The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

[matt wade]

Luke, my brother, do not be concerned about these that attack you. We both know that God is making them attack you. His purpose is higher than ours. Accept the attacks graciously, because it is simply God using them for a greater purpose.

 

[webdog]

But we both agree that scriptures doesn't contradict scripture. Therefore, when the scriptures declare that God knows the beginning and the end, the passages in question must be interpreted in that light.

Yes, but that is from our perspective. If God chose to interact with mankind in the manner He chooses, we may not fully understand. That is why my position on this is: it's a mystery. Our ways are not God's ways. We know what omniscient means, but that is based on our finite knowledge.

What is confusing to me is your assertion that God knows all things, but some things God does not know until they happen.

Again, like Christ not knowing the day or hour of His return?

This is perilously close to the open theism error that God knows all things that are knowable. I would be wary of holding to a doctrine based on the scriptures you have cited.

I disagree. It can be, but it does not lead to that any more than claiming God is bound to time (as was done on this very thread). As the account with Hezekiah and others, there is a tension that cannot be explained away by any one view or amount of post secondary education. God says that prayer of the righteous availeth much. That would be an impossibility in understanding God's interaction with man by strict determinism.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, my brother, do not be concerned about these that attack you. We both know that God is making them attack you. His purpose is higher than ours. Accept the attacks graciously, because it is simply God using them for a greater purpose.

Thank you for this fine reminder, my padawan.

 

[Luke2427]

I see your new years resolution has expired :laugh:

Are you going to call out the unorthodox heresy of God being bound by time...or is this again only a one way street?

My resolution had nothing to do with allowing an assault upon the attributes of God to go unchallenged.

The omniscience of God is not up for debate.

 

[webdog]

My resolution had nothing to do with allowing an assault upon the attributes of God to go unchallenged.

The omniscience of God is not up for debate.

...are you going to finish the response in regards to God being bound by time? Omniscience is not up for debate...but Omnipresence is?!?

Have you ever considered that it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING of God's attributes that are being challenged, and not God Himself? Have you also considered that those might be understanding your views as equally assaulting God's attributes, particularly your self acknowledged "more hyper than Spurgeon" view of God being the author of sin (that you share with Edwards...which I referred to as hyper in this manner...that you rejected as hyper...and now embrace)?

 

[Dr. Bob]

TONE DOWN ANY PERSONAL RHETORIC or this thread will not make the 10-page limit folks. :BangHead:

 

[Winman]

You may be right.

All you have to do is read this forum on a regular basis and you will see for youself.

Sorry, you would have lost your bet

So, you studied the scriptures on your own and came up with the 5 points of Calvinism? I find that almost impossible to believe, even Calvin had much influence outside the scriptures, primarily Augustine.

I would agree this far, that just by reading that verse, it is highly unlikely that I would arrive at Reformed theology.

Which proves my point.

But at the same time, that verse in no way contradicts Reformed theology.

Of course it does, a man doesn't freely take the water of life in your system, it is imposed on him against his will. You will also redefine whosoever to mean an elect few.

It is not "everybody" who is invited to come,

You proved my point again. The invitation is to 100% of men, there are numerous scriptures that support this.

but "him who thirsts", "him who hears," "whoever desires". What caused you to have the desire to come to the Lord Jesus Christ? I'm sure you will not answer that it was because you are cleverer or better than people who don't have that desire. Jesus said to a group of Jews in John 10.26:

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. ​

I agree with you here except it is not imposed against a man's will. Paul said he "persuaded" men. I am trying to persuade you at this very moment, but I cannot force or impose you to agree with me.
​

Notice that He doesn't say: "You are not of My sheep, because you do not believe."

I understand this differently than you, but it would take another post to explain.

 

[glfredrick]

Actually, a circle is a good analogy of my theory. I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS!!

In Revelation, Jesus said he was the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end. That alone defies our comprehension. He is both the beginning of time, and the end of time at the same time.

Now imagine a clock with Jesus at 12 o'clock position. This represents both the beginning and the end. As you move clockwise, you are advancing in time. This is man's perspective. In this perspective, you can only know things as they happen.

<snip>

I quoted the first part of your point, but I read the entire post.

I think your analogy is okay if we limit God to knowing things that happen within time, but God said in the Word that He elected "before the foundation of the world" -- literally "before" time (though saying "before" indicates time -- a very difficult issue for we humans who are bound within time to grasp).

