Randomness in the Bible?

[Luke2427]

That is a statement of faith that cannot be proven one way or the other. You gave two verses ... if my memory is correct ... both of which can be interpreted a number of ways as all scripture can be so interpreted. I found two verses and, as you have shown, they can be interpreted in all honesty in several ways. That is just one of the many reasons our journey to understanding continues throughout all our life and if we do not change in our understanding as we age then something is terribly wrong within our own quest.



That sounds like double-speak.

I am still waiting on an explanation of how randomness impacts negatively on God's character?

also ...

Does God have to act or have acted according to your understanding?

I would never and I mean never make such an assertion that God had to do it the way I understand. That would be skating on extremely thin ice seeing as how my understanding has changed over the years.

I hope you understand all this is very gently said.




It was ONLY random on the part of the man drawing the bow. It was not at ALL random on the part of God.

With respect, Scripture states that God appoints the day of man's death and that it is ultimately God that wounds and kills.

That means that this passage about the death of Ahab on God's part COULD NOT have been random.

Random is defined as:

ran·dom
   /ˈrændəm/ Show Spelled[ran-duhm] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2.
Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3.
Building Trades .
a.
(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
b.
(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
c.
constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.
–noun
4.
Chiefly British . bank3 ( def. 7b ) .
–adverb
5.
Building Trades . without uniformity: random-sized slates.
—Idiom
6.
at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way: Contestants were chosen at random from the studio audience.

This was PREARRANGED according to the word of God.

It had a purpose according to the word of God.

It had a definite aim on God's part according to the Word of God.

Therefore it does not even come CLOSE to qualifying as random- not even close. The word random could not be further from the truth in describing what God did here concerning Ahab.

That is not just AN interpretation. That is the facts concerning this particular text that you introduced.

It is ONLY random on the part of the man who drew his bow without aim. It was the dead level OPPOSITE of random on God's part.

I am not being unnecessarily dogmatic here. That is simply the clear reading of the text and the definition of the word random.

 

[Luke2427]

I must have missed something. I thought the Bible exists to give us guidance and to define our positions.

I am a very traditional Baptist and put very little faith in confessions. Sorry.

Were you truly TRADITIONAL baptist you would put more credence on confessions.

The abhorrence of confessions was a late development in baptistic history spawning from the Sandy Creek association in the late 18th century. This was an overreaction to dead orthodoxy.

The oldest baptists adhered to confessions. In fact the very confession I referred to that you dismissed was the 1689 BAPTIST confession of faith.

But I was not referring to it authoritatively on the issue you and I are here discussing. I referred to it as a side issue that Skandelon and myself have been discussing for quite some time.

I am not using the Confession to prove any points concerning the op here.

 

[quantumfaith]

That is a statement of faith that cannot be proven one way or the other. You gave two verses ... if my memory is correct ... both of which can be interpreted a number of ways as all scripture can be so interpreted. I found two verses and, as you have shown, they can be interpreted in all honesty in several ways. That is just one of the many reasons our journey to understanding continues throughout all our life and if we do not change in our understanding as we age then something is terribly wrong within our own quest.



That sounds like double-speak.

I am still waiting on an explanation of how randomness impacts negatively on God's character?

also ...

Does God have to act or have acted according to your understanding?

I would never and I mean never make such an assertion that God had to do it the way I understand. That would be skating on extremely thin ice seeing as how my understanding has changed over the years.



:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

"“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:”

You have only replaced the word "decree" with the word "ordain" which is the OTHER word I requested that you define back when we first started this quest for definitions. :BangHead:

No, no. That is HOW the Westminster Confession DEFINES decree.

It is that "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"

 

[Skandelon]

No, no. That is HOW the Westminster Confession DEFINES decree.

It is that "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"

I understand that Luke, but when we started this quest for the definition of terms you kept using the words "decree" and "ordain" and "cause" and "determine" interchangeably and I asked for you to define these terms. After begging for so long I finally limited my request to the word "decree" in hopes that might help you focus and fulfill the simple request to define the one simple word. Instead you told me to go to a good theological dictionary and that any good definition would do. I did and presented that definition for discussion but you refused to engage with that definition and still refuse to provide your own working definition. This WCF statement is NOT a definition, but simply a restatement of your position using a synonymous term, which is equally as undefined as the other term.

Define "ordain" and "decree" ... it will take you about two minutes to copy and paste an acceptable definition of these terms and we can move on.

 

[sag38]

And again, anytime someone wants me to "prove" something, a red flag goes up. I can provide evidence that is sufficent for me and for others to accept the premise. If you care to accept it, great. But please do set the standard that I must prove something to your satisfication. Or claim because you rejected it, I did not make the case which others would accept as "proof."


I think Van has nailed it down. In another thread, he, not Arbo (my mistake), provided several verses but you did not accept them. In fact you didn't even respond. I could post the same ones and would get the same result. You would reject them outright. So why bother?

