Discussion.

[Christforums]

I agree. The problem when it comes to determining if the 1st day was a 24 hour period is Scripture remains silent (as if it was not important).

That said, I see no reason to conclude it wasn't.

One day or the first day?
A seemingly trivia question emphasizing translation, but one day could of taken longer in duration to complete the first day. Note the various translations and the use of one or first: Genesis 1:5 Parallel: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 

[37818]

Genesis either is or is not accepted as the historical account narrative. The axiom is self-evident, and either G-d created or the narrative of man takes precedence.

Unfortunately both evidences end up being interpreted by men. YEC, OEC and the current science [observational knowledge] get set at odds.

 

[Christforums]

Unfortunately both evidences end up being interpreted by men. YEC, OEC and the current science [observational knowledge] get set at odds.

Yes, and oftentimes I am reluctant to open the door and usher in advocates for schools of thought
I do not agree with the gap theory or Darwinian evolutionist nor want to make their objectives easier. My emphasis remains on personal understanding of and of what the original author conveyed. Of course in science paradigm shifts occur. For example Newtonian law was more than adequate and not necessarily incorrect, however, Einstein and his theory of relativity was better equipped interpreting the universe.

 

[37818]

Points of disagreement exist. What the light of Genesis 1:3 happened to be of which G-d spoke, being one point.

 

[JonC]

One day or the first day?
A seemingly trivia question emphasizing translation, but one day could of taken longer in duration to complete the first day. Note the various translations and the use of one or first: Genesis 1:5 Parallel: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Either. It is impossible for man to know what has not been given to man to know.

I think, maybe, the reason Scripture is not a history or science text book is because we would be drawn by such rather than to God. Man has a strong desire to acquire knowledge and a lesser desire to acquire that which is spiritual.

 

[Christforums]

Points of disagreement exist. What the light of Genesis 1:3 happened to be of which G-d spoke, being one point.

G-d spoke from out of eternity. If the light which I do not believe was electromagnetic radiation in verse 1:3 then the measurement of time by light could be made the ruler which doesn't occur until the fourth day.

G-d said, and the light of G-d shone and when completed "there was evening" followed by "morning", when G-d began the continuation of the creation account.

From a Trinitarian perspective, I'd emphasize the perfect communion in the G-dhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, unique enough in Persons, but not individual enough for eternal communion to not exists. However, the singularity of G-d from out of eternity reconciles what was before the Big Bang.

Shalom

 

[Christforums]

This discussion has been wonderfully useful. Thanks @JonC @37818 for your engagements.
Thanks for helping me articulate some through things I had written on my blog a moment ago: בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים rhetorical questions for they in which asked – The school of Isaiah

I used a url shortener because the url does a number in the url format.

Shalom

 

[Christforums]

@JonC @37818 are either or both of you Calvinist or consistent in soteriology? 37818, if so I was curious about any reservations on the topic of free will while reading Understanding Judaism. I do not want to be seen as promoting my site, but is easier sometimes to include a link if interested: The prompt origin of conscience vs. free will - The school of Isaiah

The mention of free will at times causing a firestorm of debate whenever Calvinist are present. Not so from my perspective as I care enough to understand what was meant by free will.

Hope you're enjoying this day,
Shalom

 

[37818]

@JonC @37818 are either or both of you Calvinist or consistent in soteriology? 37818, if so I was curious about any reservations on the topic of free will while reading Understanding Judaism. I do not want to be seen as promoting my site, but is easier sometimes to include a link if interested: The prompt origin of conscience vs. free will - The school of Isaiah

The mention of free will at times causing a firestorm of debate whenever Calvinist are present. Not so from my perspective as I care enough to understand what was meant by free will.

Hope you're enjoying this day,
Shalom

I am not a Calvinist. I do believe the same Scriptures that Calvinist's claim, but understand those passages differently. I believe God created mankind to be self willed. Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Which explains our limitations on our will's.

