A Novel Soteriological Explanation in the Calvinism vs Arminianism Debate

[Derf B]

Not at all... You added "just." God is the Creator and we are the creature. As such we are different than Him. He did not create copies of Himself.

I added "just" because that was the only thing you said was different. And yes, in a sense, He created copies of Himself--made us in His image. Jesus was also His image. Does that mean you don't think Jesus is God or even like God in any way?

About man:
[1Co 11:7 KJV] For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
About Jesus:
[Col 1:15 KJV] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

So if we are like God in some ways (made in His image), then you need to explain why our emotions are one of the things that are not like God's, since the bible clearly states that we have emotions and God has emotions.

Our existence is fundamentally different from God. This is basic theology here. In addition to our differences, we have the Fall. As a result of the Fall, man's emotions are affected by sin. God, who is fundamentally different from us, is not affected by sin. Therefore, there are two differences--who God is and His perfections (being untainted by sin).

I appreciate that you have to resort to a "basic theology", which you feel doesn't need to be supported by scripture. That tells me you can't find scriptural support for your position. That's called a "presupposition". And you have to be careful with them, because it may be hard to tell the difference between a good one and a bad one. (Hint: that's why we read scripture--to find out the truth about God that He has revealed to us.)

This is a bad analogy... While God did give us language, it is not endemic to us as creatures. In other words, the lack of language does not makes us less-than-human. So those who are mute, for example, are not some other class of creature. Language and emotions are apples and oranges.

Ummmm...that wasn't an analogy. My point was that God gave us language and that language can be used to describe things about God. If that's not so, then our language doesn't really mean what we think it means, and even our conversation here is of no value.

Also, you are ignoring how human emotions work in a reactionary sense. Human emotions are the result of a cause--seeing your wife or children, being cut-off in traffic, etc. (different emotions to be sure). God never reacts. If God were to react that would mean something took Him by surprise. If He is omniscient, that can never happen. Therefore, the emotions He displays are planned and settled expressions of His holiness.

The Archangel

Surprise is an emotion, but it's not all emotions. Just because God might exhibit emotions, doesn't mean something took Him by surprise. Anger, Joy, sadness are all emotions that don't require surprise. God exhibits all of these, and all reactions in most cases to someone else's actions. This is biblical, so why do you deny it?

But since you brought up surprise, specifically, why is it out of the question that God could exhibit surprise?

It's because of your "basic theology" presupposition that God's omniscience encompasses all timeframes. Yet the bible doesn't speak in that kind of language. Rather God deals with us in our time and "searches" things out. He knows things when they happen. I expect He observes things as they happen. Jeremiah 17:10 says: “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.” If God already knew what each person was going to do, why would He need to search and examine? In fact, if God already knew, because He searched and examined, what they were going to do before they even existed, HOW could He search hearts and examine minds--hearts and minds that don't yet exist??

So if God searches hearts and examines minds, is it possible that He could be surprised? Maybe. Here's one option:
[Isa 5:2 KJV] And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
[Isa 5:4 KJV] What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
The chapter goes on to tell what God is going to do to His people because His vineyard brought forth the wrong kind of grapes despite everything He had done to get good grapes.

This is poetic language, admittedly, but it tells a story that is used to justify punishing His people. There's a reality behind the parable, and if the parable is taken as written, it's hard to get anything else out of it than that God is surprised by the result of His tender care of His people.

I'd like to challenge you, TA, to read the bible first with the idea of learning what it has to say about God before you apply what you already know about God. It might surprise you!

 

[Iconoclast]

Derf B,

This is poetic language, admittedly, but it tells a story that is used to justify punishing His people. There's a reality behind the parable, and if the parable is taken as written, it's hard to get anything else out of it than that God is surprised by the result of His tender care of His people.

The Biblical God is never surprised by anything. That is not possible.

 

[Derf B]

Derf B,



The Biblical God is never surprised by anything. That is not possible.

Again, as you are asserting this without biblical support, I can only assume it comes from your presuppositions, rather than from the Bible. Our presuppositions are not trustworthy as standalone sources for truth.

You might be right, but your bare assertion is not adequate for me to know you are right. And it shouldn’t be adequate for you, either. Even Paul’s bare assertions weren’t adequate for the Bereans—they had to search the scriptures, and were considered noble for doing so. Be noble, Iconoclast! Find me a verse that says God is never surprised. I already found one that seems to say He is surprised under some circumstances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Archangel]

I added "just" because that was the only thing you said was different. And yes, in a sense, He created copies of Himself--made us in His image. Jesus was also His image. Does that mean you don't think Jesus is God or even like God in any way?

About man:
[1Co 11:7 KJV] For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
About Jesus:
[Col 1:15 KJV] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

So if we are like God in some ways (made in His image), then you need to explain why our emotions are one of the things that are not like God's, since the bible clearly states that we have emotions and God has emotions.