Personally, I have no problem with God's being sovereign and at the same time believing that the earthquake in Japan was a result of tectonic plates moving and not the direct judgment of God. Then again, it could have been God's judgment. I'll wait and let God tell me which is true. I don't need you to tell me. Last time I checked you were not God. Nor do you speak for Him concerning this specific matter. In the meantime I'll pray for nation of Japan. I'll lead my church to pray. And, if so led we will send money or any other aid that we are lead to send. My main prayer is that through this a window will be opened for the gospel to spread amongst the Japaneses people.

I don't recall using the word Calvinism when I suggested that you are taking the position of an automaton. I was simply pointing out that your position is patently fatalistic.

 

[Benjamin]

Some can not accept random nature in the world as it removes an important detail in their confession which to them must include that they had to be made to bow down through predetermination (IOW’s be forced to).

There is a very important necessity to express which goes with the above and that is to deny the true, loving…Omnibenevolent nature of God. They perceive that He exists; in this sense they are a step above an Agnostic in that they admit they are a believer, they accept that their conscious tells them of the reality of Him, and so they fear God under a condition that they had no choice. A person like this is too proud to freely accept God so they are obsessed in claiming that God has given them no choice in the matter for them to believe and to be saved. So in fear they insist they believe but are inwardly full of resentment and want to argue about God’s nature in how this happened.
They will go on and on and on trying to show God as a despot and the author of sin and will use the scriptures to try and reveal such a nature as this. They attempt to use the Word to justify why they will/do bow to Christ, but insist they could not do it freely and so continue on more like an enemy of God hoping to argue why God is Just only because he is All Powerful and unswervingly required them (personally) to become a slave to Him. Unfortunately, they miss the love God has to offer as seen in depth and the truth of His Loving Nature in the Words of Romans 8:15 that would remove this fear of bondage and truly set them free through their own volition.

 

[Skandelon]

I will testify that it was very difficult for me to love God from my perspective of Him when I was a Calvinistic believer, though I wouldn't have ever admitted as such. I knew I was supposed to love him above all, but how do you love by command? How do you love someone who you believe is the one who is ultimately making you to sin (even if only through "secondary causes" etc)? The guilt, excuses, responsibility and confusion of that paradox was unsettling to say the least.

It's difficult to fall in love with a doctrinal concept such as omniscient or omnipotent, not that all Cals are limited to such things, that was just my experience as a Cal. I related to God through the scripture alone, not through the spirit at that time in my life. It's not until we learn to hear his voice through the spirit that He comes to life in us and love springs forth.

 

[quantumfaith]

I will testify that it was very difficult for me to love God from my perspective of Him when I was a Calvinistic believer, though I wouldn't have ever admitted as such. I knew I was supposed to love him above all, but how do you love by command? How do you love someone who you believe is the one who is ultimately making you to sin (even if only through "secondary causes" etc)? The guilt, excuses, responsibility and confusion of that paradox was unsettling to say the least.

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I will testify that it was very difficult for me to love God from my perspective of Him when I was a Calvinistic believer, though I wouldn't have ever admitted as such. I knew I was supposed to love him above all, but how do you love by command? How do you love someone who you believe is the one who is ultimately making you to sin (even if only through "secondary causes" etc)? The guilt, excuses, responsibility and confusion of that paradox was unsettling to say the least.

It's difficult to fall in love with a doctrinal concept such as omniscient or omnipotent, not that all Cals are limited to such things, that was just my experience as a Cal. I related to God through the scripture alone, not through the spirit at that time in my life. It's not until we learn to hear his voice through the spirit that He comes to life in us and love springs forth.

So in other words you stopped just using scripture to learn about God. You instead relied on your feelings and inner convictions, found something that didn't agree with what you had read in the bible, gave up on inerrancy, and created your own God and doctrine that you liked better than the biblical one?

Interesting....

The bible calls that idolatry though.

 

[quantumfaith]

So in other words you stopped just using scripture to learn about God. You instead relied on your feelings and inner convictions, found something that didn't agree with what you had read in the bible, gave up on inerrancy, and created your own God and doctrine that you liked better than the biblical one?

Interesting....

The bible calls that idolatry though.

Wow, you get the reward for linguistic gymnastics and being totally disingenous with your assertions with respect to a fellow brother in Christ. Do you really want to stick with that "accusation" of idolatry?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Wow, you get the reward for linguistic gymnastics and being totally disingenous with your assertions with respect to a fellow brother in Christ. Do you really want to stick with that "accusation" of idolatry?

If one creates a God that isn't scriptural then that is indeed false worship and idolatry as that God was created in the mind of the worshiper.

God is revealed to us through the scripture and worship of him must be in accordance with it. God doesn't contradict his scripture and he stands by his character as it is revealed.

We either love the God of scripture or we are wicked hell bound sinners.

