Does Calvinism limit God?
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Is personal subversion & biblical treachery fruits of the spirit? (ridicule mode
n)
Is personal subversion & biblical treachery fruits of the spirit? (ridicule moden)
Knight – and Z Man’s incidental notice - I don’t mind at all. I gave Z Man the antithesis of his biblical argument, by exposing the God repents via changing His mind from doing His previous intended course of action. But he doesn’t even respond. He says that “God repents” and therein “does do” what He always intended on doing, God never repents as in changing His mind and not doing what He previously intended on doing, He just repents as in not changing His mind, whatever meaningless nonsense that means. Yet Z Man never deals cogently with the divine repentance scriptures. Z Man is a very twisted individual, which you can see by his response to your excellent :thumb: post. You can not win an argument with willfully blind.
Perhaps simply for the sake of everyone else, it is good to have more of Z Man’s perversity shown for the subversion that it is. Of special note in this regard, remember what Z Man asked of you via me? He asked us to do a very “simple” thing, which you easily and graciously complied, and that was to demonstrate how we open theists comply/harmonize/understand (his word was “reconcile”) these teachings which he thinks contradict our views. He did NOT ask how to correct Z Man’s thinking, just how do we cope with God’s word as he selected. So you went about trying to be as honest and helpful as possible, “trusting”(*) that what Z was asking was sincere,
(*) (in a good willed fashion, but not ignorant of all this I’m sure!)
but his entire response was to say in essence,
But Knight, this does not fit “my” view at all, what you are saying is all wrong because “I” disagree because God can not change, bla bla bla.
See what I mean about Z Man being not trustworthy and subversive? He did not want to know how we harmonize these passages like he plainly asked of us to comply with his “simple” and “easy” request, he just wanted to continue to argue our difference of opinion, not do an objective bible study examination where God’s word rules. The futility of answering the willfully blind is evident. So unless the Z will actually stop being dishonest and treacherous with himself and us and God’s word, we have this sort of whole scale subversion to deal with.
He’s lied to me so many times now about him answering me, that he probably actually thinks he is telling the truth, yet the truth is evident, he can not answer uprightly his understanding via bible conformity all the bible passages that teach divine repentance away from His previously intended course of action. I mean how hard is it to exegete one half of one verse like Jonah 3.10? A ten year old could read 10 verses and explain Jonah 3.10 subsection b! But the Z is not man enough to touch it, he only voids and contradicts it, and he NEVER replaces the voided meaning with the biblically provided replacement meaning.
n)Is personal subversion & biblical treachery fruits of the spirit? (ridicule mode
n)Knight – and Z Man’s incidental notice - I don’t mind at all. I gave Z Man the antithesis of his biblical argument, by exposing the God repents via changing His mind from doing His previous intended course of action. But he doesn’t even respond. He says that “God repents” and therein “does do” what He always intended on doing, God never repents as in changing His mind and not doing what He previously intended on doing, He just repents as in not changing His mind, whatever meaningless nonsense that means. Yet Z Man never deals cogently with the divine repentance scriptures. Z Man is a very twisted individual, which you can see by his response to your excellent :thumb: post. You can not win an argument with willfully blind.
Perhaps simply for the sake of everyone else, it is good to have more of Z Man’s perversity shown for the subversion that it is. Of special note in this regard, remember what Z Man asked of you via me? He asked us to do a very “simple” thing, which you easily and graciously complied, and that was to demonstrate how we open theists comply/harmonize/understand (his word was “reconcile”) these teachings which he thinks contradict our views. He did NOT ask how to correct Z Man’s thinking, just how do we cope with God’s word as he selected. So you went about trying to be as honest and helpful as possible, “trusting”(*) that what Z was asking was sincere,
(*) (in a good willed fashion, but not ignorant of all this I’m sure!)
but his entire response was to say in essence,
But Knight, this does not fit “my” view at all, what you are saying is all wrong because “I” disagree because God can not change, bla bla bla.
See what I mean about Z Man being not trustworthy and subversive? He did not want to know how we harmonize these passages like he plainly asked of us to comply with his “simple” and “easy” request, he just wanted to continue to argue our difference of opinion, not do an objective bible study examination where God’s word rules. The futility of answering the willfully blind is evident. So unless the Z will actually stop being dishonest and treacherous with himself and us and God’s word, we have this sort of whole scale subversion to deal with.
