ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[Poly]

Originally posted by Hilston

Poly, just so we know whether or not you have any idea what you're talking about, can you tell us what is the Calvinist's definition of anthropomorphism?

This is a false characterization. Those who appeal to anthropopathism and anthropomorphism affirm that there is even more to "worry about" precisely because God chose to use figurative language. You should have read that somewhere, if you really gave a hoot.

Prove to all of us that you didn't "just accept whatever the Open Theist says" and define for us what an anthropomorphism is according to the Calvinist view. If you can't, then I think it's a fair assumption that you are the very same sort of person you criticize above.

My answers to your above questions and comments can be found in posts #1 and #4 of this thread.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by natewood3

Knight,

You did not answer what I asked in the first place: If they are not rhetorical questions or anthropromorphisms, what are they? Did God really not know? Do you believe there is no rhetorical question or anthropromorphism here? Do you think God is actually asking where they are, as if He does not know?

How would YOU interpret these verses...

Who said those weren't rhetorical questions?

Answer: nobody.

Nate... you brought up those verses to support Swordsman with his anthropromorphism claim. We have now all agreed they aren't anthropromorphisms.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

10 days later and still hoping for an answer....

10 days later and still hoping for an answer....

Swordsman.... please I beg of you could please respond and defend your original assertion?

Let me repost my last post so it isn't lost in the shuffle....

Originally posted by Swordsman

Sorry Knight. My memory failed me. I will answer your question now.

No worries.

When the Scriptures mention God repenting or relenting, it is using those words as anthropomorphisms. Or He is relating to us with human emotional terms.

Uh... you already made that claim. That isn't an answer, you are simply restating your original assertion.

Let me elaborate...

An anthropomorphism is a way to communicate the action's of God by using human terms so that we can understand better (using human understanding) what God is trying to tell us.

In other words...
An anthropomorphism should work as clarity.

You earlier stated....

Does God's actions change from time to time? Yes. But that does not disprove immutability. That term "repent" is an anthropomorphism. Its just trying to help ascribe an emotion of God's attitude so we can understand the context.

So I ask you to please explain what "repent" means if it is indeed a "anthropomorphism".

Let me give you an example to work from...
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

If "repented" in Gen 6:6 is a anthropomorphism and if a anthropomorphism is given to create clarity and not confusion what does the anthropomorphism mean in Gen 6:6?

 

[natewood3]

Knight,

You originally said:

Of course the verses are literal!

Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"

The above event LITERALLY happened don't you think? Aren't you really asking what motivated God to ask Adam the question the way He did? I am assuming we agree that this event did in fact take place and therefore the verse is to be taken literally. The verses you have referenced are not examples of anthropomorphisms (with the possible exception of Gen 8:1).

You seemed to be very sure that these verses were literal. Were they literal questions that God because He did not know? You said we should take a literal rendering. Literally, it would obviously mean God didn't know. That is the straightforward reading of the text. Is that what it means?

Gen 3:8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

A straightforward reading of the text would indicate that God has a body and walks and can be heard in the Garden. Most significantly, it would indicate that God is a God from which people can hide. Therefore, He cannot be omnipresent.

If we should reject the "straightforward" reading of the text, then where is it legitimate and where is it not?

Nate... you brought up those verses to support Swordsman with his anthropromorphism claim.

I would like to know where you come up with this...I was nowhere trying to support what Swordsman said. I barely have even read what Swordsman said. I asked a question, expecting to get an answer.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by natewood3

I would like to know where you come up with this...I was nowhere trying to support what Swordsman said. I barely have even read what Swordsman said. I asked a question, expecting to get an answer.

This post came right before your questions. It looked like you were answering Knight's questions (that I quoted) with your questions.

If that wasn't the case, to whom were you directing your questions, and what was your point in asking them?

 

[natewood3]

GIT,

Here is my long overdue response...

Hold on here. I said that God was in control, not that he controls all things. Do you agree or disagree that one can be in control of a situation without controlling all the things that occur inside of it?

If God does not control all things, we cannot be sure that He is in control in the end. Someone might do something that totally did not expect and change everything in history. In fact, I would not be so sure that God will triumph in the end if He is not in control and governing all things.

What would be an example of "microdetails"? Who determines what these microdetails are, us or God?

I think that faith is partly us and partly God. By faith we accept the gospel as truth and believe in God for our hope. We all know we are sinners and I think we all know that we’ve messed up in life and done things we shouldn’t have done. We also know that if there is no God than we shouldn’t feel bad for any of those things. They would instead feel natural and there would be no conviction in one’s heart for those things.

So we also know that we have done things we shouldn’t have and gone against what the person who put those convictions there wants. We also know that this person is God. Romans 1 makes this very clear. Thus, we know we need forgiveness from God for the things we did wrong. Thus, we all have the ability innately to turn to God and say “God, I know I’ve done things I shouldn’t have. I’ve done things you didn’t want me to do. Please forgive me of these things and help me to sin no more but to live in according to what is right.�

The part of faith I believe that is God’s part is seeing Christ for who he really is, accepting that salvation is by grace, and a complete turn around from the sin we used to live in. you also noted some things in another thread about what God does when we are saved to which I would add here as well.