 

[Christforums]

I am not a Calvinist. I do believe the same Scriptures that Calvinist's claim, but understand those passages differently. I believe God created mankind to be self willed. Romans 6:16, Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Which explains our limitations on our will's.

Agreed, our strength is limited by our nature. Whether Calvinist or not monergism separates Protestants from synergism or back sliding to Catholicism. "Total inability," is another descriptive title for the first point of Calvinism Total Depravity. John 6:44

No man can come to me (Total depravity)
Unless the Father (Unconditional Election)
Draw him (Irresistible Grace)
Then I will raise them (Limited Atonement)
On the last day (Perseverance of the saints)

The acronym is of course out of order but nonetheless apparent in John 6:44, the basis for the TULIP which wasn't developed until after the Synod of Dort.

I tend to consider the understanding of Calvinist theology as deep deeper than necessary. If many struggles on the surface what good was it to teach him the deep? The answer from my perspective was acknowledgment that all salvation was and is from G-d and not man. I'm sure we both do not want to dive into Calvinist doctrine because oftentimes such discussions become rather uncivil. Interesting, I have retained my Calvinist soteriology though pursuing Judaism. The familiarity is striking perhaps because our common Christian beliefs and understanding are rooted in the tradition of Jesus Christ, and because Christianity was a Sect of Judaism.

Shalom

 

[37818]

Unless the Father (Unconditional Election)

Personally I reject "unconditional" Election.
1 Peter 1:2, . . . Elect according to . . . .

 

[37818]

Unless the Father (Unconditional Election)

Personally I reject "unconditional" Election.
1 Peter 1:2, . . . Elect according to . . . .

 

[Christforums]

Personally I reject "unconditional" Election.
1 Peter 1:2, . . . Elect according to . . . .

I do not see your point, the scriptural verse from Peter addresses the Elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father which substantiates Election. The difference between Conditional vs Unconditional election presents two different options whether election from eternity was based upon the performance and works of man or by Grace. Grace by definition cannot be merited or Grace ceases to be grace becoming the reward for righteousness of man. The Ordo salutis then needs rearrangement for regeneration precedes faith if by Grace. That is, faith is the gift of G-d. Conditional election implies there are conditions of salvation and the elect can lose salvation.

On another note, usually Protestants disagree on the topic of Atonement, limited rather than unconditional which doesn't necessarily imply Arminian. For example, Lutherans (Protestant) in the strictest most consistent sense pause after Unconditional Election and say pertaining to who was atoned for or the vastness of the sacrificial blood, well, they leave it mystery. Personally, I respect yielding back at times and suggesting things are mystery. However, I do not believe one drop of the blood of Jesus was wasted for who the blood was not intended, that is the reprobate rather than the elect.

Shalom

 

[37818]

I do not see your point, the scriptural verse from Peter addresses the Elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father which substantiates Election.

I understand this to be a condition. God's calling without works is a condition.
MLV, Romans 9:11, for* the children were not yet born, nor had practiced anything good or evil, in-order-that the purpose of God according-to his choice might abide, not from works, but from the one who is calling.

. . . not from works, but from the one who is calling. . . .

Matthew 7:21, . . . he that doeth the will of my Father . . . .

 

[Christforums]

God's calling without works is a condition.

Not a condition of man. The condition solely rests upon the shoulders of G-d. And who He elects I am content leaving it as the mysterious will of G-d.

Shalom

 

[JonC]

@JonC @37818 are either or both of you Calvinist or consistent in soteriology? 37818, if so I was curious about any reservations on the topic of free will while reading Understanding Judaism. I do not want to be seen as promoting my site, but is easier sometimes to include a link if interested: The prompt origin of conscience vs. free will - The school of Isaiah

The mention of free will at times causing a firestorm of debate whenever Calvinist are present. Not so from my perspective as I care enough to understand what was meant by free will.

