-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Anthropomorphism
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
Scripture (Exodus 32:14) says God changed His mind (or relented). Why did He do it if He knew the result beforehand. God does not make mistakes. You are in a box. What you ask me to accept is God knew He was not going to punish, but He said He would punish, to give Moses the opportunity to plead, and then God would say He changed His mind, not because it was true, but because He wanted to make Moses feel good, to create the appearance that prayer has a purpose. If this seems sound to you, Gabe, we can still treat each other with dignity and respect, but do not expect that I will see your assertions as sound.
God choosing to interact with His creation in the manner He so chooses is not the same thing as God not knowing what is going to happen in the future. Since you hold to the catholic doctrine of original sin, can we now call you a full blown Roman Catholic?
You never did give a satisfactory answer to the Hezekiah story, btw. In your compatabilistic model God either lied to Hezekiah or was joking when He said he was going to die
Last edited by a moderator:
freeatlast
New Member
Hello Van I understand your view or at least think that I do, but I also am aware that words can take on different meaning to different people which forms certain doctrines in their belief system. While I agree it does not make right a belief it does set in that persons mind something as being true.
Let me use the "all" example you gave. I believe that Christ literally died for "all" not just the saved, but only the saved experience it. The reason is I hold a different view of why men are lost then some. I do not believe that our personal sins make us lost. This is why we cannot lose our salvation, but that is another matter. I believe that the action of one man, Adam, at a tree made us all lost and we prove it by our sins. In sin we were conceived, Adam’s sin, in iniquity we are formed, we are guilty of being sinners from birth and prove it by our personal sins in life. At birth we are born in the first Adam even though Adam's sin was paid for. The rewards of Adam's sin is passed on by birth (conception) and the payment of Christ is passed on by birth (spiritual conception) We have to be born again to be in Christ. While all is paid, not all passes on because not all are born again.
Now with Christ. I believe that by one Man's deed on a tree the action of the first man was paid for, and that has to include all since all are born in Adam. It is not about paying for each individuals sin, but about paying for the sin of one who we are all in. However it all depends on who we are in, Adam or Christ. While all are born in Adam, the first birth, not all end up born in Christ, the second birth, leaving many still under the original curse even though the sin of Adam was paid for and we are all born in Adam. So I do believe that the "all" is a literal "all" within the parameters it is being used even if all do not experience the new or second birth. So "all" can mean all while many of the all still will be excluded by their own choice of rejection from my stand point or from another's belief of absolute election.
I base my belief on Romans and John as well as some other passages, but let me give one. We read in John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Notice it doesn't say sins, but sin. "Sin" is very purposely singular as to point to one sin, the first sin. That sin alone caused all men to be lost and had to be dealt with. No other sin is the cause of being lost. Not murder, rape, lying or what ever else. (let's not get into the Blasphemy for now, but even the Blasphemy does not cause us to be lost) The individual sins of men can be dealt with through forgiveness IF they are in the right Person, but the sin of Adam is not forgivable, it has to be paid for. Now I realize I have just opened a can of worms. Some saying heretical. If I can be shown wrong I will change my view. By the way this should be under another topic so as not to change this threads topic.
My point is that we base our beliefs on information we have as well as other doctrine we have formed and if the information is incomplete or in error and the any other doctrine is incorrect or incomplete then we tend to end up with more error.
So like I said I do agree with parts of your beliefs, but I do not completely rule out opposing views if they hold any support of scripture. At times I have to hold both as true even if I cannot get them to seem to fit together, but while I hold both it is because I am missing some ingredient that will let me see clearly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Freeatlast.
An interesting view, but at first impression, I disagree. As you may know, my favorite verse is "behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." We both see significance in the word sin, as opposed to sins. And world as John always uses it, in my opinion, means the "kosmos of fallen mankind."
But "takes away" describes the Lamb, and the verb participle is in the present tense, indicating continuing action. If your view was correct, it would be a one time action, He took or He will take away. But if you view it as He takes away each of our sin burden when we are placed spiritually in Him, then He takes away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time, until His second coming.
Last point, holding to paradoxes, believing in two mutually exclusive things. I agree we can be in a boat where we do not know if both are false, but logic demands that if we understand one of them correctly, then our view of the other is mistaken. I am underwhelmed when a preacher brings out the old chestnut, believe like a Calvinist but preach like an Arminian.
My view solves the problem of Christ dying for the world, and for His church, because the church is called out of the world. To think both are true yet conflict is unsound.
An interesting view, but at first impression, I disagree. As you may know, my favorite verse is "behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." We both see significance in the word sin, as opposed to sins. And world as John always uses it, in my opinion, means the "kosmos of fallen mankind."
But "takes away" describes the Lamb, and the verb participle is in the present tense, indicating continuing action. If your view was correct, it would be a one time action, He took or He will take away. But if you view it as He takes away each of our sin burden when we are placed spiritually in Him, then He takes away the sin of the world, one sinner at a time, until His second coming.
