Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Poly

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.

Right, and I've already commented on that type of change. It's obvious. All christians believe in that.

But the type of change Knight and others believe in on this site is that God changes His original plan/purposes. That's unbiblical. Man cannot thwart the purposes of God. If He "repents", or as some call it, "changes", it's not because His plan is flawed; He repents because that IS a part of His original plan to begin with! He does it mainly because a certain desired effect was achieved, such as repentance in the hearts of men.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Z Man

Man cannot thwart the purposes of God. If He "repents", or as some call it, "changes", it's not because His plan is flawed...

God's plan can unfold in a way that He had not intended but it doesn't mean that there was something wrong with it. God can have a great plan but man can mess it up.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Poly

God's plan can unfold in a way that He had not intended but it doesn't mean that there was something wrong with it. God can have a great plan but man can mess it up.

No they can't! Job himself stated that no purposes of God can ever be thwarted! If man can mess up God's plan, then His plan wasn't perfect. We have "back-up" plans in case our original plans fail. But God's plans/purposes never fail! No one can thwart His plans! They are always carried out and everything happens as God intends it too.

 

[1Way]

Z Man – You complimented my post,

and then said it was a load of crap, which was obviously based upon your “mood” swing, I did not change my post,

and, I asked you a pointed question in a very specific and easily demonstrated challenge,

and you have not pretended to answer it,

yet you say you have,

so forgive me for challenging your integrity while observing your gross behavior. I am not your scapegoat, and the proof of where your frustration really comes from is in the pudding, because you have not answered the closed view challenge and you seem adamant that you will not even try. Let me know when you have a replacement meaning for Jonah 3.10 and Jer 18 7-10. In the mean time, just a friendly reminder, don’t void scripture, God is fussy about things like that.

 

[godrulz]

The Bible talks about God being 'grieved' in response to man's resistance to His perfect plan. God's inner disposition changes because He is personal. This is not an imperfection, but makes Him glorious. Extreme immutability (absolute) and impassibility (God does not feel) are foreign to the biblical revelation of the heart of God responding to changing reality.

Zman: It seems you also assume man has no moral agency/free will before conversion (? total depravity/bondage of the will). This concept is not defensible as evidenced by any person driving a car. We are able to obey or disobey, believe or not believe and hence are accountable/responsible for virtue or vice. A sinner can feed the poor. The key is motive (love for God vs Self) and who we ultimately live for. It is not related to a substance back of the will. i.e. TULIP is an assumption, that is not defensible.

 

[1Way]

It’s synergism personified

It’s synergism personified

Z Man says that
God would be flawed if He needed to change.

But scripture teaches that
God changes in order to deal with flaws.


By Z’s view, God knows everything, and everything glorifies
God, He is in control of everything. So the question is all about
that first vessel. If God is perfect and never needs to adjust His
plans or repent from doing His previous course of action, then
what happened to the first vessel? Why wasn’t it completed
successfully?

The potter was at the wheel making a vessel, and nothing God
does is imperfect nor wrong and He is in control of everything,
then where did that flaw come from in verse 4? Was that part
God’s doing or man’s doing? And if it was man’s doing, then
why did man’s doing end God’s effort with the first vessel, why
did God have to make a second vessel if God was completely in
charge and man does not cause God to change His mind?


Plan A was to create a vessel V1

But the potter saw that the clay was marred in his hand,

So the potter went to plan B and made another vessel V2...


Obviously man altered God’s previous course of action, and
verses 6-11 do a great job explaining this bible fact of divine
repentance where God repents from completing His previous
intended course of action.

• (Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)
  
  [size=4.5]The Potter and the clay[/size]
  
  
  The Vision, figurative speech
  
  “1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
  LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
  potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
  hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
  potter’s house, and there he was, making
  something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
  he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
  potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
  as it seemed good to the potter to make.
  
  
  God’s explanation of the vision, literal application
  
  5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
  saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
  you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
  as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
  in My hand, O house of Israel!
  
  
  The general principle of divine repentance, literal
  didactic truism
  
  7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
  and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
  to pull down, and to destroy it,
  8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
  turns from its evil,
  (then) I will *relent of the disaster
  that I thought to bring upon it.
  
  9 "And the instant I speak concerning
  a nation and concerning a kingdom,
  to build and to plant it,
  10 "if it does evil in My sight
  so that it does not obey My voice,
  then I will *relent concerning the good
  with which I said I would benefit it.
  
  
  
  * nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent
  
  “(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
  the “if then” conditional arrangement.

The bible can be very easy to understand if you do not violate
and void it’s meaning.

 

[Z Man]

1 Way,

Until you have something intelligent to say, you're just wasting space with your posts.

