diminished view of Him knows by that the misunderstanding has to do with the verse which SEEMS to contradict the verse which ascribes glory to God.

A theologian who, on trhe other hand WANTS to find less than infinite perfections in God will hunt feverishly for verses which seem to deny His glorious attributes. Such a theologian is obsessed with a desire to whittle God down to his own size. The verses you cited above are some of the verses you misunderstand. They DON'T contradict those verses which more clearly ascribe glory to God. In my next post, I will begin to deal with them one by one.

Or maybe you should just decern which is true.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

See, Clete, that is a demonstration of your problem. Just because you THINK you have found a verse that contradicts a verse whose message you don't like, you run to the verse whose message SEEMS
contradictory to the other and choose the verse whose message you THINK is the one agreeable to your own doctrine. The truth is that the verses you prefer do NOT contradict the other verses. You just can't see how they fit together

On the contrary, I believe that both sets of verses mean pretty much exactly what they say; that there is no conflict between them whatsoever. Can you say the same? If so, by what means do you determine that your interpretation is the correct one? You accuse me of leaning on one set and effectively ignoring the other but give no reason for anyone to think that you are not doing the exact same thing in reverse. In fact, I believe firmly that you are indeed doing just that.

You are so far from seeking to understand how all verses are woven into a faultless whole that you take delight in verses which SEEM to contradict.

As I said, they do not seem to contradict. There is no contradiction, there is no apparent contradiction. The only one's who see such contradictions are Calvinists who read their theology into the texts. The Open View allows one to take all of them at there face-value rather than reading any theological position into them as you clearly do.

THEN, without fail you always adopt between the two the verse which, according your interpretation, diminishes the glory of God.

I believe the Open View presents a more powerful, wiser, more loving, more just, more glorious version of God than Calvinism ever could.

For Example, there are many verses which teach that God that God is immutable in His being and purposes; but you don't like that, so you look for one that SEEMS contradictory to the verse which clearly states that Gods IS immutable.

God's character and personality are immutable, but He is not. I don't have to look very hard to find Scripture to prove this. All one has to do is know the Gospel. God BECAME a man, DIED, and ROSE from the dead and is alive forever more. All of which are real, dramatic, and permanent changes!

Having found that SEEMING contradiction you make no effort to understand how both verses fit together without contradiction. You are happy to leave the tension there in your mind. The important thing to you is that you found a verse which--to your mind--refutes the doctrine of God's immutability which you find distasteful.

Stop attempting to figure out what is in my mind. You're not very good at it and every time you try it, you make yourself look foolish. Again, there is no conflict in these passages at all.

To maintain that idea, you disallow any anthropomorphisms OR any possibility that God may be speaking in scripture through the perspective of men; both of which are often the case in scripture; but you will accept nothing other than the idea that God is NOT immutable OR all knowing OR really ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN.

On the contrary, there are, in fact, figures of speech on every single page of the Bible, every single page. I simply make effort to remain on the same page that God is on and accept that which cannot be a figure of speech as meaning what it says and accepting figures as just that. The difference between you and I is that I can explain what the figures mean and you cannot. This is because what you insist must be figures because they suggest that God is not immutable, are not figures at all. Instead, you take obvious figures and treat them as though they aren't figures at all. The result is confusion, and self contradiction at almost every move.

BUT this you can be sure of, Clete--God is infinitely perfect in all His attributes.

I agree with this completely.

There is no excellence which He does not possess to an infinite degree.

Sounds good but what does it mean exactly? There's at least a dozen things that you could be saying here. If it is merely another way of expressing what you said in the last sentence then I agree with this as well.

Therefore, if you see two verses which SEEM to be contradictory, that verse which more fully ascribes glorious perfection to God is the verse whose clear meaning should be accepted as the clearer statement in regard to Him, and the theologian who prefers to honor God rather than accept a diminished view of Him knows by that the misunderstanding has to do with the verse which SEEMS to contradict the verse which ascribes glory to God.