He’s lied to me so many times now about him answering me, that he probably actually thinks he is telling the truth, yet the truth is evident, he can not answer uprightly his understanding via bible conformity all the bible passages that teach divine repentance away from His previously intended course of action. I mean how hard is it to exegete one half of one verse like Jonah 3.10? A ten year old could read 10 verses and explain Jonah 3.10 subsection b! But the Z is not man enough to touch it, he only voids and contradicts it, and he NEVER replaces the voided meaning with the biblically provided replacement meaning.
Regardless, God is omnicompetent in His perfections and is able to wisely respond to any contingency. This is more glorious than being a control freak. He is not impotent nor subject to anyone. He chose to give up some control, out of love, to have love relationships with moral agents, rather than an impersonal control of robots.
Glad I make you laugh. We should strive to know God as He has revealed Himself in His relations (vs preconceived theology influenced by pagan Greek philosophy).
You are mocking a 'straw man' that I also reject as truthful.
Z Man... with all due respect I think you are being a tad willingly ignorant. (I really don"t mean to be offensive, you know that I consider you a dear friend).
It's just that you say the most bizarre things....
You say...
You state...
If God was going to ordain Nineveh to repent there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to threaten them!
Can you give me a reason???? Why threaten when repentence is already ordained???
You continue...
Not only that but according to you it was God who ordained their wickedness in the first place! (your position gets even stranger!).
Therefore...
According to your theology God ordained Nineveh's wickedness and then also ordained their repentance! What is the point of this wacky hollow exercise??? Let me guess... to show His glory so that others might choose Him???? Oh... no... wait... that can't be it... because it's God that ordains people to choose Him anyways! :kookoo: None of your theology makes the least bit of sense.
You continue...
You continue...
If you are going to debate the open view at least have the guts to debate the open view in a upfront way. Shame on you! :nono:
It's just that you say the most bizarre things....
You say...
No open theist that I know has ever stated anything that would say otherwise! Of course God only repents in accordance with His will! That would only be stating the obvious which tends to make me think you stated this just to confuse those reading our discussion.
You state...
Now that is just plain bizarre!
If God was going to ordain Nineveh to repent there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to threaten them!
Can you give me a reason???? Why threaten when repentence is already ordained???
You continue...
Again... why threaten them if God had ordained their repentence in the first place?
Not only that but according to you it was God who ordained their wickedness in the first place! (your position gets even stranger!).
Therefore...
According to your theology God ordained Nineveh's wickedness and then also ordained their repentance! What is the point of this wacky hollow exercise??? Let me guess... to show His glory so that others might choose Him???? Oh... no... wait... that can't be it... because it's God that ordains people to choose Him anyways! :kookoo: None of your theology makes the least bit of sense.
You continue...
No... Numbers 23:19 simply shows that there are some judgments that God will NOT repent of.
You continue...
I do not appreciate your intentional false representation of the argument. You know full well that open theists do not think that God repents from sin. You know full well (or at least you should) that the repentance in question is in regard to God changing His course of action. Again the only reason you would so blatantly misrepresent the debate would be to hopefully slander the open view side.
If you are going to debate the open view at least have the guts to debate the open view in a upfront way. Shame on you! :nono:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Classic immutability verses biblical mutability
Classic immutability verses biblical mutability
The only consistent thing these closed theists do, is defend and honor and worship the classic version of “divine immutability”, they probably carry the writings of Plato and Aristotle along with their bibles, like St. Augustine for example, for him, whenever the bible contradicted Greek philosophy of divine immutability, he taught to take such scriptures in a non-literal way, voiding them of meaning. BUT, in his long standing legacy, he forgot one very important thing, to give a cogent bible conforming replacement meaning after voiding scripture of it’s literal meaning!!!
He would not even become a Christian such was his offense at a living changing God, so it was not until after he was taught to circumvent God’s word through Pagan philosophy such that anytime God is shown to change he should just take that literal meaning and throw it away and say that God does NOT change instead, say it was a figure BUT don’t dwell on the figure since there is no figure to explain from scripture, God is just too hard to figure out sometimes, He simply can not be understood that well.
And since then the vast majority of believers have joined him rather ignorant of the treachery and anti-biblical views ever since.
You refute the very foundation of their entire belief system, the simple yet foundational precept that God can not change, and they are left with nothing but the bible’s teachings and the open view is only evident. But don’t hold your breath waiting for their faith to conform to the many “God changing in significant ways” teachings from scripture; they have the Greek philosophers to recon with first and foremost.