I would say yes and no. We do have a active part in salvation, called faith. However, your assumption that all people know they "have done things we shouldn’t have and gone against what the person who put those convictions there wants" and have the "ability innately to turn to God" is ALL A MATTER OF GRACE! What you are describing is repentance. It is a change of mind of our former lives to a change of mind concerning Christ.

How can a mind hostile to God change its self?

2Co 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

You are describing GODLY grief, something more than worldly grief. Godly grief PRODUCES repentance. Why would we ever have a godly grief?

Because we see who Christ really is, dying for our sins, and we think, "Blahhh! I can't believe I rejected the Fountain of Living Water and gave my self to the arsenic of sin. How could I have ever given myself to such sinfulness and horrors! Lord, forgive me!" That is where repentance comes from, when we see what horrors we have committed against the Almighty.

If God does not produce that, then it won't come! We will see the idea of a Savior as foolishness and folly. It is when we see Christ that we can see our sinfulness...

As for the passages not mentioning this, I ask why does it need to? If Paul is simply explaining to us and praising God for his work in our salvation and our sanctification, and also remembering that it was written to believers who had already put their faith in Christ, then I see no real reason or purpose to explain what they already knew and had already done.

I happen to think it isn't there because it was not meant to be there, especially in regard to WHY God saved us. Also, Paul is speaking to them concerning BEFORE they were believers, but He never mentions faith as the reason they are saved...Salvation is of the Lord, not of the Lord and Man.

Do you really think God would command the impossible from us? Would he command us to grow wings? Would he command us to walk to the moon? Would he command us to drink the pacific ocean? Thus, I see it as reasonable that anything God commands us to do is something we have the ability to do. It may be hard, we may not like it, but we are able.

1Pe 2:2 desire the sincere milk of the Word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it;

Can you MAKE yourself desire anything? Truly desire it and it not be fake? We are commanded to do it.

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Can you circumcise your own heart?

1Th 5:18 In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Can you MAKE yourself be thankful and show true gratitude toward God? I will give you the illustration I gave godrulz:

If a child wants a red fire truck for Christmas, but he gets a pair of black socks instead, he can say the words, "Thank you for the black socks," but that is NOT gratitude. Saying the words, "I thank you God for my salvation, my wife, my house, my kids, my SUFFERING AND PAIN," is NOT gratitude. Gratitude is an emotion. When you get the red fire truck for Christmas you have it, and if you don't, you don't! It is still commanded though...

God has the right to command of us what we OUGHT to give even if by virtue of our profound rebellion and corruption we cannot give it. The problem is with US, not the command or with God. We should give thanks whether we are able to or not, and we are responsible for doing so. Ingratitude is still sin because the very nature of ingratitude is arrogant and hateful; it matters not whether we can produce it on our own. Either way, we are still responsible.

Now in verse 7 it says that the “sinful mind� is hostile to God. It doesn’t mean that the entire person is hostile, just that the sinful mind is. Clearly there is more to a person than just their mind. There is the heart, soul, will etc. verse 8 says “it does not submit to God’s law nor can it do so�. This is about the sinful mind. But as I already stated, there is more to a person than the mind. There is the heart, soul and will for starters. So, if a person decides to come to their senses and stop living according to the sinful mind and doing what they know is wrong, I believe they can ask for forgiveness, repent and God does the rest from there.

Let me quote the passage once again:

Rom 8:5 For they who are according to the flesh mind the things of flesh, but they who are according to the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace
Rom 8:7 because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
Rom 8:8 So then they who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This "sinful mind" effects the whole person, for Paul's conclusion is: "So then, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God." Would repenting please God?

You said specifically:

This is about the sinful mind. But as I already stated, there is more to a person than the mind. There is the heart, soul and will for starters.

Heart:

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

Will:

Rom 3:11 there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God."

Eph 2:3 among whom we also had our way of life in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Are you going to expect your deceitfully wicked and perverse will to get you out of your sinfulness? Your ENTIRE person was effected by the Fall, not just parts of you! We are dead people; we have more than just a broken leg.

You seem to think a person can act for Christ without THINKING (mind) about it or having FEELINGS (heart) about it. A person will act in accordance with his heart and mind. He thinks; he feels; he acts. He must think and feel before he acts. When an unregenerate person thinks and feels about Christ, you know what they think?

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those being lost

1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How can that be any clearer?

Before you were born God could not have loved you except in the way of a thought or a future thing. He could not love you the same way he loves you now because you didn’t exist then and you do exist now. Furthermore, if that is the case, what do you make of this verse?

Galatians 4:9
But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

These verses nowhere say God did not know I would exist, or did not love me personally on the cross. YOU infer from the text that God must not have known us. How do YOU square this verse with the idea in Romans 8:29-32 of God "foreknowing" us?

If God knew you all the way back at the cross personally, then this verse should be a lie right? How could God have known you personally all the way back then and then claim to start knowing you again for the first time once you believe? It cannot be both. God cannot have exhaustively, personally, and individually known you forever in eternity and on the cross and claim that when you believe that you are “now known by God�.

"Coming to know God" and "God knowing us" are virtually the same in this verse. God "knowing" us happens in time and in eternity. We were "once not a people," but we are "now a people of God" (1 Peter 2). Does that mean God never had a people for Himself or never determined to have a specific people for Himself?

Your inference is not valid.