Godrulz,

Zman: It seems you also assume man has no moral agency/free will before conversion (? total depravity/bondage of the will). This concept is not defensible as evidenced by any person driving a car. We are able to obey or disobey, believe or not believe and hence are accountable/responsible for virtue or vice. A sinner can feed the poor. The key is motive (love for God vs Self) and who we ultimately live for. It is not related to a substance back of the will. i.e. TULIP is an assumption, that is not defensible.

A sinner can feed the poor, or give to charity, but their motive isn't for God's glory. Even Christians who do occasional "good" acts sometimes do them with a false motive that is not intended to glorify God.

The bottom line is there are no such things as "good" people, and people in general, saved or unsaved, cannot do "good" without the guidance of the Holy Spirit within them. Unsaved people do not have the Holy Spirit inside of them, thus they can do no good. Only born-again believers have true free-will. They have the choice to sin, where as non-believers do not.

 

[godrulz]

I generally agree on the surface. As a Christian, I have the choice to obey or disobey based on many exhortations in Scripture. I Jn. 1:9 etc. teaches that we should not habitually sin, but if we have an isolated lapse, we can confess/repent/obey again.

A sinner's subordinate choices are not virtuous since his ultimate choice is to live for Self rather than God. Salvation is changing one's ultimate intention to live for God, rather than self. Then our subordinate choices can have the right motive (or not if we disobey again).

Righteousness and sinfulness involve right and wrong moral choices. "Original sin' and sin as a substance from Adam are not the biblical reality. i.e. I believe your assumptions about the nature of sin (harmartiology) and salvation (soteriology) are inaccurate.

 

[smaller]

God ENCOMPASSES the terms CHANGE and CHANGE NOT.

NEITHER of these TERMS will HORSE COLLAR God.

It is FUTILITY to try and PUT GOD UNDER either of these terms.

Would it make ANY OF YOU feel better if GOD WAS LIMITED by either of these CONDITIONS????

I think NOT!

Some IDIOT recently posted that God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it.

This is called HUMAN LOGIC. It sounds LOGICAL TO US that God CANNOT DO THIS....

But the reality is WE DO NOT KNOW what GOD CAN OR CANNOT DO.

The other reality is WHATEVER IS serves GOD, so IF making a rock so big He cannot lift it DOES NOT SERVE GOD then it will not BE DONE.

In multi-dimensional "theory" it is "conceivable" that in ONE DIMENSION this "rock lifting" CAN be done and in another it CANNOT so both positions could theoretically hold TRUE and both positions will STILL SERVE GOD who is Greater.

The purpose of THIS EXERCISE is to RECOGNIZE THAT GOD IS AT THE TOP with NOTHING HINDERING HIM.

This IS His True and Rightful place and we should bow to Him who is APART FROM OUR LIMITED FORMS of THINKING.

In this we would also AVOID these STUPID conflicts.

 

[godrulz]

I am the 'idiot' who made the rock statement. It is a classic philosophical conflict that is resolved by recognizing it as a logical absurdity, even for God.

e.g. God cannot make a square circle...by definition and the laws He created, a square is not square and round at the same time.

1+1= 2 anywhere in the universe and for God. His intelligent laws cannot make 1+1=2 and 1+1= 400 at the same time...logical contradiction/absuridity.

The uncreated God cannot make a created being uncreated from all eternity, nor can He make His uncreated nature created at the same time (incarnation is not parallel). It is not a possibility or limitation on God. It is a logical fallacy or contradiction.

God cannot make gold salt at the same time. It is either gold or salt at the molecular level. It is absurd to contemplate gold-salt, because it would be a different compound (not gold or salt anymore...). Semantics can convey truth, so a stupid statement should not be forced on God in a way that denying it would limit God. The statement is stoopid, not the ways of God.

Man cannot 'travel' to the future because time is not a thing or place. It is not there to go to. Likewise, neither God nor man cannot change the fixed past. It is not there to change except in memory. Speculate about other dimensions, but it does not change the laws of God and His created universe.

God cannot make the distant past, present, and future exist at the same punctiliar point in time. This is not a limitation, but is the nature of His reality.

The all-knowing Father knows all of reality. He cannot chose to unknow something that is an available object of knowledge.

God cannot create an infinitely heavy rock that His infinite strength could not lift. These concepts are mutually exclusive, illogical, contradictory. Secular and religious philosophers affirm this as true and a no-brainer.

smallers 'argumentum ad hominem' (name-calling, attacking the source) is a logical fallacy and his speculations about what God can do show him to be uninformed or lacking critical thinking skills.