Your definition of glory is convoluted, you definition of power is twisted, your definition of sovereign is simply wrong, and your understanding of what it means to be perfect is out of whack as well. Further, you do not take your own advise! You say that the verses I quoted are all figures of speech but cannot explain what those figures of speech mean if they don't mean what they plainly say in which case they wouldn't be figures of speech. You render whole sections of Scripture completely meaningless in order to maintain a caricature of God which more resembles the stone idols and fairytale gods of the Greeks, which He hates than anything else.

A theologian who, on the other hand WANTS to find less than infinite perfections in God will hunt feverishly for verses which seem to deny His glorious attributes. Such a theologian is obsessed with a desire to whittle God down to his own size. The verses you cited above are some of the verses you misunderstand. They DON'T contradict those verses which more clearly ascribe glory to God. In my next post, I will begin to deal with them one by one.

I cannot wait! I really am interested to see how you explain how these passages mean one of two things.
1. Nothing at all.
2. The complete total opposite of what they say.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[LightSon]

The discussion is heating up again. Great!

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

innability to change is an imperfection Rolf.

I have a problem with this statement.

My sense is that true perfection need not change. Why would something perfect have to change? Stated another way: to the degree that God changes, is the exact same measure to which He would have to admit that He was lacking, and needed improvement.

Of course my agument is rooted in philosophy, which could be vain or flawed in some way. But it sounds right to my way of thinking. What do you OVers say? If God is improving, (by way of changing) isn't this an admission that He was less than perfect prior to changing?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by LightSon

The discussion is heating up again. Great!



I have a problem with this statement.

My sense is that true perfection need not change. Why would something perfect have to change? Stated another way: to the degree that God changes, is the exact same measure to which He would have to admit that He was lacking, and needed improvement.

Of course my agument is rooted in philosophy, which could be vain or flawed in some way. But it sounds right to my way of thinking. What do you OVers say? If God is improving, (by way of changing) isn't this an admission that He was less than perfect prior to changing?

This Platonic idea has been philosophically refuted. If God could not think, act, feel (all requiring change or sequence/duration/succession), He would be less perfect than His creation. Relationship and experience would be impossible, reducing God to impersonal rather than personal.

A clock is perfect because it can change.

 

[Clete]

Inanimate objects that are prefect do not change. Animate objects that are perfect do change. Perfect persons display perfect personalities. Perfect spheres would be absolutely smooth. Perfect cubes would have exactly six faces all with identical surface areas and perfect 90 degree angles where the face edges meet. Etc. Etc.

Anything that is perfect, displays the characteristics of that sort of thing perfectly, so it all depends on what sort of thing you're talking about. God is not an inanimate object and so He changes by definition. If He didn't change at all it would not be accurate to call Him living or a person because part of what makes something alive is the ability to react to its environment and part of what makes a person a person is existence of a personality and the ability to have relationships, none of which would be possible if God were immutable.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

There is a difference between 'strong', absolute immutability (Greek philosophy) and biblical immutability ('weak') where God does not change in character and attributes, but does change in relations and experiences (because there are things external to Himself and because He is personal/relational, even within the triune Godhead).

Clete is correct to point out that the classic example of change in God is the incarnation/kenosis (Jn. 1:1,14; Phil. 2:5-11).

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by LightSon

The discussion is heating up again. Great!

:up:

I have a problem with this statement.

My sense is that true perfection need not change. Why would something perfect have to change?

because the reality that exists changes. a perfect clock changes every single second. now if time was not progressing at all, then the clock would be imperfect if it kept changing. but as long as time moves on forward, the clock, in order to remain a perfect clock, must change what time it displays.

Stated another way: to the degree that God changes, is the exact same measure to which He would have to admit that He was lacking, and needed improvement.

no, that's not the only reason something can change. something can change because of a change in reality or circumstances. for God to be faithful in how he acts, he needs the ability to change his mind in regards to what he will do. as with ninevah, when they repented, so he changed his mind on what he would do to them. if God cannot change, then he cannot change his mind. and if God cannot change his mind, then once he says something, there is absolutely no way it can be changed. but the story of Jonah shows this not to be the case very clearly.

Of course my agument is rooted in philosophy, which could be vain or flawed in some way. But it sounds right to my way of thinking. What do you OVers say? If God is improving, (by way of changing) isn't this an admission that He was less than perfect prior to changing?

change as i understand it is not always a better/worse thing. some changes are neutral. as with the clock, when the time changes and the clock displays the new time, it is not more perfect or less perfect in changing it's time. it has the same degree of perfection as a result of the change. had it not changed, it would have been a broken and imperfect clock.