Phi 4:6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

God must not know the present needs of His people either, right? It says "Let them be MADE KNOWN TO GOD." Therefore, we should infer that God does not know what we need or what requests we have.

You are making something out to be more than it really is...

And once again I add that our theology should not be built upon what theology says God love us more or which one seems to say that God cares most about us. It should be about truth as found in the word of God—the bible.

Isn't the OV supposed to make God more personal and loving? Isn't that one of the supposed benefits?

Because his death is not something where sins were sort of “put on him� literally. It was a sacrifice in our place, bearing the punishment we deserved as the result of our sins. He lived perfectly and as such was able to pay the price he himself did not deserve, but that every one of us deserves when we sin. Thus, his righteousness is imputed to us by faith in

The result of WHAT SINS!? There are not any sins or punishment or wrath that He must bear because none of that existed when He died.

How can all of that be said to be planned "before time began," since God didn't even know sin would exist then?

What’s comforting is irrelevant. What’s important is truth. If the bible says God had all the women and children killed then that’s what happened regardless of how we feel about it.

also, are you saying that all people today were people back then? What else would they be besides “non-persons�? they couldn’t have been people like they are now because they didn’t exist.

You are right; it is irrelevant. Therefore, because our finite minds cannot handle that God foreknows us before we exist is irrelevant. What matters is truth. That is what happen regardless of how we feel about it:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

The WE in that verse is about all of mankind. It’s about the human race as a whole, yourself included. While humans were sinners, Christ died for us. Furthermore, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, then in what sense did Christ die for us “while we were yet sinners�?

Either Christ foreknew and foreloved us and died for us in spite of our sin or there is NO way Christ could have died for ME while I was a sinner. Did Christ come back and die again in 1984? How could He have died for me "while I was a sinner"? To me, your view is LESS explanatory than mine...

You can’t love someone who doesn’t exist any more or less whether you know they will be born or not. They still don’t exist and anything you feel towards them is just one sided and unfulfilled.

This is your making God out to be like me and you, which He is not.

Also consider how much more it displays God’s love towards us in that God didn’t even know which people would be born, but he gave a sacrifice that would suffice for all of them.

For WHO? For WHAT? Do you realize if God cannot foreknow us, then He didn't die for "us" or bear "our curse," for we had no curse because we did not even exist yet! "Who" are these "people" you are talking about? Christ didn't know them.

How can Christ sacrifice Himself for something that doesn't exist, something He no idea WILL ever exist? "Well, I suppose there will be a bunch of people, possibly, that will live in the future, so here goes nothing!" That is the view of Christ I would have if He didn't foreknow us and love us before we were created.

It’s one thing to die for specific people you know and love, but how much greater is the love that someone gives for people he does not know! Who has the greater love, someone who dies to save his relatives, or someone who dies to give all people to come a chance for salvation? I think the answer is obvious.

PEOPLE! There were no "people" except for the ones living that Christ died for. Especially since, He died "while we were sinners." You and I seem to be up a creek without a paddle...

It’s about the nation of Israel who because of unbelief was cutoff. Thus, God turned to those who were not a nation (the gentiles) and called people from among them to be his people. The term “hate� in that passage is another word for saying “rejected�. In other words, Jacob I chose, Esau I rejected.

Called? You seem to make this "call" decisive...what if no one from the Gentiles responded?

"Hate" is more than rejected...

Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.
Mal 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'"
Mal 1:5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, "Great is the LORD beyond the border of Israel!"
Mal 1:6 "A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. But you say, 'How have we despised your name?'
Mal 1:7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD's table may be despised.
Mal 1:8 When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not evil? Present that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts.
Mal 1:9 And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts.
Mal 1:10 Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand.

Where does it say it was before?

We can somehow believe before we were predestined?

because God works with our free will to bring about good. Nothing God does in us contradicts free will. Remember also that we have been regenerated and long for God to do things through us, giving God a much easier time in using us for good works.

Can you show me a couple text where it speaks of God working with us to bring about good or nothing God does contradicts our free will or a couple texts that define our will?

Because they are not only done by God. It is both of us who does them. God commands us to do them and works in us and helps us to bring it about.

Would you agree that they are PRODUCED by God? Can we in and of ourselves produce that which is pleasing in His sight? You say:

God commands us to do them and works in us and helps us to bring it about.

You said earlier if God commands us to do something, then we have the ability to do it. Now, God can command something, but He must "help" and "work in us" to bring it about, so which is it? Can we fully do it if God commands us, or can God command of us what we cannot do in and of ourselves without His grace and mercy?

I will respond to the rest tomorrow...it is getting late. Feel free to respond whenever...

 

[natewood3]

GIT,

Part 2...

First off let me remind you that proverbs are general statements that the authors wrote down about what they saw as true in the world around them. They are not always absolutes. For example, one may say “the wicked will not prosper� but obviously they sometimes do. Thus, in general they will not and they will not prosper forever, but if we took it literally and absolutely, it would be wrong.

I agree. That is basic hermeneutics, so you are exactly right.

That said, I think this verse is talking about how anything we do is ultimately allowed by God. A straight forward reading of the text might suggest that every word we say is from God, but should we really hold such a view? That would mean that every swear word, every word of hate, every misuse of the Lord’s name is from God. Surely this is not so.