 

[quantumfaith]

If one creates a God that isn't scriptural then that is indeed false worship and idolatry as that God was created in the mind of the worshiper.

God is revealed to us through the scripture and worship of him must be in accordance with it. God doesn't contradict his scripture and he stands by his character as it is revealed.

We either love the God of scripture or we are wicked hell bound sinners.

No problem there, however, nothing stated by Skandelon, even hinted at such. Are you so committed to a theological position that anyone who does not share YOUR scriptural view is then deemed as being idolatrous? I certainly hope not.

 

[Skandelon]

So in other words you stopped just using scripture to learn about God.

No, I never said that. I simply learned to relate to God through his spirit residing in me rather than being totally dependent on second hand testimony. It's the difference between knowing God loves you because the bible tell me so, and knowing God love you because you hear him tell you so. Both are true and in no way contradict each other, one is just more personal.

You instead relied on your feelings and inner convictions

No, never said that. I just don't ignore those inner feelings, voices and convictions in order to systematize God into another theoretical box. It's the difference between knowing about someone and knowing someone personally...intimately.

found something that didn't agree with what you had read in the bible, gave up on inerrancy, and created your own God and doctrine that you liked better than the biblical one?

No, never said that. I never used the term inerrancy because scripture doesn't use that term. The doctrines I believe are older than Calvinism/Augustinianism. And I didn't create God, I'm just learning more about who He is and how He has chosen to reveal Himself to me.

Interesting....

I might actually be so if you would take off your Calvinistic lenses and objectively understand someone else perspective for once.

The bible calls that idolatry though.

You mean like when someone worships a book above its author?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I will testify that it was very difficult for me to love God from my perspective of Him when I was a Calvinistic believer, though I wouldn't have ever admitted as such. I knew I was supposed to love him above all, but how do you love by command? How do you love someone who you believe is the one who is ultimately making you to sin (even if only through "secondary causes" etc)? The guilt, excuses, responsibility and confusion of that paradox was unsettling to say the least.

It's difficult to fall in love with a doctrinal concept such as omniscient or omnipotent, not that all Cals are limited to such things, that was just my experience as a Cal. I related to God through the scripture alone, not through the spirit at that time in my life. It's not until we learn to hear his voice through the spirit that He comes to life in us and love springs forth.

Above is what he said quoted exactly.

No problem there, however, nothing stated by Skandelon, even hinted at such. Are you so committed to a theological position that anyone who does not share YOUR scriptural view is then deemed as being idolatrous? I certainly hope not.

He is saying that God is unloveable as he is revealed in scripture. He said you have to "listen to the Spirit" to love God. He denies the objective truth God gave us as a revelation of himself and says God is only loveable SUBJECTIVELY through the excuse that the Spirit revealed God to him not the scriptures!

But the bible says that Christ's sheep will hear his voice. The entire bible is written in his voice. If you can;t love the GOd you see in the bible, how can you claim to be regenerate.

 

[quantumfaith]

Above is what he said quoted exactly.



He is saying that God is unloveable as he is revealed in scripture. He said you have to "listen to the Spirit" to love God. He denies the objective truth God gave us as a revelation of himself and says God is only loveable SUBJECTIVELY through the excuse that the Spirit revealed God to him not the scriptures!

But the bible says that Christ's sheep will hear his voice. The entire bible is written in his voice. If you can;t love the GOd you see in the bible, how can you claim to be regenerate.

False AGAIN, it seems as though that is what you WANT him to say.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

You mean like when someone worships a book above its author?

Here is a link written by Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries that defends conservative bible believers from liberals who deny the bible is true and accuse conservative bible believers of idolatry for their stance on scripture:

http://carm.org/do-inerrantists-elevate-bible-level-idolatry

Again, here is the definitive DR. RC Sproul lecture on the topic. I imagine you still haven't taken the time to listen to it.

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/inspiration-infallibility-inerrancy/

 

[Osage Bluestem]

False AGAIN, it seems as though that is what you WANT him to say.

It seems pretty clear that he said he didn't love the God he read about in scripture it was only after he "started listening to the Spirit" that he actually loved "God".

 

[Skandelon]

Here is a link written by Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries that defends conservative bible believers from liberals who deny the bible is true

As soon as I find a liberal who believes the bible isn't true I'll be sure to send them this link. Thanks :thumbs:

Again, here is the definitive DR. RC Sproul lecture on the topic. I imagine you still haven't taken the time to listen to it.

I heard him live three times on the very subject. Good man and good teacher.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

As soon as I find a liberal who believes the bible isn't true I'll be sure to send them this link. Thanks :thumbs:


I heard him live three times on the very subject. Good man and good teacher.

I don't want to be at odds with anyone. I love you. I just get angry when the bible is attacked. Please forgive me for being upset with you, but please just take another look at it and see that the bible is the word of God. I forgive your ignorance.