Can God originate a thought?

[Rippon]

And as far as saying you follow the teachings of men, what do you call yourselves? CALVINists!

I do not follow the teachings of men. You are constantly repeating that refrain.

And what is the favorite thing many call us who disagree with you here on BB lately? NO-NAME THEOLOGISTS.

I didn't come up with that designation. But genuine believers fall into the categories of :Calvinists,Amyraldians,Arminians/Semi-Pelagians.

You are not comfortable in formally identifying any of the above but the last category is where you land.

See, you can't assign a man's name to us!

I just did.

I'll tell you a secret, put down your Institutes and other works of men for awhile and simply study the Bible and you'll see where we derive our theology.

You see,sarcasm has its place,but you use it wrongly. You seek to castigate Calvinists with all the fervor of your little body --but you can't win dear sir.

You might be shamed by how much more I might read and study the Bible than you do. You might be surprised as to how many more opportunities the Lord has given me to share the Word with others. Don't be so high and mighty on your anti-Calvinist highhorse that you take a steep fall one of these days.

But to claim that you simply study the Scriptures is false. You may study the Bible --but you also read commentaries and other Bible study helps I'm sure. All Christians with access to resources do. And that's no crime. we are seeking to dig deeper into the knowledge of the Word.

 

[Winman]

Of course believe it, but don't add to it by saying something that other Scripture contradicts. You are assuming something here.

I am not assuming one thing. God said he was going down NOW to SEE if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing according to the cry he heard from it and IF not, he will know.

I didn't add or assume anything to God's word, I believe him for what he said.

And consider that word "if". Why would God ever say "if"? When God spoke to Cain he said, "IF thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and IF thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shall rule over him."

Why did God say "if" to Cain if he already knew what Cain would choose to do? Sure doesn't sound like Cain's actions were determined (or certainly known) to me.

And how can an unregenerate man RULE OVER sin?

You see, there are not a few verses that suggest God does not always know all things, there are many. I could probably show you at least a dozen more, but if you won't listen to one, you won't listen to any.

I am not saying God does not know all things, because there are many scriptures that suggest this as well. I am simply pointing out there are many verses that seem to suggest that in some instances God knows things in time. This is very difficult to understand.

 

[Rippon]

I am not saying God does not know all things, because there are many scriptures that suggest this as well. I am simply pointing out there are many verses that seem to suggest that in some instances God knows things in time. This is very difficult to understand.

What you have to do Winman,is to realize that God is not in process. He's not learning. He doesn't have new thoughts or ideas. He is all-knowing among His may other attributes. That should be a basic supposition that all Christains should have when they read and study the Scripture. Don't fall for the Open Theism which is so pervasive these days.

It's probably been said before on this thread (I haven't viewed every post)that the Bible uses anthropomorphic language at times. The Lord is stooping down to accommodate us in our finite state. That may ease the difficulty you're facing.

 

[Winman]

What you have to do Winman,is to realize that God is not in process. He's not learning. He doesn't have new thoughts or ideas. He is all-knowing among His may other attributes. That should be a basic supposition that all Christains should have when they read and study the Scripture. Don't fall for the Open Theism which is so pervasive these days.

It's probably been said before on this thread (I haven't viewed every post)that the Bible uses anthropomorphic language at times. The Lord is stooping down to accommodate us in our finite state. That may ease the difficulty you're facing.

I don't know anything about open theism and what those fellows believe. I just read the scriptures. When I see verses like this, I do a study to see what scriptures support or refute it. I will look up every instance of the word "know" in scripture and read it in context for example. I do go to Blue Bible because you can look up many references and the Greek or Hebrew definitions as well. I will also look up many similar words. On occasion I will read a commentary online, both Reformed and others, but not often. I find most commentaries to have an obvious bias, but not always or in every instance. Sometimes for instance, Matthew Henry will completely disagree with Calvinism (he was a Calvinist), at other times he seems to wrest scripture a bit to fit Calvinism. This is the problem with commentaries, they are almost all written with a bias. If you read only Reformed commentaries, then you will of course think your position correct, as they will all use like arguments to support their presuppositions. This is generally true on both sides. So, I tend to stick to scripture and let the scriptures explain themselves.

 

[Winman]

I do not follow the teachings of men. You are constantly repeating that refrain.



I didn't come up with that designation. But genuine believers fall into the categories of :Calvinists,Amyraldians,Arminians/Semi-Pelagians.

You are not comfortable in formally identifying any of the above but the last category is where you land.