Pro 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Do you OVers not argue and argue for a "straightforward" and "literal" reading of the text? When does this principle apply and when does it not? When it best fits your theology?

Also, it would render the phrase “the word of the Lord� meaningless as every word would become “the word of the Lord�. Thus, I see it as saying that all of our actions are allowed by God as he is sovereign. We plan in our hearts what to do, but if God doesn’t want it to happen, he won’t let us do it. I believe that can be done without affecting free will in any way.

"He won't LET US do it"? How can God hinder you from doing something without affecting your idea of "free will"?

What is the difference between "allowing" and "ordaining" that something be? How can God "allow" something He doesn't know you will do? How can God not "let us" do something if He doesn't know what we will do? If God will not let you do something, then He must know what you are going to do before you do it! Otherwise, He would have to "let you" do it to see what you are really going to do.

I see this as basically the same as above except that God also sends events into our lives as he wishes (plagues, famine etc.) and thus, he can establish our steps as well as simply allowing the ones we decide to take on our own.

In what sense does God "establish our steps"? It He "establishes" them, then how are they so called "free"?

Remember Pharaoh? Bear in mind that just because God can affect our hearts it does not mean our free will has been tampered with.

I do remember Pharaoh. Is affecting our "heart" and our "desires" the same thing? You seem to be saying what I am have been saying all along: God can affect our hearts/desires and give us a new heart and desires so that we would freely choose Him. Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would NOT choose Him. Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would do that which is pleasing in His sight, which we would NOT have done otherwise.

All things exist by God’s power so ultimately they come from him. But unless you wish to make God the author of sin, I think you’ll agree that even though it’s by God’s power that they are done, we are the ones who use that power to do evil things.

Sin is "done by God's power"? I do agree ALL things are from and through God, but sin and evil and from and through God in such a way that God is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER to blame for sin or for evil, but it is always the sinner who is blamed.

You seem to be agreeing with some form of compatiblism...

However, throughout the rest of the post, you seem to contradict what you have said concerning all the verses above...

That’s nonsense. I haven’t done them yet. And if I have free will, then there exists a degree of uncertainty by definition such that it’s impossible to know with 100% accuracy what I will do before I do it. furthermore, I see little biblical support for such a view.

That’s logical through the definition of free will. The only way God can know absolutely for certain what we will is if we don’t have free will.

Are you saying God is illogical? Are you saying he’s outside of reality? The bottom line is that the two concepts (free will and exhaustive foreknowledge) are mutually exclusive in reality. They cannot co-exist no matter how hard one wants them to.

Then I’m not free to choose apart from what God says I will choose. When the situation comes around I will not be free to choose what I decide to choose, I will only be able to “choose� what God “knows� I will choose. I am not free in this case.

That argues against the whole idea of free will! Free will says that you cannot know what someone will do even though you can know what they might or are likely to do. If God knows I will watch tv because he knows that I would watch it in that situation, then I have become a 100% predictable being who is thus not free. A being that is free, by definition cannot be 100% predictable. That’s the whole meaning of free.

If I’m really free then all he can know is what I might choose or what I’m likely to choose. He can know what percentage the possibility of me choosing a particular choice is, but he cannot know for certain what I’ll do if I’m really free.

how does God know it? I haven’t done it yet. The only way he can know it is to cause it, unless I don’t have free will and am just like a robot, completely predictable. In the last sentence, it could not be a possibility. Nothing is a possibility if God has EFK (exhaustive foreknowledge). Everything is certain. There is no possibilities or any sense of contingency if God has EFK.

See what I mean? You seem to adhere to a form of compatiblism in your exegesis of those verses, but then you turn around and seem to contradict what you said above...

 

[natewood3]

Turbo,

I was not answering Knight's questions; I was raising more questions .

I was not specifically directing my questions to anyone that I know of...I was just asking, to see an OV response.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by natewood3

You seemed to be very sure that these verses were literal.

Of course the verses are literal!!! How can you assert otherwise?

I have news for you....

Rhetorical questions and literal interpretation are not mutually exclusive. These concept are not opposites.

For instance.... if I were to ask you a rhetorical question and then later you told the story of me asking you the rhetorical question to another person, that would be a accurate and LITERAL accounting of that encounter.

You continue....

Were they literal questions that God because He did not know? You said we should take a literal rendering. Literally, it would obviously mean God didn't know. That is the straightforward reading of the text. Is that what it means?

:sigh: See above.

Furthermore..... God wasn't wondering where Adam was (that was the rhetorical question) yet God was curious as to how Adam would answer.

Rhetorical and literal.

 

[raphe]

Direct towards Knight: Does this mean you don't think God is omniscient - all knowing? I believe man has free-will, but I also believe that God knows and sees our lives from begining to end in a moment, if He wishes to - standing outside of time. There are parts of Calvinism that have merit, but I see it also pushing God into a box and literally giving Him a bad name.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by raphe

Direct towards Knight: Does this mean you don't think God is omniscient - all knowing?

God is omniscient, assuming you have a realistic definition of the word omniscient.

I believe God knows everything that is knowable or that He chooses to know and therefore God is omniscient.

You continue....

I believe man has free-will, but I also believe that God knows and sees our lives from begining to end in a moment, if He wishes to - standing outside of time.