Paul says this in Ephesians:

Eph 1:3-11 (ESV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

Note that the verbs in this pericope all point toward God: "who has blessed us..." "he has chose us in him..." "before the foundation of the world..." (no human could do that!) "In love he predestined us for adoption..." "according tot he purpose of his will..." he has blessed us in the Beloved..." "In him we have redemption through his blood..." "the forgiveness of our trespases..." "according to the riches of his grace which he lavished upon us..." "according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan..." "to unite all things in him..." "In him we have obtained..." "having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the council of his will (removes the possibility that God selects us based on our actions!) "so that..."

This entire passage is God's action toward us, all decided "according to his purpose.." before time began. All, as Paul makes clear, "for the praise of his glory." He does not share His glory with us. We do not dictate His glory. He glorifies Himself through His actions on our behalf.

There is no indication that God checked to see what would happen, then decided to act based on what He saw. Exactly the opposite, in fact. God acted based on God, not based on us.

I'm not writing all this to beat you, or anyone else up, but more to point out that there ARE Scriptures that detail God's divine action that are different from the derived position where we humans are the agents responsible for God's actions toward us and otherwise.

 

[glfredrick]

I agree with you that we ought not to ignore scripture. What I want to do is try to explain those passages you've cited in the light of unequivocal scriptures. I think the best explanation is that God was speaking to Adam and Abraham anthropomorphically.

True...

One may conclude that God's question "Adam, where are you," means God doesn't know where Adam is.

Or God may be asking Adam to let Adam know that he (Adam) is not really hiding from God at all... God being able to precisely locate Adam to ask seems to indicate this.

One may also conclude that God's statement to Abraham, "Now I know...", means God didn't know until that moment.

Or it may be that God knew all along, had a plan in place, but Abraham knew, and with that he and God now shared that knowledge.

But we both agree that scriptures doesn't contradict scripture. Therefore, when the scriptures declare that God knows the beginning and the end, the passages in question must be interpreted in that light.

Yup.

What is confusing to me is your assertion that God knows all things, but some things God does not know until they happen.

This is perilously close to the open theism error that God knows all things that are knowable. I would be wary of holding to a doctrine based on the scriptures you have cited.

That's why I am glad you have couched it as a theory.

Yup again... Trying to figure out how God both knows and doesn't know fails on multiple accounts. God either knows or doesn't know, but the Bible is rather clear in plainly held texts that God knows all things, before time, during time, after time (if there is such a thing). Those who hold to open theology have many other theological problems that their "solution" creates, such as a very "weak" God who is forced to react instead of dictating circumstances, a very "human" God, who can only do the things we might be able to fathom, and a very "confused" God, who doesn't really have the plan (there is only one) in place that He says He has in Scripture.

 

[preacher4truth]

This thread is way off topic. Now it is about Gods omniscience, which is clearly taught within the Word, which some are denying to be true.

That God works among men, and calls both those that will respond, and knows that others will not, yet still calls, is His Sovereign choice.

Throughout history God has called persons to do what He full well knew they would not do.

Those who have ridiculed this as to say He is wasting His time since He knows they will not &c is unfortunate, and those fail to grasp God's workings throughout history.

I suppose another thread can be posted to deal with the omniscience of God.

I don't see how it will remain objective when some deny vehemently God's attribute that He is all knowing. The best thing to do in this case is "leave them alone."

- Blessings

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, but that is from our perspective. If God chose to interact with mankind in the manner He chooses, we may not fully understand. That is why my position on this is: it's a mystery. Our ways are not God's ways. We know what omniscient means, but that is based on our finite knowledge.

Again, like Christ not knowing the day or hour of His return?

I disagree. It can be, but it does not lead to that any more than claiming God is bound to time (as was done on this very thread). As the account with Hezekiah and others, there is a tension that cannot be explained away by any one view or amount of post secondary education. God says that prayer of the righteous availeth much. That would be an impossibility in understanding God's interaction with man by strict determinism.

Have you ever heard the term "kenosis?" Might want to look that up before you start formulating a theology based on Christ's comment about not knowing the day or hour of his return.