I just did.



You see,sarcasm has its place,but you use it wrongly. You seek to castigate Calvinists with all the fervor of your little body --but you can't win dear sir.

You might be shamed by how much more I might read and study the Bible than you do. You might be surprised as to how many more opportunities the Lord has given me to share the Word with others. Don't be so high and mighty on your anti-Calvinist highhorse that you take a steep fall one of these days.

But to claim that you simply study the Scriptures is false. You may study the Bible --but you also read commentaries and other Bible study helps I'm sure. All Christians with access to resources do. and that's no crime. we are seeking to dig deeper into the knowledge of the Word.

I have seen your studies comparing various versions and see you spend great effort. This is impressive as I see much scholarship here. At the same time, you know I am KJVO, and so believe all the MVs corrupt.
But your theology seems to be mainstream Calvinism, your arguments usually parrot most every other Calvinist here. This does not impress me in the least. If there was ever an argument that people are robots, Calvinists are a great example, almost no original thought. Sorry, but that's how you appear to me.

If you have followed my posts in the last two years, you would know I am not conventional at all. I am looking for the truth, not to be orthodox.

 

[Robert Snow]

Do you wish to plainly state that Calvinists here are guilty of these charges?!

I don't mind at all saying that Calvinists are guilty of not believing the truth of the scripture, in my opinion. To say that verses like John 3:16 must be interpreted according to Calvin is to twist the bible to say what it does not say, again, in my opinion. I would imagine you feel the same way about what we believe.

 

[Rippon]

I have seen your studies comparing various versions and see you spend great effort. This is impressive as I see much scholarship here.

That's not real Bible study,nor is it scholarship. Most of my Bible study is with one translation at a time.

At the same time, you know I am KJVO, and so believe all the MVs corrupt.

Come on over to the proper forum to discuss that.

By the way,a translation can't be corrupt as such. You can claim that certain parts of a textual base are corrupt however.

But your theology seems to be mainstream Calvinism, your arguments usually parrot most every other Calvinist here.

I am not copying anyone here. I state my own views. I would state my views if everyone disagreed with me. But yes,I would consider myself a mainstream Calvinist for the most part.

This does not impress me in the least. If there was ever an argument that people are robots, Calvinists are a great example, almost no original thought. Sorry, but that's how you appear to me.

Those sort of comments are just to get a rise out of folks. You can't think of something constructive to say so why not get nasty.

If you have followed my posts in the last two years, you would know I am not conventional at all. I am looking for the truth, not to be orthodox.

Being orthodox in your beliefs and seeking truth are not at odds with one another.

 

[Rippon]

I don't mind at all saying that Calvinists are guilty of not believing the truth of the scripture, in my opinion.

I was specifically asking Winman if he was calling Calvinists guilty of the things outlined in 2 Tim. 2:16-18. For you to lay a blanket charge that we don't believe the truth of Scripture is just sinfully absurd. The truth of Scripture covers,shall we say,a very broad amount of territory. For you to condemnCalvinists with that accusation is foolish in the extreme.

To say that verses like John 3:16 must be interpreted according to Calvin is to twist the bible to say what it does not say, again, in my opinion.

Now how would you know what Calvin believed about John 3:16? You are so used to being in your attack mode --you don't know specifically what you are referencing.

I'm more in agreement with John Owen on John 3:16 than I am with John Calvin anyway. And it's not a twisting of Scripture,but an explanation of it. You don't read that much because of the time you spend on your job you have said. Why make the sweeping remarks you are in the habit of doing if you don't even familarize yourself with material by Calvinists?

You just go into mantra-mode with Calvinism is evil.Calvinism is false. Calvinism preaches a false gospel and on and on and on. It gets absurd Robert. Read and study before you "contribute."

 

[David Lamb]

When you see folks write a mini-novel to try to explain why "whole world" means only a few elect, you can be certain that is vain babblings.

It would certainly be "vain babblings" if someone actually said that "the whole world" means only a few elect, but many times I and others have said that it is just plain wrong to say that Calvinists believe the number of the elect to be but few.

Yet still you keep telling us that we do believe that the number of the elect is small. We believe, as I am sure you do, that the total number of those saved will be so great that no mere human being could count them (see Revelation 7.9)

Obviously there are differences in our theology and yours, but don't you see how difficult it becomes to discuss those differences meaningfully if you keep on telling us what we believe, rather than accepting what we say we believe?

I hope I don't misrepresent what you believe, but if I do, please let me know, and I will be glad to apologise.