Knight – I totally agree, and I would like to be friends with Z Man too, but friends don’t let friends be violate and contradictory to God’s word. Thanks my brother and friend for helping me and godrulz help Z lift God’s word up higher than man’s vain philosophy.
Classic immutability verses biblical mutability
The only consistent thing these closed theists do, is defend and honor and worship the classic version of “divine immutability”, they probably carry the writings of Plato and Aristotle along with their bibles, like St. Augustine for example, for him, whenever the bible contradicted Greek philosophy of divine immutability, he taught to take such scriptures in a non-literal way, voiding them of meaning. BUT, in his long standing legacy, he forgot one very important thing, to give a cogent bible conforming replacement meaning after voiding scripture of it’s literal meaning!!!
He would not even become a Christian such was his offense at a living changing God, so it was not until after he was taught to circumvent God’s word through Pagan philosophy such that anytime God is shown to change he should just take that literal meaning and throw it away and say that God does NOT change instead, say it was a figure BUT don’t dwell on the figure since there is no figure to explain from scripture, God is just too hard to figure out sometimes, He simply can not be understood that well.
And since then the vast majority of believers have joined him rather ignorant of the treachery and anti-biblical views ever since.
You refute the very foundation of their entire belief system, the simple yet foundational precept that God can not change, and they are left with nothing but the bible’s teachings and the open view is only evident. But don’t hold your breath waiting for their faith to conform to the many “God changing in significant ways” teachings from scripture; they have the Greek philosophers to recon with first and foremost.
Knight – I totally agree, and I would like to be friends with Z Man too, but friends don’t let friends be violate and contradictory to God’s word. Thanks my brother and friend for helping me and godrulz help Z lift God’s word up higher than man’s vain philosophy.
Last edited:
Peace godrulz
Now wait a minute! You have just said that God is powerful enough to INSURE the outcome of ANY given event. Now you say He is NOT powerful enough to INSURE the event called "contingency???"
Can you say inconsistency???
A. God is not in NEED of anything WE may or may not be able to produce. This fallacy that God is in NEED of "freewill agents" to LOVE is PATENTLY FALSE and LEAVES GOD WANTING....
Perfection is NOT WANTING nor is HE in DIRE NEED of "our" fickle, self serving, limited LOVE. What you "produce" is LESS THAN what a ROBOT can produce....LOOK at your own examples. You would DAMN THE MAJORITY to burn. This is YOUR PATHETIC LOVE.
You think this LIMITED LOVE you produce with your LIMITED WILL is a GOOD THING that equates ANYWHERE NEAR God's Agape Love???
Acts 17
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Whether you did or did strive will NOT CHANGE GOD or HIS PLANS. God has set your path before you hit the dirt you occupy. You do not get to PAT yourself on the back whilst condemning others to burn forever. Neither do the Calvies.
You keep mentioning ROBOTS as most "freewillers" are oft to bring, yet YOU CONSIGN your fellow man as a ROBOT to be burned alive IN NOT CONFORMING to your "determinations" of text.
So in fact is it YOU who seek ROBOTS and ETERNAL DAMNATION of others for what is also in you.
Strange beliefs you have godrulz. Some is VERY FUNNY. Some is VERY WRONG and CONDEMNING and JUDGMENTAL.
You like to sit in God's Seat.
Your only truth is YOU.
You SAVE yourself. You SELF atone. You are SELF righteous.
So what else is new?
enjoy!
smaller
Now wait a minute! You have just said that God is powerful enough to INSURE the outcome of ANY given event. Now you say He is NOT powerful enough to INSURE the event called "contingency???"
Can you say inconsistency???
A. God is not in NEED of anything WE may or may not be able to produce. This fallacy that God is in NEED of "freewill agents" to LOVE is PATENTLY FALSE and LEAVES GOD WANTING....
Perfection is NOT WANTING nor is HE in DIRE NEED of "our" fickle, self serving, limited LOVE. What you "produce" is LESS THAN what a ROBOT can produce....LOOK at your own examples. You would DAMN THE MAJORITY to burn. This is YOUR PATHETIC LOVE.
You think this LIMITED LOVE you produce with your LIMITED WILL is a GOOD THING that equates ANYWHERE NEAR God's Agape Love???
Acts 17
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Whether you did or did strive will NOT CHANGE GOD or HIS PLANS. God has set your path before you hit the dirt you occupy. You do not get to PAT yourself on the back whilst condemning others to burn forever. Neither do the Calvies.