Additionally, Calvinism does not make God a "deterministic" deity. You make the error of saying that God must act at some point in time that would agree with your timetable, i.e., someone who is of the elect accepting Christ "automatically" without hearing or at the first hearing of the gospel. Such is not (and rarely ever) the case, but that does not mean that they are not God's elect. God's timetable is God's business (see "mystery").

The "mystery" part I am fine with, except when it is used to promulgate a theology that does not match Scripture.

God tells us to pray. The Holy Spirit within us (if He is there!) directs our prayer in a godly direction, fulfilling God's desires.

Question... Can we pray apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit? And, if so, are we praying God's desires or our own?

 

[webdog]

Have you ever heard the term "kenosis?" Might want to look that up before you start formulating a theology based on Christ's comment about not knowing the day or hour of his return.

Thank you for assuming I'm ignorant, but there is no need to look it up...I already know what it entails. I believe it to be in error (difference in choosing to interact with infinite beings on their level and giving up divinity)...but at any rate, if it is a doctrine you hold to, how can you be so adamant this is still not done by God?

Additionally, Calvinism does not make God a "deterministic" deity. You make the error of saying that God must act at some point in time that would agree with your timetable, i.e., someone who is of the elect accepting Christ "automatically" without hearing or at the first hearing of the gospel. Such is not (and rarely ever) the case, but that does not mean that they are not God's elect. God's timetable is God's business (see "mystery").

See the exchanges with Luke and his new padawan learner fresh out of the jedi training, Matt

The "mystery" part I am fine with, except when it is used to promulgate a theology that does not match Scripture.

...like Christ "emptying Himself" of His divinity?

God tells us to pray. The Holy Spirit within us (if He is there!) directs our prayer in a godly direction, fulfilling God's desires.

I'm sorry, but you cannot deduce this to such a simple formula. Numerous times throughout Scripture God acts and reacts based on prayer. It is in fact something we will not grasp this side of Heaven, and maybe even on that side.

Question... Can we pray apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit? And, if so, are we praying God's desires or our own?

Wouldn't that depend on the prayer? Many Psalms written by David had vengeance based prayer. "Thank you God I am not like this sinner..." doesn't exactly sound like a Spirit lead prayer, but was acknowledged as prayer nonetheless.

 

[Jarthur001]

Thank you for assuming I'm ignorant, ...........

This is something I for one, would never do.

 

[Winman]

This thread is way off topic. Now it is about Gods omniscience, which is clearly taught within the Word, which some are denying to be true.

That God works among men, and calls both those that will respond, and knows that others will not, yet still calls, is His Sovereign choice.

Throughout history God has called persons to do what He full well knew they would not do.

Those who have ridiculed this as to say He is wasting His time since He knows they will not &c is unfortunate, and those fail to grasp God's workings throughout history.

I suppose another thread can be posted to deal with the omniscience of God.

I don't see how it will remain objective when some deny vehemently God's attribute that He is all knowing. The best thing to do in this case is "leave them alone."

- Blessings

Either you are a poor reader, or you deliberately misrepresent me. I must have said at least three or four times that I BELIEVE THAT GOD KNOWS ALL THINGS.

If you have to resort to dishonesty to win a debate, then you have no business participating here.

This is a theory, and I have also said several times I COULD BE WRONG.

I am not trying to introduce new doctrine here, I am simply explaining my thoughts on a controversial subject.

There is much more to it, but quite frankly I don't think you could comprehend it.

 

[glfredrick]

Thank you for assuming I'm ignorant, but there is no need to look it up...I already know what it entails. I believe it to be in error (difference in choosing to interact with infinite beings on their level and giving up divinity)...but at any rate, if it is a doctrine you hold to, how can you be so adamant this is still not done by God?

So, I'm thinking that you have a problem with this VERSE that says that Christ set aside His deity...

Phl 2:5-8 (ESV) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

I'll note that the first heresy that hit the church in the 1st century was the heresy that said that Christ was only God and not man.

There is no real sense in dealing with the rest of the post until we settle this issue.

 

[glfredrick]

This is something I for one, would never do.

I see what you did there... :thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

Either you are a poor reader, or you deliberately misrepresent me. I must have said at least three or four times that I BELIEVE THAT GOD KNOWS ALL THINGS.

If you have to resort to dishonesty to win a debate, then you have no business participating here.

This is a theory, and I have also said several times I COULD BE WRONG.