First things first... You do not understand what is meant by "image." Image does not refer to a copy; image refers to a representative function. Man is the governor; God is the King (who appoints the governor to do what is right in His eyes).

What is more, you should understand the difference between the communicable attributes of God and the incommunicable attributes. Since there are incommunicable attributes, He could not have made copies of Himself.

The Archangel

 

[Derf B]

First things first... You do not understand what is meant by "image." Image does not refer to a copy; image refers to a representative function. Man is the governor; God is the King (who appoints the governor to do what is right in His eyes).

What is more, you should understand the difference between the communicable attributes of God and the incommunicable attributes. Since there are incommunicable attributes, He could not have made copies of Himself.

The Archangel

I’m just saying, “image” means something in us is like something in or if God. Emotions are something we have and God has. If we both have emotions, why do you get to say that ours and His are not alike in any way (fundamentally different)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Barry Johnson]

Not sure what Bible you are reading...

I'm reading the bible without certain theological glasses on . The problem is some can no longer view their bibles without these glasses distorting there views . I can see a lot of folks parroting their favourite so called 'giant of the faith '. This is the problem with christianity today . They don't trust the bible, but rather tradition.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Not sure what Bible you are reading...

Most Christians are not getting there theology from the bible but from theologians and ' orthadoxy ' . All good godly men down through the ages have taught this and we must go along with brother such and such " . " I think you.ll find in the Greek such and such, blah blah " . " Brother Gill says such and such and John Macathur said blah blah " . This is where the majority of opinions are coming from.

 

[The Archangel]

I’m just saying, “image” means something in us is like something in or if God.

No, it doesn't. What you're describing is more akin to "Likeness."

Emotions are something we have and God has. If we both have emotions, why do you get to say that ours and His are not alike in any way (fundamentally different)?

Our emotions are not alike because of who He is and who we are--He is the Creator, we are the creature. In making us in His likeness, He did not make us as copies of Himself. We do not exhibit omnipresence or omniscience. But, we do bear some resemblance to our Creator. He is creative (obviously); we are creative. But we are not creative in the same way. He has emotions and we have emotions. But, God's emotions do not express themselves like ours do, and they cannot. We are fallen, He is not. He does not experience misguided love that would lead into folly or lust, but we do.

The Archangel

 

[37818]

According to Romans 4, it is not.

Please explain? According to Romans 4:1-5 faith is not Abraham's work.

 

[Reformed1689]

Most Christians are not getting there theology from the bible but from theologians and ' orthadoxy ' . All good godly men down through the ages have taught this and we must go along with brother such and such " . " I think you.ll find in the Greek such and such, blah blah " . " Brother Gill says such and such and John Macathur said blah blah " . This is where the majority of opinions are coming from.

Which did not address my charge. What Bible are you reading that says nothing about God choosing?

 

[Reformed1689]

I'm reading the bible without certain theological glasses on . The problem is some can no longer view their bibles without these glasses distorting there views . I can see a lot of folks parroting their favourite so called 'giant of the faith '. This is the problem with christianity today . They don't trust the bible, but rather tradition.

Sounds like what you are doing.

 

[Derf B]

No, it doesn't. What you're describing is more akin to "Likeness."

Here’s one entry from a Bing search on synonyms for “image”:
semblance or likeness.
"we are made in the image of God"

I must say, Archangel, that someone with your screen name should be more careful to use words correctly.

Our emotions are not alike because of who He is and who we are--He is the Creator, we are the creature. In making us in His likeness, He did not make us as copies of Himself. We do not exhibit omnipresence or omniscience. But, we do bear some resemblance to our Creator. He is creative (obviously); we are creative. But we are not creative in the same way. He has emotions and we have emotions.

We may not have the same capacity to create, but you have no basis to say we’re not creative in the same way.

The same goes for emotions. If the words mean anything they must mean that we share the emotive capability in some way. It certainly can’t mean that emotions are incommunicable attributes, since you admit we both have them.

But, God's emotions do not express themselves like ours do, and they cannot. We are fallen, He is not. He does not experience misguided love that would lead into folly or lust, but we do.

The Archangel

I agree with you here, as I stated this same thing before. But that is the result /reaction to the emotions, not the emotions themselves.

 

[Van]

Upon further research, both John 6 and and Romans 4 use the Greek word, ergon. The best way forward is to use context. Romans 4 is explicit, faith is not a work so that the faithful may not boast. The context of John 6 is harder, but certainly it cannot go against clear teaching in Romans 4.

This is a little tricky but here goes, in Romans 4:5, work is contrasted to with faith, thus faith is not an action to earn or merit salvation. And as said before, John 6:29 and the ambiguous "work of God" means the work (singular) is to believe in Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm reading the bible without certain theological glasses on . The problem is some can no longer view their bibles without these glasses distorting there views . I can see a lot of folks parroting their favourite so called 'giant of the faith '. This is the problem with christianity today . They don't trust the bible, but rather tradition.