God cannot lie. This does not lessen God, but magnifies His perfections (it could be argued that God can lie, but would not due to His commitment to live intelligently and righteously at all costs). God not being able to create/lift the proverbial rock is not a problem with God's nature. It is an absurd proposition based on His revelation of Himself and His created reality.

 

[smaller]

Peace godrulz

I am the 'idiot' who made the rock statement. It is a classic philosophical conflict that is resolved by recognizing it as a logical absurdity, even for God.

And the point is that LOGIC serves GOD but GOD is not BOUND BY LOGIC.

You cannot say that YOU have the ENTIRE VIEW of what is and is not possible.

ONLY GOD has that view.

In "your environment" perhaps "your logic" is correct. I will not dispute that. What I dispute is that YOU have ALL THE LOGIC.

You DO NOT.

e.g. God cannot make a square circle...by definition and the laws He created, a square is not square and round at the same time.

And I will repeat the exercise. You do not have ALL the information required to say WHAT GOD CAN AND CANNOT DO.

I use the multi-dimension aspect as a childish example.

1+1= 2 anywhere in the universe and for God. His intelligent laws cannot make 1+1=2 and 1+1= 400 at the same time...logical contradiction/absuridity.

and IF you knew ANYTHING about MATHEMATICS you would KNOW that the MORE COMPLEX it gets the LESS CERTAIN ALLLLL of the "facts" become.

Infinity does bring certain PROBLEMS to the table on MATHMETICS.

The uncreated God cannot make a created being uncreated from all eternity, nor can He make His uncreated nature created at the same time (incarnation is not parallel). It is not a possibility or limitation on God. It is a logical fallacy or contradiction.

And again and again I will say that YOU MAKE THESES DETERMINATIONS within a FINITE BOUNDRY.

God HAS NO SUCH BOUNDRIES.

therefore

YOU CANNOT SAY what God can and CANNOT do PERIOD.

God cannot make gold salt at the same time. It is either gold or salt at the molecular level. It is absurd to contemplate gold-salt, because it would be a different compound (not gold or salt anymore...). Semantics can convey truth, so a stupid statement should not be forced on God in a way that denying it would limit God. The statement is stoopid, not the ways of God.

No, what it REALLY MEANS is that LOGIC is GREATER THAN God

and

YOU SERVE THE "god" called LOGIC....

get it???

I DOUBT IT....

Man cannot 'travel' to the future because time is not a thing or place. It is not there to go to. Likewise, neither God nor man cannot change the fixed past. It is not there to change except in memory. Speculate about other dimensions, but it does not change the laws of God and His created universe.

And you remain an idiot.

I will repeat IF you had ALL THE INFORMATION that GOD HAS then you could SAY FOR A CERTAINTY what God can and CANNOT do.

Until then you really should just keep your mouth shut because the only STOOOPID thing is YOUR ARROGANCE. (throw 1way in as well)

I do not serve YOUR LIMITED "god" or your "god" called LOGIC.

NOR will I be so bold as to TELL GOD what He can and CANNOT do.

Fool.

God cannot make the distant past, present, and future exist at the same punctiliar point in time. This is not a limitation, but is the nature of His reality.

Your SKIRT is now showing.

The all-knowing Father knows all of reality. He cannot chose to unknow something that is an available object of knowledge.

You simply cannot say because GOD IS NOT BOUND in ANY WAY to ANY THING no matter HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO BIND HIM.

God cannot create an infinitely heavy rock that His infinite strength could not lift. These concepts are mutually exclusive, illogical, contradictory. Secular and religious philosophers affirm this as true and a no-brainer.

As previously stated TRUTH can exist in ONE ENVIRONMENT and be NON TRUTH in another.

I cannot say on the SCALE OF INFINITY what is or is not possible with GOD.

You on the other hand parade about like YOU CAPTURED GOD with your pathetic logic.

Therefore LOGIC is your "god."

This SIMPLICITY seems to continually EVADE you.

smallers 'argumentum ad hominem' (name-calling, attacking the source) is a logical fallacy and his speculations about what God can do show him to be uninformed or lacking critical thinking skills.

It seems to bother you GREATLY when someone points out that YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING therefore YOU CANNOT SAY.

God cannot lie.

And now you are an even bigger fool because GOD DIRECTLY ORDERED LYING SPIRITS into the mouths of PROPHETS.

You on the other hand like to DENY THE WORD that says this.

I can say for a certainty that LYING AND not LYING both serve God and I DO NOT HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT and NOT COMPREHEND the WORD on the matter that says GOD IS DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN LYING......eh????

You are like 1say. You seem to only want to look at the parts YOU LIKE and IGNORE the contrary ones.

God cannot LIE, yet HE DOES.