 

[godrulz]

Coal can change for the better by becoming a diamond. I am sure we could think of endless examples of change for the 'better'.

e.g. tadpole to frog

seed to tree

metal to car

baby to President

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by godrulz

Coal can change for the better by becoming a diamond. I am sure we could think of endless examples of change for the 'better'.

e.g. tadpole to frog

seed to tree

metal to car

baby to President

Yes! And it's important to note that the baby, metal, seed, tadpole, and lump of coal were not imperfect, simply different.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by godrulz

baby to President

might want to re think that one.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--You llisted some verses which you claimed would "completely destroy" my view of God's sovereignty. I will deal with each verse in the order you listed them.

First, Lk. 7:30"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."
What do you believe that proves? If you like that verse, I will show you more like it. " ..ye have set at nought ALL my counsel, and would NONE of my reproof." Prov. 1:25 "They hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would NONE of my counsel: they despised ALL my reproof." Prov. 1: 29,30 (caps mine). Rom. 3:10-12
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one."

Okay, Clete, above are quite a few verses, all of them teaching the same thing. What do they prove? AND how are they related to the following verses?

"The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought; he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations." Psalm 33:10,11
"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless, the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." Prov. 19:21
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. 46:10

Clete, how do you reconcile these two different group of verses, both of which speak of
the counsel of God?

Sorry about my slow response to yur challenge. I am out of town and things are happening around me, but I managed to garner a little bit of time for this post.

 

[godrulz]

God wills and determines some things, but not all things (wrong assumption/extrapolation).

We cannot pit one set of verses against another to create a contradiction. Each must be interpreted in their grammatical context.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Godrulz--I am NOT pitting one verse against another to "create a contradiction" as yu say. That is my point. They DO NOT CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER. I haven't created ANYTHING in regards to the Bible. All these verses were in the Bible, had been in the bible a long time before I brought them up together in this discussion. If they contradicted one another, they did so before I posted. POINT: they do not contradict one another. The point I want to make is to get Clete to show how he interprets them together; to give his interpretation of both sets of verses and to do so without contradicting any verse in eithr group.

 

[godrulz]

Is. 46:10, 11; 48:3 (context of specific things vs all moral and mundane choices in the universe).

God purposes many, not all things. He brings it to pass by His ability and power. This does not mean He knows or does all things in the future. It is His own will and purposes. God opposes and resists evil (see ministry of Jesus). He does not affirm it as His will. God is not the cause of heinous evil and rebellion. Free moral agents are responsible.

Prov. 1:25 is a warning against rejecting wisdom. The point is that God's will and purposes can be resisted or rejected.

Sovereignty does not mean meticulous control. It is providential, responsive control (the word is rarely used in the Bible, so watch the tendency to bring in preconceived concepts).

 

[Clete]

Rolf,

Do you know how much time it takes for me to write these responses to you? One crapping long time! It would be nice if you would actually respond to my arguments instead of just throwing more things my way hoping against hope that you'll find something that stumps me.

This will be the last time I respond to you if you don't become more responsive to my posts, I simply don't have the time to be wasting.

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--You listed some verses which you claimed would "completely destroy" my view of God's sovereignty. I will deal with each verse in the order you listed them.

First, Lk. 7:30"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."
What do you believe that proves? If you like that verse, I will show you more like it. " ..ye have set at naught ALL my counsel, and would NONE of my reproof." Prov. 1:25 "They hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would NONE of my counsel: they despised ALL my reproof." Prov. 1: 29,30 (caps mine). Rom. 3:10-12
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one."

Luke 7:30 is talking to us directly about God's will. godrulz would know better about the original language than I but if memory serves correctly the word used here for will is the strongest available word in Greek for will. This verse is specifically saying that God wants for these people to submit to John's baptism and they are resisting that will.
The rest of your verses mean basically what they say but they are figures of speech in that they are using hyperbole. They are general statements and are generally true as stated.