Many trust the bible, even when it says this;
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Please explain? According to Romans 4:1-5 faith is not Abraham's work.

I will point you to posts #58 and #73 in this thread. They explain things.

In addition, from an earlier post of mine in another thread I pointe you to,

Romans 4
4 What then shall we say that Abraham, [a]our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not [c]before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Abraham has nothing to boast about. God credits Abraham as righteous when he has faith.

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

This credit given by God for the act of faith is not a wage that is due. It is not counted as a work.

6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

This credit based on faith covers our lawless deeds and sins. We are not held to account by God.

9 Is this blessing then on [d]the circumcised, or on [e]the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was [f]circumcised, or [g]uncircumcised? Not while [h]circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

Adherence to the Torah is not needed to receive the credit of righteousness through faith. While an uncircumcised man, Abraham receives the credit of righteousness for his faith.

11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [j]he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

Abraham, who is given the sign of circumcision, is thus the father of those who are uncircumcised and are credited with righteousness based on faith.

12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which [k]he had while uncircumcised.

Abraham receives the sign of circumcision to be the father of those circumcised, who follow in his footsteps of having faith while uncircumcised.

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his [l]descendants that he would be heir of the world was not [m]through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are [n]of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;

Abraham and his descendants are given an inheritance of the world based on faith, not because they hold to the Torah.

I'll stop here before climbing into deep theology for the rest of Romans 4.

 

[The Archangel]

Here’s one entry from a Bing search on synonyms for “image”:
semblance or likeness.
"we are made in the image of God"

I must say, Archangel, that someone with your screen name should be more careful to use words correctly.

See... you're using a dictionary. I'm using a Hebrew lexicon and what the people hearing "Image" would have thought. It means representative. Likeness is different. The words "Image" and "Likeness" in Hebrew are different words. And, you ought to know better than to define biblical words which are rich in theological meaning with modern dictionaries that are ignorant of the biblical usage.

We may not have the same capacity to create, but you have no basis to say we’re not creative in the same way.

Seriously? Let's see you call the non-existent into existence. I'll wait.

The same goes for emotions. If the words mean anything they must mean that we share the emotive capability in some way. It certainly can’t mean that emotions are incommunicable attributes, since you admit we both have them.

Emotions are not incommunicable. But, God's emotions are not what ours are. That is plain through the warp and woof of Scripture. God is spoken of "regretting," but it cannot be what our regret is. Most of what is spoken of God's emotions are anthropomorphisms that give us a clue, but not a full picture, as to His emotions. Again, this is basic theology.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

"Derf B,

Again, as you are asserting this without biblical support

,

I do not recall the word surprise being found in the bible. The bible is God's special revelation of Himself to mankind, and believers in particular.

When we look at a definition of your word surprise here is what we find.
verb (used with object), sur·prised, sur·pris·ing.
to strike or occur to with a sudden feeling of wonder or astonishment, as through unexpectedness:Her beauty surprised me.
to come upon or discover suddenly and unexpectedly:We surprised the children raiding the cookie jar.
to make an unexpected assault on (an unprepared army, fort, person, etc.).
to elicit or bring out suddenly and without warning:to surprise the facts from the witness.
noun
an act or instance of surprising or being surprised.
something that surprises someone; a completely unexpected occurrence, appearance, or statement:His announcement was a surprise to all.
an assault, as on an army or a fort, made without warning.
a coming upon unexpectedly; detecting in the act; taking unawares.

The bible declares that we have an all-knowing God. How can an all-knowing God, not know anything as to be surprised???

I can only assume it comes from your presuppositions, rather than from the Bible

.

You know what they say about assumptions For example, what if a person read these verses and believed them, where do you see this idea of a surprised deity in this, explain it to us, maybe I do not see something that you do.

139 O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether.

5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.


I do not see God being surprised by Jeremiah being a prophet...is this a presupposition or biblically revealed truth?
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

I see nowhere in scripture God saying...wow what a surprise, you have made yourself into a prophet...who knew??

 

[37818]

Theology without biblical warrant is fiction.
John 6:29 says faith in Christ is the work (singular) God requires.
Theology based on not understanding ambiguous verses is the basis of false doctrine.

So am I to understand you see faith as a work man must do?

 

[Van]

So am I to understand you see faith as a work man must do?

I am sick and tired of folks who ascribe to me what scripture plainly teaches, and what many scholars, which certainly excludes me, believe. If you have a view, present it. Stop all these deceitful practices. I presented the mainstream view. All these guys that claim not to see any difference between a work and works of the Law should be held accountable for their attack on truth.

 

[37818]

According to Romans 4, it is not.

It is my understanding the faith is a work of God, John 6:29, never the work of a man, Romans 4:1-5.