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of our future we cannot have freewill. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of our future... then our future is locked into God's foreknowledge and therefore removes the freedom of our will to do or choose anything outside of that foreknowledge.

You continue...

There are parts of Calvinism that have merit, but I see it also pushing God into a box and literally giving Him a bad name.

I agree. :up:

 

[raphe]

If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of our future we cannot have freewill. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge of our future... then our future is locked into God's foreknowledge and therefore removes the freedom of our will to do or choose anything outside of that foreknowledge.

How does His knowing restrict freewill? Knowing is not restricting or taking action against freewill.
By having the ability to transcend the dimension of time, He knows who is evil from birth and who is elect from birth, but only acts for the good by manipulating what is already evil and seen by Him as choosing it. All things working together for good to those called according to God's purpose. As with Pharoah, a heart already seen as hard and with no possible entrance or place for the seed of God, is used to reveal God's glory and power to those that trust God. This fits Romans 9:22, a key verse for understanding election in my mind:

Ro 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by raphe

How does His knowing restrict freewill?

How does it not???

If God knows in advance that in three years from now you will drive to the store buy a bottle of mustard and then drop it in the parking lot spilling it everywhere do you have the freedom to do anything else?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

GIT,

Here is my long overdue response...

yay!

If God does not control all things, we cannot be sure that He is in control in the end. Someone might do something that totally did not expect and change everything in history. In fact, I would not be so sure that God will triumph in the end if He is not in control and governing all things.

because God's control lies in his power. no one can defeat God or take him down or anything like that because their existence is dependent on the power of God. that is why we know he is in control because he has all the power in all the universe. we have been given some power of our own to do as we please for a while, but that was ultimately given by God and if he decided so, he could take it away.

What would be an example of "microdetails"? Who determines what these microdetails are, us or God?

a teacher can be in control of a classroom without controlling what each child is doing at every moment.

I would say yes and no. We do have a active part in salvation, called faith. However, your assumption that all people know they "have done things we shouldn’t have and gone against what the person who put those convictions there wants" and have the "ability innately to turn to God" is ALL A MATTER OF GRACE! What you are describing is repentance. It is a change of mind of our former lives to a change of mind concerning Christ.

Romans 1
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

all of us know God exists and that we should give him glory. all of us know we need forgiveness for our sins but most of us refuse to aknoweldge God or ask him for forgiveness.

this combined with the drawing of the Father and the conviction of sins from the holy spirit is more than enough to bring a man to repentence.

How can a mind hostile to God change its self?

2Co 7:10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.

You are describing GODLY grief, something more than worldly grief. Godly grief PRODUCES repentance. Why would we ever have a godly grief?

Because we see who Christ really is, dying for our sins, and we think, "Blahhh! I can't believe I rejected the Fountain of Living Water and gave my self to the arsenic of sin. How could I have ever given myself to such sinfulness and horrors! Lord, forgive me!" That is where repentance comes from, when we see what horrors we have committed against the Almighty.

If God does not produce that, then it won't come! We will see the idea of a Savior as foolishness and folly. It is when we see Christ that we can see our sinfulness...

the hostile mind must first be softened before it can repent. that's the whole point of the drawing of the fater and the convicting of the holy spirit! that's their job! to make it easier for us to see that we are guilty and need forgivness. but even after that, the choice to accept the sacrifice of Christ is still their own to make.

godly grief is what one experiences when they see Christ and his sacrifice with joy and beauty. but does it always produce repentence? not necessarily.

I happen to think it isn't there because it was not meant to be there, especially in regard to WHY God saved us. Also, Paul is speaking to them concerning BEFORE they were believers, but He never mentions faith as the reason they are saved...Salvation is of the Lord, not of the Lord and Man.

i see it instead as Paul's reminder to them of what all God has done for them, as a means of encouragement. he was not writing this for doctrines sake, he was writing to benefit them, by means of encouragement i believe. what purpose do you hold that Paul would write those things specifically?

1Pe 2:2 desire the sincere milk of the Word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it;

Can you MAKE yourself desire anything? Truly desire it and it not be fake? We are commanded to do it.

if you hang around someone often enough, do something long enough, even if you don't consiously desire it, you will eventually want it and desire it. thus, Peter was writing so that they would be spiritually disciplined and grow to desire it all the more.

Deu 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Can you circumcise your own heart?

metaphor.

1Th 5:18 In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Can you MAKE yourself be thankful and show true gratitude toward God? I will give you the illustration I gave godrulz:

if your thankfulness is dependent on God then yes! you must decide to not rely on the pleasures of the world on which to be thankful, but to look to Christ, the cross and the wonderful grace that was given there and on that to be thankful each and every day, in all things. once we decide to do that, we can make ourselves be thankful in all things towards God. we have to consiously decide to look to Christ for it though, not the world. then we can be thankful in all things.

If a child wants a red fire truck for Christmas, but he gets a pair of black socks instead, he can say the words, "Thank you for the black socks," but that is NOT gratitude. Saying the words, "I thank you God for my salvation, my wife, my house, my kids, my SUFFERING AND PAIN," is NOT gratitude. Gratitude is an emotion. When you get the red fire truck for Christmas you have it, and if you don't, you don't! It is still commanded though...

it is more than an emotion i think. i'd say it's an emotion and a mind set. once you recognize the goodness of God and make your gratitude dependent on that, the emotion will naturally follow when you think of God.