Your god is not only LOGIC, but also BLIND to his own ACTS....

go figure....

This does not lessen God, but magnifies His perfections (it could be argued that God can lie, but would not due to His commitment to live intelligently and righteously at all costs). God not being able to create/lift the proverbial rock is not a problem with God's nature. It is an absurd proposition based on His revelation of Himself and His created reality.

Yeah, I have heard you "puny god defenders" say that god only performs murder RIGHTEOUSLY.

I can only shake my head at a god who needs MENS EXCUSES for him....

enjoy!

smaller

 

[1Way]

"Yeah, I have heard you "puny god defenders" say that god only performs murder RIGHTEOUSLY." -- smaller

The depths of sinful depravity that some go to in order to slander bible believing Christians. :nono:

 

[1Way]

Z Man – I will keep reflecting God’s word to you or whoever I please, because praise God His word never returns void, let alone goes out void, you are frustrated and (arguably) self condemned for voiding scripture of meaning and replacing that meaning with nothing. Here’s more of God’s authoritative word.

• We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.
  

  Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

  God’s word never returns void.

  Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.

  In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority.

  Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’"

  Ultimately man must submit to God’s word.

  Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also.

 

[1Way]

The arrogance that smaller and Z Man continue to demonstrate by telling us open theists

That we are too arrogant,

to shut up,

your post is all crap,

you have nothing intelligent to say,

your puny God only performs MURDER righteously,

etc. etc. etc.

is obvious hypocritical nonsense and demonstrates a serious unwillingness to examine these issues intelligently and respectfully over open bibles with willing hearts.

 

[smaller]

Neither of you can say that GOD CANNOT LIE and say it with HONESTY because GOD DID INDEED DIRECT LYING which of course is THE SAME AS lying....as "an accomplice."

Yet you say HE CANNOT LIE.

So not only do you have BOTH examples in The Word, (in this case lying and not lying) but with AN IMPROPER view of God you cannot even READ the text without SEVERE CONFUSION AND CONFLICT because you try to LIMIT God.

yet....

GOD CAN CHANGE HIS MIND....

He CANNOT LIE...but HE CAN CHANGE HIS MIND.....

R U really SURE???

I personally am inclined to BELIEVE that He can LIE because The Word says HE DOES....

and I believe He cannot BECAUSE THE WORD SAYS HE DOES NOT....

So in this BOTH POSITIONS will SERVE Him who is GREATER.

I think God lying/not lying is a much better comparison than God changing/not changing eh?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way

The arrogance that smaller and Z Man continue to demonstrate by telling us open theists

That we are too arrogant,

to shut up,

your post is all crap,

you have nothing intelligent to say,

your puny God only performs MURDER righteously,

etc. etc. etc.

is obvious hypocritical nonsense and demonstrates a serious unwillingness to examine these issues intelligently and respectfully over open bibles with willing hearts.

This is the kind of garbage I'm talking about. Christians shouldn't lie 1Way. Of all people who "claim" to hold God's Word at a very high value, surely you know that lying is wrong, no? If so, why would you make a false claim, i.e.:

The arrogance that...Z Man continue to demonstrate by telling us open theists...

None of my posts have been directed toward all open theists in general. They've only been directed to YOU. You and you alone.

BTW, another lie I caught you in was putting me in the same boat as smaller and suggesting that I have said "God performs murder righteously". Now I challenge you to present to everyone on this site whom you have lied to one post from me in which I have made that statement. Since it does not exist, and since I have not called open theists in general arrogant, or told them to shut up other than you, I suggest you apologize to me, everyone here at TOL, and to God for making such false accusations against your fellow brethren in Christ.

 

[godrulz]

Jesus could have lied, but He did not and would not, so it is a moot point. Jesus is the revelation of the way the Father is.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

Jesus could have lied, but He did not and would not, so it is a moot point. Jesus is the revelation of the way the Father is.

Correction. He CANNOT. But I see your point.

Sorry for being the post police. hehe

 

[God_Is_Truth]

i think it would be better stated that Jesus was fully capable of lying, in other words he had the ability to (being human), but being divine he would never ever actually give into it and tell a lie.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i think it would be better stated that Jesus was fully capable of lying, in other words he had the ability to (being human), but being divine he would never ever actually give into it and tell a lie.

Well, it doesn't really matter because he never did lie. But if you want to deny the Deity of Christ and His nature then you can say he had the ability to sin.

But because he is divine means His perfection sustains all sin from even entering His being.

But, I know. This is just mere speculation on both our parts. Personally, I believe, even though He was in flesh, He was still Sovereign and Perfect. Satan even tried tempting Him, but we all know those attempts were thwarted by Christ.