I'll stop there, because I wouldn't want this to become a "mini novel" .

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What you have to do Winman,is to realize that God is not in process. He's not learning. He doesn't have new thoughts or ideas. He is all-knowing among His may other attributes. That should be a basic supposition that all Christains should have when they read and study the Scripture. Don't fall for the Open Theism which is so pervasive these days.

It's probably been said before on this thread (I haven't viewed every post)that the Bible uses anthropomorphic language at times. The Lord is stooping down to accommodate us in our finite state. That may ease the difficulty you're facing.

And pick up the Institutes.....you might be surprised by what you read.:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It would certainly be "vain babblings" if someone actually said that "the whole world" means only a few elect, but many times I and others have said that it is just plain wrong to say that Calvinists believe the number of the elect to be but few.

Yet still you keep telling us that we do believe that the number of the elect is small. We believe, as I am sure you do, that the total number of those saved will be so great that no mere human being could count them (see Revelation 7.9)

Obviously there are differences in our theology and yours, but don't you see how difficult it becomes to discuss those differences meaningfully if you keep on telling us what we believe, rather than accepting what we say we believe?

I hope I don't misrepresent what you believe, but if I do, please let me know, and I will be glad to apologise.

I'll stop there, because I wouldn't want this to become a "mini novel" .

My brother....its called Distortion....pure & simple.

 

[Skandelon]

And I'm fine with that if you are ok with the idea that God is informed by another. Why? Because if God's thoughts are eternally existent then the intent of Jeffery Dahmer to rape, murder and eat a child eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of God, instead of originating in the mind of Dahmer and then informing God through his foreknowledge of that event. Make sense? At least that is the finite logic of the matter.

Excellent line of reasoning Skan, glad I kept following this thread. Thanks.

Too bad it went ignored...

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.

 

[jbh28]

I am not assuming one thing. God said he was going down NOW to SEE if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing according to the cry he heard from it and IF not, he will know.

Did god say he didn't know already? No, He didn't. So you assume. And you contradict Scripure that says God knows everything.

And consider that word "if". Why would God ever say "if"? When God spoke to Cain he said, "IF thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and IF thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shall rule over him."

Why did God say "if" to Cain if he already knew what Cain would choose to do? Sure doesn't so

No, if means that "if" something had happened differently another result would have happened. That's all that "if" means.

And how can an unregenerate man RULE OVER sin?

You see, there are not a few verses that suggest God does not always know all things, there are many. I could probably show you at least a dozen more, but if you won't listen to one, you won't listen to any.

Because it contradicts Scripture. God knows everything.

I am not saying God does not know all things,

yes you are...

because there are many scriptures that suggest this as well. I am simply pointing out there are many verses that seem to suggest that in some instances God knows things in time. This is very difficult to understand.

God is outside of time, so there goes that theory. BTW, at least admit you are an open theist. You have the same views are are giving the same arguments.

 

[Winman]

Did god say he didn't know already? No, He didn't. So you assume. And you contradict Scripure that says God knows everything.

God said he would go down NOW to SEE if the people were doing according to the cry that he heard, and IF not, he would know. He is clearly saying he must observe their behavior to confirm whether it were so. A child could understand this.

No, if means that "if" something had happened differently another result would have happened. That's all that "if" means.

You should run for office, you sound just like Bill Clinton.

Because it contradicts Scripture. God knows everything.

It IS scripture! The only thing it contradicts is your presuppositions.

yes you are...

No I'm not, I'm saying there is scripture that supports both views, and that I do not fully understand this at this point in time.

God is outside of time, so there goes that theory.

He is also in time, John described Jesus as he which is (present), and which was (past), and which is to come (future) in Rev 4:2. That shows Jesus IN time friend.

BTW, at least admit you are an open theist. You have the same views are are giving the same arguments.

I have no idea what open theists believe, I do not study the theories of men, I just read the Bible and ask God to help me understand it. Perhaps I would agree with some things they believe, I agree with some things Calvinists say. There is some truth in Calvinism, but not much. The Catholics and JWs hold some truth. It is the unscriptural error I disagree with.

 

[jbh28]

God said he would go down NOW to SEE if the people were doing according to the cry that he heard, and IF not, he would know. He is clearly saying he must observe their behavior to confirm whether it were so. A child could understand this.

You should run for office, you sound just like Bill Clinton.

No, you are reading into the text.

It IS scripture! The only thing it contradicts is your presuppositions.

no, it contradicts the Scriptures that teach that God knows everything.