God has the right to command of us what we OUGHT to give even if by virtue of our profound rebellion and corruption we cannot give it. The problem is with US, not the command or with God. We should give thanks whether we are able to or not, and we are responsible for doing so. Ingratitude is still sin because the very nature of ingratitude is arrogant and hateful; it matters not whether we can produce it on our own. Either way, we are still responsible.

i think i agree with this.

Let me quote the passage once again:

Rom 8:5 For they who are according to the flesh mind the things of flesh, but they who are according to the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace
Rom 8:7 because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.
Rom 8:8 So then they who are in the flesh cannot please God.

This "sinful mind" effects the whole person, for Paul's conclusion is: "So then, they who are in the flesh CANNOT please God." Would repenting please God?

here is the NASB version:

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

note how the last part is statd: those "controlled" by it. if someone is controlled by something it means that they are submitting themselves completely to it. they allow it to do as it pleases and they satisfy it. so it makes complete sense that those who are controlled by the sinful nature can't please God.

but it doesn't logically follow that they can't stop gratifying it. they are not helpless slaves here as you might think. it just means that they are constantly giving in to the sinful nature and pleasing it. it's controlling them and they let it do so. they still retain the power to take back control though, with God's help of course.

You said specifically:

This is about the sinful mind. But as I already stated, there is more to a person than the mind. There is the heart, soul and will for starters.

Heart:

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

which is why we need a new one.

Will:

Rom 3:11 there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God."

Eph 2:3 among whom we also had our way of life in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Are you going to expect your deceitfully wicked and perverse will to get you out of your sinfulness? Your ENTIRE person was effected by the Fall, not just parts of you! We are dead people; we have more than just a broken leg.

the will is not bonded to doing those things. it simply does so because it wills to. but the will is not "set in stone". what it wills is able to change if it desires to, especially if the father begins to draw it and the holy spirit begins to convict it.

i agree that every part of us was tainted by sin at the fall. but that doesn't mean we can't still cry out for a savior once we realize we are sinners and in need of forgiveness! being "dead" is a metaphor for our state of being apart from Christ who is the life. it doesn't mean total inability.

You seem to think a person can act for Christ without THINKING (mind) about it or having FEELINGS (heart) about it

A person will act in accordance with his heart and mind. He thinks; he feels; he acts. He must think and feel before he acts.

you have forgot the soul of the person! the very part of every person that is made in the image of God! a person does think and does feel before acting, but the act of the person is not necessarily related to what they felt or thought! haven't you ever done something spontaneously for no reason without thinking about it or feeling it before hand? i have!

When an unregenerate person thinks and feels about Christ, you know what they think?

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those being lost

1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How can that be any clearer?

well first off 1 Corinthians 2:14 is invalid because the context is spiritual wisdom, not the gospel.

but secondly, i read those verses and i think back to Romans 1. the people who reject the cross do so because they love their wickedness and have no remorse in their hearts. they know they need salvation and forgiveness but ignore the great gift of God calling it foolishness. i also think that when they call it foolishness it's because they are not being drawn by the father or convicted by the holy spirit and i agree with you that witout these things we will not seek God.

Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

These verses nowhere say God did not know I would exist, or did not love me personally on the cross. YOU infer from the text that God must not have known us. How do YOU square this verse with the idea in Romans 8:29-32 of God "foreknowing" us?

what else could "NOW that you have come to be known by God" mean? are you suggesting that somehow "now being known by God" means "having always been known by God"? :kookoo:

"Coming to know God" and "God knowing us" are virtually the same in this verse.

but that's not what the verse says. it says now that you have come to be known by God. how can you come to be known if you were known all along?

God "knowing" us happens in time and in eternity. We were "once not a people," but we are "now a people of God" (1 Peter 2). Does that mean God never had a people for Himself or never determined to have a specific people for Himself?

doesn't follow. it just means that we who weren't previously people of God are now called people of God. God had people all along, but we were not a part of them until now.

Your inference is not valid.

not yet it isn't.

Phi 4:6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

God must not know the present needs of His people either, right? It says "Let them be MADE KNOWN TO GOD." Therefore, we should infer that God does not know what we need or what requests we have.

You are making something out to be more than it really is...

starwman. letting them be made to God is the same as saying "present your requests before God". it says nothing of whether he knows them before or not. i can make my case known to you in court even though you are aware of it before. it just refers to a formal presenting of your requests before God. it speaks nothing of his knowledge about them. thus your statement is a strawman.

Isn't the OV supposed to make God more personal and loving? Isn't that one of the supposed benefits?

perhaps, that's not why i hold to it. i started with my experiences about God, the basics of who he is and what i saw him doing in my life and other peoples lives and found a theology in the bible that matched up. the more i looked at that theology the more i saw it as biblically faithful, consistent internally, and the view that matched up most closely with real life. to me, if you start with scripture and then make reality match up with that, you have it backwards. i look at reality and interpret scripture accordingly which makes sense, unless you hold that the writers of scripture were outside of reality. :chuckle:

The result of WHAT SINS!? There are not any sins or punishment or wrath that He must bear because none of that existed when He died.