Last point, holding to paradoxes, believing in two mutually exclusive things. I agree we can be in a boat where we do not know if both are false, but logic demands that if we understand one of them correctly, then our view of the other is mistaken. I am underwhelmed when a preacher brings out the old chestnut, believe like a Calvinist but preach like an Arminian.
My view solves the problem of Christ dying for the world, and for His church, because the church is called out of the world. To think both are true yet conflict is unsound.
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
Van, it is not my "willingness" it is the TEXT that drives the CONTEXT of the use of words. Failure to understand that very important principle leads to false theological conclusions and false doctrines.
As for Calvinism being incoherent and "supported by making scripture to no effect" all I can say is show me the SCHOLARLY Arminian who exegetes Scripture on the level of historical Calvinists. Good luck with that. :thumbsup:
glfredrick
New Member
I've reported this post.
For what, calling you out on the carpet for not dealing with Hezekiah? Or did you take offense to being asked if we can call you a Roman Catholic based on a doctrine shared with them, you know...like doing the exact same thing by labeling Van an open theist? Are you going to report your own post to Van as well, because we know how consistent you are.
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
First, I did not "call" Van an open theist. I said that his statement was in the direction of open theism.
Second, you DID call me a Roman Catholic based on something not even said in this thread, and to which I take great offense.
"I'm sorry, but you just further defined your views as truly open theism with your response above."
That's a heck of a lot more than suggesting he is going in that "direction"
I would hope in your profession you would understand when a question is being asked and a label being applied. Apparently not. Here it is again...
Since you hold to the catholic doctrine of original sin, can we now call you a full blown Roman Catholic?
Last edited by a moderator:
Man uses the same terminology.
"Let's bury the hatchet."
"Let's forget about the whole thing."
"It's the farthest thing from my mind, I will never think about it again."
The phrase is not that God loses his omniscience (nor re-defines it for your sake); but rather will never bring it to your account again. He promises never to use those sins against you. That is how strong that promise. God cannot forget. He is God. To say that he can literally forget is to make him less than omniscient and thus less than God. Then God is not God. He is deficient in his attributes. He is no better than a man. A supercomputer could do better.
But God is God, and one of those attributes that make him God is His omniscience--that He knows absolutely everything--the beginning from the end. I gave you Scripture to back that up. For him to "forget" is simply an anthropormorphism.
He uses many metaphors and similes to describe for us that he will never again lay our sin against us again.
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. (Psalms 103:12)
--Notice the words "as" It is a simile, but one that conveys a strong message. But did God literally pick our sins up and remove them. What does the word "remove" mean? I think you are getting too technical in the definition of these words.
Van since you are insisting that I’m not answering your question (when I already did) let me make it as clear as possible-
Nacham—when translated ‘relented’ carries the notion of backing off or withdrawing from a threat—not changing one’s mind. So if you want to take the verse as literal as you are insisting—then change of mind is not synonymous with ‘relent’. While nacham certainly can carry the nuance of change of mind or even repent (as some translations render)—the very use of ‘relent’ for nacham is to avoid this particular understanding of the term. This is not to mention the fact that Numbers 23:18-20 & 1 Sam 15:28-29 speak of God never changing His mind (although I’ll admit that some believe that these verses are limited to the context they are in).
That’s a good question—but if you consider Gen 49:8-10—God, through Jacob, promises that the Savior will come threw the line of Judah—if God really meant that He would wipe all the Israelites out except Moses-- how could the promise in Gen 49 not be broken (b/c Moses was from the tribe of Levi & if he was the only one left how could an offspring from the tribe of Judah be produced). So you need to ask yourself-- how could God be serious about this threat if it would cause Him to counteract something else He has already decreed? Further (as I’ve already pointed out) Job 14:5 says God knows the lifespan of an individual, thus God knew if He would kill the Israelites then or if they would be spared.
Agreed---but If we accept your understanding of God literally repenting or changing his mind—this very statement can be questioned! Why do we repent---b/c our actions are in the wrong & need to be turned (in a 180 fashion) to what is right. Why do we change our mind—b/c our original premise was not the best option to follow. Did God not already know the best way to handle the situation? Did Moses really tell God something He did not already know? If you can find one thing Moses taught God—feel free to show me!
You misrepresent what I said--I never said it was to makes Moses feel good—it was to allow Moses to be apart of God’s plan (through prayer) & actually build Moses’ faith.
You don’t have to see it as sound—I just personally support verses such as Isa 46:10 & 1 Jn 3:20 that speak of God knowing all things. Even though I don’t think God changes His mind, I can see how someone would think this. However, I cannot see how anyone would assume that there is something that God actually does not know—this baffles me & imo is truly unsound.