God Owes Us Big Time

[Caledvwlch]

Well, I hate to beat an example to death but...

Again with the parents. If they are good parents and have taught their kids well, it's not a sure fire guarentee that the kid will never mess up. The kid has his own free will and if he sees something that's not good for him yet looks enticing, he might give in to it if his lust at the time is stronger than the part in him that says "don't do it" because of what his parents taught him.



I agree



Many would say that total depravity means that man has nothing in himself outside of God "programming" it in to him. He would have to have predestined that a man do good in order for him to do so. This isn't biblical. God gave man a conscience and a freewill. Because of sin entering the world, many times man will go against what the conscience tells him is good. But a person who just knows to go in a burning building to save a child did not have to have that preprogrammed into him by God.

As much as I deplore the implications of Calvinist theology, I also believe that it is a more consistent and accurate representation of what the Bible actually says. The Bible doesn't implicitly teach free will. Free will is inferred based on the reader's own personal observations. I don't think it's fair to limit God's ability to predestine something, while giving us a choice at the same time. God operates in ways beyond our comprehension, no? There's no reason to believe that free will is anything other than a very elaborate illusion. I mean, do we truly have free will? The point is moot, because we can never go back and change our choices. Once a choice has been made, it's unchangeable. It is also impossible to predict what would have happened if we had chosen differently. While we can make our choices, we can't change them. Elaborate illusion.

 

[Poly]

As much as I deplore the implications of Calvinist theology, I also believe that it is a more consistent and accurate representation of what the Bible actually says.

Please show where the bible teaches Calvinist theology.

The Bible doesn't implicitly teach free will. Free will is inferred based on the reader's own personal observations.

Can one not come to the very truth of something by his own personal observation? My personal observation of the bible is that it speaks clearly of freewill being true. When God says that he brought the animals to Adam to see what He would name them, there's no reason to think He didn't mean it. When he says of the generation before the flood "I regret having made man, my own personal observation is to realize He meant what He said. When he says to Abraham after almost sacrificing his son "now I know", He means it.

Unfortuntaly it's man who has completely taken upon himself to add to scripture claiming that God didn't really mean what He said because He predestined everything so He didn't really want to know what Adam would name the animals or truly regret making man or know something after Abraham almost sacrificing His son that He didn't know before.

I don't think it's fair to limit God's ability to predestine something, while giving us a choice at the same time.

I don't think it's fair to think that God can do that which is absurd. We either have a freewill or we don't. Both cannot logically take place at the same time and God is not the author of confusion doing that which is illogical.

God operates in ways beyond our comprehension, no?

There may be some things that we don't know of God but the important things such as his attributes and how He interacts with us is made clear and it's obvious that God wants us to know these things about Him. One of the biggest things He wants us to know of Him is that He is good and He is not warped. This is how He is described biblically so to say that God predestined man to do that which is bad completely goes against scripture.

There's no reason to believe that free will is anything other than a very elaborate illusion.

I disagree. Elaborate illusion better describes man taking it upon himself to say that God means something else other than what He tells us.

I mean, do we truly have free will? The point is moot, because we can never go back and change our choices. Once a choice has been made, it's unchangeable. It is also impossible to predict what would have happened if we had chosen differently. While we can make our choices, we can't change them. Elaborate illusion.

This part I don't understand. Just because we can't go back and change our choices doesn't mean that we don't have freewill. This would be like mystical magic stuff. I wouldn't want my kid to be able to go back in time to change a bad choice he made. I want him to learn what is right and make good choices and if he does make bad ones I want him to learn from it so he doesn't make a bad one again.

 

[allsmiles]

Please show where the bible teaches Calvinist theology.

You'll find a wealth of it in Romans 9. Paul's teaching...

Can one not come to the very truth of something by his own personal observation?

Absolutely, that's what I do, I just don't use the bible as a guide, I use the intuition god designed me with, intuition that is patterned after his own.

My personal observation of the bible is that it speaks clearly of freewill being true. When God says that he brought the animals to Adam to see what He would name them, there's no reason to think He didn't mean it. When he says of the generation before the flood "I regret having made man, my own personal observation is to realize He meant what He said. When he says to Abraham after almost sacrificing his son "now I know", He means it.