How can all of that be said to be planned "before time began," since God didn't even know sin would exist then?

he didn't literally bear them, remember? the important thing is the death he paid. we all deserve death as punishment for sin (Romans 3:23) but because Jesus didn't sin at all, the death he paid took on the wrath of God for sin on behalf of us. his death becomes substitutionary for us. he stood where we should have. his death was the price we had earned and because he was without sin, it is able to be applied to us.

there is no need to think that God literally placed "sins" on Christ as if they were things. sins are wrong doings, offenses against God. the punishment is death. Jesus paid the price for that though he was innocent and as such can save us through that.

You are right; it is irrelevant. Therefore, because our finite minds cannot handle that God foreknows us before we exist is irrelevant. What matters is truth. That is what happen regardless of how we feel about it:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

um, comforting has nothing to do with logic. if something is logically incoherent or illogical then it should be discarded immediately because it's untrue. EFK and free will are illogical together. they cannot co-exist. thus, since it's clear we have free will (you have to use it to deny it, illogical), i must discard EFK.

both of those verses there i interpret as general election in regards to the body of Christ. there is no need to assume the interpretation of individual election from eternity past.

Either Christ foreknew and foreloved us and died for us in spite of our sin or there is NO way Christ could have died for ME while I was a sinner. Did Christ come back and die again in 1984? How could He have died for me "while I was a sinner"? To me, your view is LESS explanatory than mine...

but that's not the way it works! his death is a general death that is applicable for every human being in all of existence, past, present and future! it's not that you hadn't sinned yet, it's that before you sinned, the way of salvation had already been made. the door through wich all humans can enter salvation by had already been made.

This is your making God out to be like me and you, which He is not.

are you suggesting God can do the illogical, contradictory and absurd?

For WHO? For WHAT? Do you realize if God cannot foreknow us, then He didn't die for "us" or bear "our curse," for we had no curse because we did not even exist yet! "Who" are these "people" you are talking about? Christ didn't know them.

How can Christ sacrifice Himself for something that doesn't exist, something He no idea WILL ever exist? "Well, I suppose there will be a bunch of people, possibly, that will live in the future, so here goes nothing!" That is the view of Christ I would have if He didn't foreknow us and love us before we were created.

for everyone! for humanity as a whole! he has become the door through which any sinner can enter into life by! he provided the means by which anyone who sinned could be saved! you keep thinking that Christ had to bear our individual sin in order to atone for it, this is not so! Christ took our death, our wrath on behalf of mankind as a whole. he became the window of salvation because he was sinless, yet he took our punishment for sin.

your view here is a strawman because of a misunderstanding about the cross.

PEOPLE! There were no "people" except for the ones living that Christ died for. Especially since, He died "while we were sinners." You and I seem to be up a creek without a paddle...

still that strawman :doh:

Called? You seem to make this "call" decisive...what if no one from the Gentiles responded?

what's the problem?

"Hate" is more than rejected...

then why was Esau blessed by God in this life? please show me anywhere in the OT that says God hated Esau and that he ended up in hell. advance warning, Malachi is talking about nations.

We can somehow believe before we were predestined?

who said you were predestined to believe? cannot God do general predestination to a group of people before the people exist? of course he can, there is nothing wrong or illogical about that view.

Can you show me a couple text where it speaks of God working with us to bring about good or nothing God does contradicts our free will or a couple texts that define our will?

you can't control free will, by definition. if ones' will is free, then you aren't controlling it. you are giving up control to allow them to do what they decide to do. that's what free means, uncontrolled.

if God were to ever go against our free will, or take it away, then he would not be loving for love always offers a choice. you can't force someone to love you, they must choose to love you. love is always about choice and when you take away someone's ability to make choices you show that you do not love them.

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

God is love as this scripture shows. thus, God has given us choice. he wants a people for himself who truly love him back and freely do so. anything less would not be love. for this to always be true love, God must not take away this free will at any time because he would be taking away their ability to love.

some passages that show free will:

Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Joshua 24:15
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD ."

John 7:17
If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

and there are many other verses on this topic as well. in fact, anywhere you see the word "choose" in a text, this assumes free will for one can only "choose" something when one has free will.

Would you agree that they are PRODUCED by God? Can we in and of ourselves produce that which is pleasing in His sight?

the desire and the strength to do them are produced by God.

unbelieves though are still capable of doing good things. they are not capable of living a Godly life for Christ and loving as he loved.

You said earlier if God commands us to do something, then we have the ability to do it. Now, God can command something, but He must "help" and "work in us" to bring it about, so which is it? Can we fully do it if God commands us, or can God command of us what we cannot do in and of ourselves without His grace and mercy?

it's important to remember who the command is given to. if it's given to everyone then we all have the ability. if it's just to the body of Christ then i think it's something we can do, but we need God's help to make us do.

I will respond to the rest tomorrow...it is getting late. Feel free to respond whenever...

this is the end of part 1. i'll get to part 2 hopefuly soon.

with peace,

GIT

 

[Nathon Detroit]

11 days and counting....

11 days and counting....

Swordsman?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,

Part 2...

whew! these are getting long aren't they?

I agree. That is basic hermeneutics, so you are exactly right.

:thumb:

Pro 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

Do you OVers not argue and argue for a "straightforward" and "literal" reading of the text? When does this principle apply and when does it not? When it best fits your theology?

straighforward is best, but sometimes that leaves us with a contradictory theology which will not do. whenever we can, use the straightfoward reading of it. when that leads to problems, find an interpretation that goes along with everything else as best you can. the goal is consistency, truth and biblical faithfulness.