You keep mentioning ROBOTS as most "freewillers" are oft to bring, yet YOU CONSIGN your fellow man as a ROBOT to be burned alive IN NOT CONFORMING to your "determinations" of text.
So in fact is it YOU who seek ROBOTS and ETERNAL DAMNATION of others for what is also in you.
Strange beliefs you have godrulz. Some is VERY FUNNY. Some is VERY WRONG and CONDEMNING and JUDGMENTAL.
You like to sit in God's Seat.
Your only truth is YOU.
You SAVE yourself. You SELF atone. You are SELF righteous.
So what else is new?
enjoy!
smaller
Knight seems to have difficulty in belief that GOD DIRECTS OR ALLOWS SATAN (read-evil.)
Would you like to make that case Knight???
Or would you like to make a case that God is NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH to STOP it???
Or not concerned enough to DO ANYTHING about it WHILE IT IS STILL HAPPENING???
He just LET'S it happen and says SOMEDAY I'll get around to dealing with it???
lol
Would you like to make that case Knight???
Or would you like to make a case that God is NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH to STOP it???
Or not concerned enough to DO ANYTHING about it WHILE IT IS STILL HAPPENING???
He just LET'S it happen and says SOMEDAY I'll get around to dealing with it???
lol
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I fail to see where Knight, or anybody here defending the Open View on this board, has ever said that God is not powerful enough to stop evil. What I have seen, time and again, are many explanations, of God choosing not to stop evil, in order that He might allow for man to love Him.
I don't spend any time making any "cases" for you. (so to speak)
You are far too weird to waste any effort on. :kookoo:
Thank you!
Z Man
New member
That's a rather odd observation. After God saves us, can we still not "rebel" in sin? We do it everyday. The difference though, is that after we repent, sinning becomes a willful choice. Those who are lost only sin because it's the natural thing to do; it's all they know.
Freewill is given after a person is saved. That's not fatalism; that's grace.
If anyone simply read just the text itself, of course one would come away with the belief that God changes. But when one takes the whole bible into context, then will they realize that God actually does not change.
It's not about what one verse says; it's about what the Word Of God says on the whole issue in context.
God's righteous nature does not change. I think we all agree on that right?
But God Himself is capable of change is He not???
After-all....
Didn't God stop creating and then rest? (what does the Bible say?)
Is He still creating?
Is He still resting?
Was He creating before He started creating????
Was He always resting or did He rest only after He created????
Z Man.... does God change in ANY way???
Feel free to define "ANY" however you feel comfortable.
Z Man
New member
First and foremost:
1 Way,
If you have nothing informative or good to say, you need to keep your mouth shut. You are so religously arragont, it literally makes my stomach churn. Your vile, sneaky, posinous words do nothing but slander me without a cause. If anyone was to read your post, it becomes so obvious that your only intent is to mock me and cast stones, while all the while uplifting your self-rightous self and theology above me. I could care less if you hate me or not, or if I get under your skin with my posts, or if you call me names and make false accusation against me, simply because you do not know how to answer a few questions concerning biblical scriptures. Keep it up, and I'll put you on my ignore list (which I've never had to do to anyone else before). I've had enough of your ignorant, self-righteous, bitter, arrogant posts.
Moving on...
This reminds me of a verse in the NT:
1 Corithians 1:21-24
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
To wake the elect, God chose the method of preaching the gospel message. It pleased Him to do it that way to make foolishness out of the wisdom of the world. Wise people can't understand the gospel message; it's foolishness to them. But to those who are called, it is the power of God. This is the way God wanted it. The same way that God chose the method of "threatening" Ninevah to bring about their repentance, He has chosen the method of preaching the gospel to awaken the elect.
BTW, your mockery of my theolgy summed up in a couple of sentences does no justice to what I truely believe in. Please do a better job of NOT mis-representing my views. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :thumb:
The point to it all isn't to show God's glory so others might choose Him; the point is simply to display His glory. Period.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man...that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
In other words, since man is not perfect, they need to repent. They need to always change. God is not a man, thus He does not repent. What He said He will do will happen! No question about it! Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? God does not repent from His purposes. No man can thwart His will.
That's what this verse says. No where does it say, "Oh, and by the way, here are some things God DOES repent from: ...."
Your definition of God changing means that He changes His mind on certain issues - that He takes back what He had originally planned. I refute that definition. I believe it to be unbiblical, and I've presented some evidence to support my claim.