If the bible were literally true you would be dead on, but the literal truth of the bible isn't the question here so I won't digress any further. The OT is dead on when it comes to backing up what you're saying right here, it's the NT where things go south.

Unfortuntaly it's man who has completely taken upon himself to add to scripture claiming that God didn't really mean what He said because He predestined everything so He didn't really want to know what Adam would name the animals or truly regret making man or know something after Abraham almost sacrificing His son that He didn't know before.

Paul's fault. Blame it all on Paul, he's guilty of doing exactly what you're talking about right here.

I don't think it's fair to think that God can do that which is absurd. We either have a freewill or we don't. Both cannot logically take place at the same time and God is not the author of confusion doing that which is illogical.

The way Cal put it makes perfect sense though, based on the premise that the bible is literal truth that is. Free will, if the bible is literal truth, is nothing more than an elaborate illusion created by our own ignorance of the future and consequences. If we knew the consequences of our actions than there would be no free will, free will only exists because we do not know the outcome of our actions or the out come of what differing actions would have been.

Just blame it on Paul.

 

[Poly]

You'll find a wealth of it in Romans 9. Paul's teaching...

Romans 9 speaks of God rejecting a nation and turning to another.


22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25As He says also in Hosea:
"I will call them My people, who were not,
And her beloved, who was not beloved."
26"And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
"You are not My people,'
There they shall be called sons of the living God."

The OT is dead on when it comes to backing up what you're saying right here, it's the NT where things go south.

Please explain

Paul's fault. Blame it all on Paul, he's guilty of doing exactly what you're talking about right here.

Again, you're going to have to explain.

The way Cal put it makes perfect sense though, based on the premise that the bible is literal truth that is.

The way Cal put it makes no sense in light of what's said in the bible.

God says He "now knows" something that He didn't know before.
Cal says God did know it before.

God says He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.
Cal says God caused Adam to name them what He wanted them to be named.

God says He was sorry that He made man.
Cal says that God was not sorry but that he made man for the sole purpose of killing them.

Free will, if the bible is literal truth, is nothing more than an elaborate illusion created by our own ignorance of the future and consequences.

To add your own interpretation to scripture as Cal did above is elaborate illusion.

 

[Lighthouse]

If that be the case, then every blessing and good thing in your life you owe to yourself, but certainly not God. God is either in control, or he's not. You have to pick one.

Not anywhere near what I said. I do not owe all the bad things to myself, and I do not owe all the good things to myself. And God is not responsible for all of the good, nor is He responsible for any of the bad. Why? Because God is good. He is not evil. and anything that may be perceived as bad at one point could very well be good. For discipline appears bad, but is actually good. So God is responsible only for what God is repsonsible for. And anything He has given me was out of grace, not anything I had earned.

 

[Lighthouse]

So you take responsibility for all of your screw ups, but none of your triumphs?

I take responsibilty for what I am responsible for.:bang: Sometimes that means my failures, and sometimes that means my triumphs.

 

[Caledvwlch]

The way Cal put it makes no sense in light of what's said in the bible.

God says He "now knows" something that He didn't know before.
Cal says God did know it before.

The writers of the scriptures did not know what was in God's mind before or after the events you speak of.

God says He brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them.
Cal says God caused Adam to name them what God wanted them to be named.

This passage doesn't mean that God didn't already know what Adam would name them. But Adam didn't know beforehand. He did this for Adam's benefit, not to teach Himself something.

God says He was sorry that He made man.
Cal says that God was not sorry but that he made man for the sole purpose of killing them.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The portion of scripture you're referring to is one of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian. It's inconsistent with the picture of God painted in the rest of the scripture.

To add your own interpretation to scripture as Cal did above is elaborate illusion.

Let me take the example of Abraham being told to hack his son to pieces and burn them on a rock. I have no problem believing that God already knew what Abraham would do. God wasn't testing Abraham to satisfy his own divine curiosity. He was testing Abraham to make Abraham stronger. If God had thought for a second that Abraham was going to disobey him, then he wouldn't have made a promise of countless descendents to him in the first place.