I am not trying to introduce new doctrine here, I am simply explaining my thoughts on a controversial subject.

There is much more to it, but quite frankly I don't think you could comprehend it.

I'm not in the battle between you and whomever... So. let's run with your point instead.

I read you as saying clearly that "God knows all things." But how do you define how it is that God knows all things? That seems to be the sticking point. Does He know them only AFTER they happen, or does He know all things from before the foundation of the world (before time began, in essence)?

The difference between those two points of view are also the main substantive difference between a Reformed position and an Arminian or Pelagian position.

 

[Winman]

I'm not in the battle between you and whomever... So. let's run with your point instead.

I read you as saying clearly that "God knows all things." But how do you define how it is that God knows all things? That seems to be the sticking point. Does He know them only AFTER they happen, or does He know all things from before the foundation of the world (before time began, in essence)?

The difference between those two points of view are also the main substantive difference between a Reformed position and an Arminian or Pelagian position.

Look, I am a little hesitant to say more. I will give you a clue though, the answer may be in Isaiah 41:22-23.

You may not believe this, but I am very conservative in my views. Now, I disagree with Cal/DoG, but I am a very average Baptist.

 

[glfredrick]

Look, I am a little hesitant to say more. I will give you a clue though, the answer may be in Isaiah 41:22-23.

You may not believe this, but I am very conservative in my views. Now, I disagree with Cal/DoG, but I am a very average Baptist.

I looked up those verses. I don't see how they are pertinent to your position. I took the liberty of copying them, plus a few surrounding verses for context:

Isa 41:20-24 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it. 21 Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. 23 Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. 24 Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you.

What I see in the verses is a discussion with (or against) God, and God (similar to what happened in Jonah) making His own case. In 41:20, He indicates that "the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it..." which is consistent with a sovereign God who is enacting His plan.

In 21-22, God is challenging men to bring their own case before the Creator. In a sense, He is asking them if THEY can tell the future as He can -- and does.

By pulling the two verses you cite out of the general context of the entire pericope (fancy theological term for "passage") you err in what is actually being said.

About your being a "very average Baptist..." I don't doubt it. I've had many who have sat under my teaching and pastoral ministry for the past 25 years who have had some, let us say -- individual -- views of Scripture and/or theological doctrines that they had difficulty supporting. In many cases (and I certainly don't know yours, so don't take this as an attack) they learned some doctrine incorrectly or falsely under the teaching of some previous pastor. In other cases, they never really learned a doctrine at all, but based in very human sentiments (like a personal dislike for the fact that some people would die in hell) these persons have arrived at untenable theological positions.

I suspect that were we to meet in person, we'd be fine, but with the words we trade back and forth on this board, we come to blows in many threads. Know that I'm not making this a personal vendetta against you as you have suggested earlier. I can only react to what I read, not knowing motivations or beliefs beyond what is printed in the thread.

That being said, I do think that your driving motivation is a hatred (yes hatred) for the DoG or Reformed theology. In a sense, that hatred clouds your thinking and you work SO hard to find ways around what the Scriptures plainly speak that you end up in trouble. All I can advise therein is to at least understand the position you argue against instead of merely reacting against it. I have to do likewise. All part of scholarship -- and when you post in a theologically driven conversation, you ARE involved in scholarship whether you like it or not.

 

[Winman]

I looked up those verses. I don't see how they are pertinent to your position.

I didn't think you would.

What I see in the verses is... which is consistent with a sovereign God who is enacting His plan.

I agree.

In 21-22, God is challenging men to bring their own case before the Creator. In a sense, He is asking them if THEY can tell the future as He can -- and does.

Yep.

By pulling the two verses you cite out of the general context of the entire pericope (fancy theological term for "passage") you err in what is actually being said.

I seem to recall Jesus pulled one of these verses out of context when they accused him of blasphemy. No?

About your being a "very average Baptist..." I don't doubt it. I've had many who have sat under my teaching and pastoral ministry for the past 25 years who have had some, let us say -- individual -- views of Scripture and/or theological doctrines

I ask my pastor questions all the time. He has never had to correct me, and believe me, he would. However, he has said that the average church goer would not understand them. He says he enjoys my questions as they make him consider new viewpoints. He in return gives me his views.

Let me ask you a question, who was speaking in person to Adam and Eve? Cain? Abraham as he was about to sacrifice Isaac?