I believe that when the bible speaks of God repenting, it's not because God is changing His original plans; but rather, the act of Him repenting, or taking away something, such as His wrath, was a part of His plan the whole time!
Cause and effect.
1 Way,
If you have nothing informative or good to say, you need to keep your mouth shut. You are so religously arragont, it literally makes my stomach churn. Your vile, sneaky, posinous words do nothing but slander me without a cause. If anyone was to read your post, it becomes so obvious that your only intent is to mock me and cast stones, while all the while uplifting your self-rightous self and theology above me. I could care less if you hate me or not, or if I get under your skin with my posts, or if you call me names and make false accusation against me, simply because you do not know how to answer a few questions concerning biblical scriptures. Keep it up, and I'll put you on my ignore list (which I've never had to do to anyone else before). I've had enough of your ignorant, self-righteous, bitter, arrogant posts.
Moving on...
Don't we all?
My intent, I assure you, was not to confuse anyone, but to hopefully make things clear. It looks like they already are...
Why would they repent if God never threatened them? It's the "cause and effect" affect. God is forever wise; He knew what Ninevah would do had He threaten or not threaten them. Every course of action that He takes is always the best. Since threatening Ninevah is what He did, then there can be no question that that was the best course of action that God thought best in order for Ninevah to repent.
This reminds me of a verse in the NT:
1 Corithians 1:21-24
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
To wake the elect, God chose the method of preaching the gospel message. It pleased Him to do it that way to make foolishness out of the wisdom of the world. Wise people can't understand the gospel message; it's foolishness to them. But to those who are called, it is the power of God. This is the way God wanted it. The same way that God chose the method of "threatening" Ninevah to bring about their repentance, He has chosen the method of preaching the gospel to awaken the elect.
His permissive will allowed Ninevah's wickedness.
It's not suppose to...
BTW, your mockery of my theolgy summed up in a couple of sentences does no justice to what I truely believe in. Please do a better job of NOT mis-representing my views. I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :thumb:
The point to it all isn't to show God's glory so others might choose Him; the point is simply to display His glory. Period.
That's not what Numbers 23:19 says, and you know it.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man...that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
In other words, since man is not perfect, they need to repent. They need to always change. God is not a man, thus He does not repent. What He said He will do will happen! No question about it! Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? God does not repent from His purposes. No man can thwart His will.
That's what this verse says. No where does it say, "Oh, and by the way, here are some things God DOES repent from: ...."
That's not what I meant Knight. You had said that I claimed falsely that God can't do some things. I merely stated that God can't sin. That's a fact. That's something God can't do. Does that mean I'm limiting God by saying He can't sin? Of course not, yet you said I was limiting Him by saying He couldn't do certain things. Just wanted to make sure that you understood that there are some things God can't do, like sin.
If I stop working and take a nap, does that mean I've changed, or better yet, that I've changed my mind? Of course not! God knew He was going to rest on the 7th day; there was no change of mind on God's part! And how going from creating to resting means that God changes is beyond me.
Your definition of God changing means that He changes His mind on certain issues - that He takes back what He had originally planned. I refute that definition. I believe it to be unbiblical, and I've presented some evidence to support my claim.
I believe that when the bible speaks of God repenting, it's not because God is changing His original plans; but rather, the act of Him repenting, or taking away something, such as His wrath, was a part of His plan the whole time!
Cause and effect.
Z Man
New member
You asked if God changes in any way.
Well, He became physical and walked the earth. I guess that counts as a "physical" change, obviously. But I do not beleive that God changes, or has changed, in any other way than that. There is no reason for God to change. Change is only needed if there is a flaw. If God has to change His plans, then His infinite wisdom and purposes are flawed.
Well, He became physical and walked the earth. I guess that counts as a "physical" change, obviously. But I do not beleive that God changes, or has changed, in any other way than that. There is no reason for God to change. Change is only needed if there is a flaw. If God has to change His plans, then His infinite wisdom and purposes are flawed.
Z Man
New member
Exactly my point! An acorn is better as a tree, no? You can't really speak in terms of sin, but as for efficiency in creating products, such as oxygen and sugar, a tree is more efficient and capable of a better "life" than an acorn. The acorn needs change to survive, much like everything else on this planet, including us.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There was a huge need for a perfect sacrifice for sin. The only way this could happen was for God to change and take on the form of a man. When He was man, he had physical attributes that changed as well yet none of these changes made Him imperfect. So He was changing as God and as man. Again I ask, is an acorn imperfect? Is a baby's body imperfect? No, yet they both change.