No I'm not, I'm saying there is scripture that supports both views, and that I do not fully understand this at this point in time.

well, let me help you if you don't understand. Don't write me off because of my Calvinistic beliefs. This isn't about Calvinism. I gave you an explanation on why God would say things like this and still know the answer. He is dealing with us and speaking to us that way. The Bible is clear that God already knows the answer so assuming he doesn't because He asks is wrong.

He is also in time, John described Jesus as he which is (present), and which was (past), and which is to come (future) in Rev 4:2. That shows Jesus IN time friend.

Really, he is in all three...hmmm don't sound bound to time to me. God is eternal.

I have no idea what open theists believe, I do not study the theories of men, I just read the Bible and ask God to help me understand it. Perhaps I would agree with some things they believe,

They teach that God doesn't know future decisions of men.

I agree with some things Calvinists say. There is some truth in Calvinism, but not much. The Catholics and JWs hold some truth. It is the unscriptural error I disagree with.

Understand. I don't agree 100% with Calvinism, but more than you would. But with the matter here, we have very clear passages that teach that God knows everything. So assuming that He doesn't know something(future choice) because He asks for the answer would contradict the truth that God knows everything.

It's like asking, "where are you" to someone. We know exactly where they are at, just getting them to respond. (like playing hide and seek with someone that doesn't hid very well)

 

[Cypress]

Quote:
I have no idea what open theists believe, I do not study the theories of men, I just read the Bible and ask God to help me understand it. Perhaps I would agree with some things they believe,
They teach that God doesn't know future decisions of men.


To be fair......the reason they teach this and affirm that God knows everything is because they believe the future free actions of men (actions not determined by God)are not knowable because the future does not exist to be known. In other words knowing something that doesn't exist is not possible. It would be nonsense.

 

[Robert Snow]

Read and study before you "contribute."

I have studied it. The problem is, if someone points out the error of Calvinism, you immediately go into the, you haven't studied it out mode. You seem to find it impossible to see that someone can study and come to the conclusion that Calvinism is wrong. I have come to that conclusion. In fact, I don't understand how a thinking person cannot see the obvious gross error associated with this false doctrine!

 

[Rippon]

I have studied it. The problem is, if someone points out the error of Calvinism, you immediately go into the, you haven't studied it out mode. You seem to find it impossible to see that someone can study and come to the conclusion that Calvinism is wrong. I have come to that conclusion. In fact, I don't understand how a thinking person cannot see the obvious gross error associated with this false doctrine!

Hey,you have even admitted that you haven't had time to study the writings of Calvinists. Yet here you state that you have.You argue against yourself.

You are obviously comfortable in just assaulting and not interacting.

There you go again:

"Calvinism is wrong."

"Gross error associated with this false doctrine."

We could just record your comments and have them repeated without you making any more undedifying posts.

Anyway,what happened to the moratorium you said you were going to go on in not speaking negatively about Calvinism? You went against your vow.

 

[Winman]

Quote:
I have no idea what open theists believe, I do not study the theories of men, I just read the Bible and ask God to help me understand it. Perhaps I would agree with some things they believe,
They teach that God doesn't know future decisions of men.


To be fair......the reason they teach this and affirm that God knows everything is because they believe the future free actions of men (actions not determined by God)are not knowable because the future does not exist to be known. In other words knowing something that doesn't exist is not possible. It would be nonsense.

Thanks for that explanation. I can tell you right now I do not agree with that. I haven't quite worked out what I believe, because I believe the scriptures are true and cannot contradict themselves. I believe that God knows all things from the beginning, and I also believe he knows some things in time. Why? Because the scriptures clearly show both. Now this seems like a contradiction, but I do not believe it is. I have some personal theories, but it would be hard to explain, and I haven't worked it out.

I really don't worry much about difficult issues like this. I believe we are to focus more on living lives that please God, and telling people about Jesus then debating difficult issues. I mean, you don't see these serious theological discussions on free will or omniscience in the scriptures. The scriptures are about living godly lives, not about being a scholar.

 

[Robert Snow]

Anyway,what happened to the moratorium you said you were going to go on in not speaking negatively about Calvinism? You went against your vow.

The problem I have is with Calvinism, not Calvinists. It's the belief system I don't think is correct. The people who believe it are Christians who in good faith are attempting to serve the Lord. I don't hold any animosity toward them, but I believe they have bought into a false system.

If this is going against what I said, then so be it, I'm not perfect.