 

[Granite]

I take responsibilty for what I am responsible for.:bang: Sometimes that means my failures, and sometimes that means my triumphs.

Stupefying, as usual.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Not anywhere near what I said. I do not owe all the bad things to myself, and I do not owe all the good things to myself. And God is not responsible for all of the good, nor is He responsible for any of the bad. Why? Because God is good. He is not evil. and anything that may be perceived as bad at one point could very well be good. For discipline appears bad, but is actually good. So God is responsible only for what God is repsonsible for. And anything He has given me was out of grace, not anything I had earned.

I can respect this view.

 

[Lighthouse]

The writers of the scriptures did not know what was in God's mind before or after the events you speak of.

And? God knew what was on His mond, did He not?

This passage doesn't mean that God didn't already know what Adam would name them. But Adam didn't know beforehand. He did this for Adam's benefit, not to teach Himself something.

Then why does it say what it says? Why does it say that God did it to see what Adam would name them?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The portion of scripture you're referring to is one of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian. It's inconsistent with the picture of God painted in the rest of the scripture.

Your view of God is completely inconsistent with the picture of God presented in His word.

Let me take the example of Abraham being told to hack his son to pieces and burn them on a rock. I have no problem believing that God already knew what Abraham would do. God wasn't testing Abraham to satisfy his own divine curiosity. He was testing Abraham to make Abraham stronger. If God had thought for a second that Abraham was going to disobey him, then he wouldn't have made a promise of countless descendents to him in the first place.

What? Why would God test Abraham for Abraham's benefit? And why would God say that He didn't know, until Abraham had attempted to sacrafice Isaac? You have a problem believing Scripture.

 

[Caledvwlch]

And? God knew what was on His mond, did He not?


Then why does it say what it says? Why does it say that God did it to see what Adam would name them?


Your view of God is completely inconsistent with the picture of God presented in His word.


What? Why would God test Abraham for Abraham's benefit? And why would God say that He didn't know, until Abraham had attempted to sacrafice Isaac? You have a problem believing Scripture.

And you have a problem realizing that it was written by men, not God. It was written by men who could not possibly comprehend God's mind, describing God's actions and thoughts from a finite, temporal perspective.

 

[allsmiles]

I take responsibilty for what I am responsible for.:bang: Sometimes that means my failures, and sometimes that means my triumphs.

I was only asking for clarification man, pardon me all to hell. Do you drink coffee? you should switch to decaf, you are wound way too tight.

Cal might back me up on this: Lighthouse needs a roast beef sandwich.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I was only asking for clarification man, pardon me all to hell. Do you drink coffee? you should switch to decaf, you are wound way too tight.

Cal might back me up on this: Lighthouse needs a roast beef sandwich.

Oh, you ain't kidding. Roast Bizzle, My Nizzle!

 

[allsmiles]

Where did all of my stars go?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Where did all of my stars go?

yellow = 10
blue = 100
green = 1000
purple = 10000

they represtent your number of posts

 

[Lighthouse]

And you have a problem realizing that it was written by men, not God. It was written by men who could not possibly comprehend God's mind, describing God's actions and thoughts from a finite, temporal perspective.

They wrote what God told them. What He said. Not what they thought was on His mind.:doh:

 

[Caledvwlch]

They wrote what God told them. What He said. Not what they thought was on His mind.:doh:

Ok, that's fine. Assume that the scriptures were dictated by God. Inspiration doesn't mean dictation. Getting hung up on individual words leads to dangerous discrepancies in doctrine.

 

[Lighthouse]

I never said they were all dictated by God. But in the instances where it says, "God said..," what do you think it means?

 

[allsmiles]

Lighthouse the fact that you never said these things is the problem, we can't read your mind, if you want us to know what you believe you'll either have to tell us or be more cordial when you explain it. Us not knowing the things that you haven't said isn't the problem, so chill out.

 

[Lighthouse]

BS.

Cal is assuming I believe things that I never said, nor did I ever imply.