Okay, Clete, above are quite a few verses, all of them teaching the same thing. What do they prove? AND how are they related to the following verses?

"The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought; he maketh the devices of the people of none effect. The counsel of the LORD standeth forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations." Psalm 33:10,11
"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless, the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." Prov. 19:21
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. 46:10

Clete, how do you reconcile these two different group of verses, both of which speak of
the counsel of God?

Again, all of these mean basically what they say. You simply have to put a little effort into remaining on the same page that God is on when He says such things. They are, in fact, hyperbole. The word "all" almost never means “every single one”. The word "all" is almost always hyperbole as are words like “always” and “never” etc. That doesn't mean that these passages don't mean what they say, they do mean what they say, but they are generalities and should be taken as such. If you insist on a woodenly literal interpretation, the result is countless contradiction and confusion.

Sorry about my slow response to your challenge. I am out of town and things are happening around me, but I managed to garner a little bit of time for this post.

I don't mind the time. It actually helps me not get so far behind myself. Perhaps this is why you haven't been as directly responsive as I'd like for you to be. I'll try to be a little more patient.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

CLETE- I am responding to your posts, being very careful to do so by responding to each verse yu challenged me with, saying any of them would destroy my view of God's sovereignty; and right now, the verse under discussion is not focused primarily on will, but on "counsel." The Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves. Again, how do you reconcile that statement with the other verses which state, in effect generally, that His counsel "standeth forever"; His counsel "shall stand" and He works ALL things
"after the counsel of His own will"?

You state that God "wants for these people to submit to John's baptismk and they are resisting that will." Where do you see that in the text? The text says that they rejected the counsel of god against themselves. What "counsel of God" do you think luke is talking about? What is the SOURCE of that "counsel of God" spoken of? Do you believe that the counsel of God spoken of in Lk. 7 is the same counsel of God spoken of in Ephesians chapter one where it is said that He works all things after the counsel of His own will? Or is it the counsel of God spoken on by Paul as he was bidding farewell to the Ephesians, "I have declared unto you the whole counsel of God"? Are they different? Or does the Bible always mean the very same thing when it speaks of "the counsel of God?"

Be patient with me. If my questions to you concerning one verse seem burdensome, remember that you gave me several verses to consider.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

CLETE- I am responding to your posts, being very careful to do so by responding to each verse yu challenged me with, saying any of them would destroy my view of God's sovereignty; and right now, the verse under discussion is not focused primarily on will, but on "counsel." The Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves. Again, how do you reconcile that statement with the other verses which state, in effect generally, that His counsel "standeth forever"; His counsel "shall stand" and He works ALL things
"after the counsel of His own will"?

You state that God "wants for these people to submit to John's baptismk and they are resisting that will." Where do you see that in the text? The text says that they rejected the counsel of god against themselves. What "counsel of God" do you think luke is talking about? What is the SOURCE of that "counsel of God" spoken of? Do you believe that the counsel of God spoken of in Lk. 7 is the same counsel of God spoken of in Ephesians chapter one where it is said that He works all things after the counsel of His own will? Or is it the counsel of God spoken on by Paul as he was bidding farewell to the Ephesians, "I have declared unto you the whole counsel of God"? Are they different? Or does the Bible always mean the very same thing when it speaks of "the counsel of God?"

Be patient with me. If my questions to you concerning one verse seem burdensome, remember that you gave me several verses to consider.

Didn't I already answer this?

The word stranslated "counsel" is the Greek word "boule".
It is the strongest word available in Greek for "the will" or "desire" or "plan" or "intent". This verse is telling us that God really wanted for the pharasees to get baptised, that was His plan, His desire, His intent, that is what God wanted. And that is the "counsel" of which the verse speaks. That's the only cousel it could be speaking about for the sentence to make any sense whatsoever. Yet the lawyers, rejected that will. God did not get His way. The doctrine of irresistable grace cannot survive this single verse nor can the doctrine of election.

And no the Bible does not necessarily mean the very same thing every time it mentions "the cousel of God", although it usually does. The meaning is determined by the context.

As to the other reference you've mentioned they all mean what they say but they are generalities and should be taken as such, as I have already explained.

Resting in Him,
Clete