"He won't LET US do it"? How can God hinder you from doing something without affecting your idea of "free will"?

if God doesn't want me to drive to the store then he will not allow my car to start. or he may decide to have a storm come in which prevents me from going to the store. neither of these things affects my free will in any way whatsoever.

What is the difference between "allowing" and "ordaining" that something be?

anything God ordains is something he brings to pass himself. the second coming of Christ is ordained by God. my writing this post is just something he has allowed, not ordained. do you have a different understanding of ordained?

How can God "allow" something He doesn't know you will do? How can God not "let us" do something if He doesn't know what we will do? If God will not let you do something, then He must know what you are going to do before you do it! Otherwise, He would have to "let you" do it to see what you are really going to do.

God is not ignorant of the present. he sees your thoughts, knows your motives and can see what you are planning to do. if God sees that you are planning to go get drunk and he doesn't want you to, he'll stop you from doing so if he chooses.

In what sense does God "establish our steps"? It He "establishes" them, then how are they so called "free"?

how do you define establish?

I do remember Pharaoh. Is affecting our "heart" and our "desires" the same thing? You seem to be saying what I am have been saying all along: God can affect our hearts/desires and give us a new heart and desires so that we would freely choose Him.

i believe our heart contains our desires, yes. but remember that he won't do this without good reason. he hardened pharaoh as punishment. he opened lydias heart because she was faithful to him in the old ways. nothing he does will go against free will.

Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would NOT choose Him. Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would do that which is pleasing in His sight, which we would NOT have done otherwise.

he can do anything that doesn't go against free will or contradict his character.

Sin is "done by God's power"? I do agree ALL things are from and through God, but sin and evil and from and through God in such a way that God is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER to blame for sin or for evil, but it is always the sinner who is blamed.

i never said God was to blame for sin. i said that sin was done by his power, not by him. we are the ones who use his power for sinful ways. or dou disagree that all things are done by God's power?

You seem to be agreeing with some form of compatiblism...

However, throughout the rest of the post, you seem to contradict what you have said concerning all the verses above...

how so?

See what I mean? You seem to adhere to a form of compatiblism in your exegesis of those verses, but then you turn around and seem to contradict what you said above...

how am i holding to compatiblism?

blessings,

GIT

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: 11 days and counting....

Re: 11 days and counting....

Originally posted by Knight

Swordsman?

i wonder why he isn't answering :think:

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by godrulz

This sounds like eisegesis or deductive reasoning to support a preconceived theology.

Right backatcha.

Originally posted by godrulz
Why the aversion to God's love for all men in an impartial way? This is consistent with His justice and holiness and love.

The aversion is based on the biblical definition of divine love: Self-sacrificial devotion. God does not express this to all men without exception, otherwise, all men would be saved. His sacrifice applies only to those whom He loves and chose for His own good pleasure.

Originally posted by godrulz Jn. 3:16 "For God so loved the elect..."

Come on...

That's exactly right. The kosmos refers to the order of God's elect.

16 For God so loved the kosmos [the order of the elect], [hina -- to the intent] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him [i.e. each believing-on-Him one] should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the kosmos [the order of the elect] to condemn the kosmos [the order of the elect]; but [hina -- to the intent] that the kosmos [the order of the elect] through him might be saved.

When the scriptures speak of God's intentions, we can be assured of their certainty of coming to full and precise fruition. This further strengthens the subjunctive verb because God always gets what He intends. He sent His Son to the intent of saving each one that believes on Him, not to condemn the elect, but to the intent that the elect through Him will certainly be saved.

 

[Turbo]

Re: 11 days and counting....

Re: 11 days and counting....

Originally posted by Knight

Swordsman?

 

[Swordsman]

Re: 10 days later and still hoping for an answer....

Re: 10 days later and still hoping for an answer....

Originally posted by Knight

Swordsman.... please I beg of you could please respond and defend your original assertion?

I thought I did answer your question. What is it you seek?

So I ask you to please explain what "repent" means if it is indeed a "anthropomorphism".

Let me give you an example to work from...
Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

If "repented" in Gen 6:6 is a anthropomorphism and if a anthropomorphism is given to create clarity and not confusion what does the anthropomorphism mean in Gen 6:6?

The anthropomorphism is given here to assert that God had an emotion similar to man in that He "wished He had not made man". It does not mean literally that He was sorry that He ever made man. That would contradict His entire decree of creation.

I think your assumption is: is that God changed his mind.

If God is truly omniscient, then He knows the end from the beginning. Therefore, if you will, God's mind cannot change; hence "repent" in this passage has to signify a change of conduct. In other words, God did change his course of dealing with man because of man's wickedness which grieved him, but he did not need to change his mind or plans, because these plans had from the very first recognized the corrupting and degrading tendency of sin, and provided (in purpose of mind) the Lamb of God-- "slain from the foundation of the world," as the redemption price.

We were made in the image of God. However, he is NOT an image of us.

Christ sitting at the right hand of God is another anthropomorphism. God's right hand is not like our right hand. And His mind is not like our minds. He has seen the end from the beginning. Our finite minds cannot comprehend this.