Hope you're enjoying this day,
Shalom

I was a Calvinist for a long time. But I abandoned the philosophy over a decade ago. I still regret having had Calvinism influence my teaching and preaching. It is something of which I am ashamed, but we grow by God's grace.

Now I appreciate Judiasm (ancient Judiasm) more because of the non-Western position regarding the issue.

It is difficult for us (Westerners) to grasp exactly how the ancient Hebrews viewed this topic, and perhaps more so for those who hold an understanding of a Calvinistic trajectory (Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldinism...and views influenced by those sects) because of imposing a modern worldview onto the ancient world.

I look forward to exploring your link.


There are plenty of Calvinists on this forum. In fact, most here hold a position that is derived from Calvinism regardless of which stance they have decided regarding the topic of the will.

 

[37818]

Ephesians 1:9-14, Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

 

[JonC]

@Christforums

I like your article. You were a hybrid wolf breader??!


The problem with the "free will vs divine sovereignty debate on this forum" is, in my view, that these are not mutually exclusive.

The reason is illustrated in the illustration using animals. God is infinitely greater than us. His will can encompass the exercise of ours. (I am a compatiblist).

 

[Christforums]

I was a Calvinist for a long time. But I abandoned the philosophy over a decade ago. I still regret having had Calvinism influence my teaching and preaching. It is something of which I am ashamed, but we grow by God's grace.

Now I appreciate Judiasm (ancient Judiasm) more because of the non-Western position regarding the issue.

It is difficult for us (Westerners) to grasp exactly how the ancient Hebrews viewed this topic, and perhaps more so for those who hold an understanding of a Calvinistic trajectory (Calvinism, Arminianism, Amyraldinism...and views influenced by those sects) because of imposing a modern worldview onto the ancient world.

I look forward to exploring your link.


There are plenty of Calvinists on this forum. In fact, most here hold a position that is derived from Calvinism regardless of which stance they have decided regarding the topic of the will.

I can most appreciate your reservations, Calvinism imposed problems exclusive to itself and the symptoms were theological fatalism as well "head entrapment." Too much detached intellectualism (mindful), and not enough application by which most of what was emphasized in Calvinism offered little. Though, and I emphasize though, Calvinism emphasized the Grace of G-d worthy off all Glory. Imagine sitting back as a fan and as a member of the fan club being reduced on the sidelines - I found myself frozen yet chosen. Judaism ignited a flame which melted the iced over mindfulness.

Yes, post Judaism surprisingly makes allusions constantly to the Messiah Yeshua in reservation. Regardless, I have discovered most Judaic members surprisingly acknowledge Jesus as the most important figure in the last millenniums. I suppose to most, this will not do because in contrast Muslims might indicate the same by saying Jesus was the Last Prophet. Though recognizable, not paramount according to the standards of Christians. For me personally, Moses was foundational, not only the instrument of Grace, the giver of Law by the Giver of Law, but obviously because all of the Prophets pointed back to the Law. While Jesus is the answer for the unhinged door in reconciliation Jesus followed his tradition and the Law of Moses and demonstrated the faith of Abraham.

Yeshua = the L-rd will save
YeOshua = the L-rd saved

Regardless of my now delineation from Christianity to Judaism I'd be as John said a liar if I denied Jesus was not my savior as a lost sheep of Israel. Messianic Jew? I was not raised Jewish therefore the traditions of Jews seemingly suit me not well, however, from a religious perspective quite the tailored made three piece equivalent. Oral tradition rather than westernized institutions of academia for example, I have not attended universities; therefore, oral tradition seemingly better describes the knowledge received today.

Shalom

 

[JonC]

I can most appreciate your reservations, Calvinism imposed problems exclusive to itself and the symptoms were theological fatalism as well "head entrapment." Too much detached intellectualism (mindful), and not enough application by which most of what was emphasized in Calvinism offered little. Though, and I emphasize though, Calvinism emphasized the Grace of G-d worthy off all Glory. Imagine sitting back as a fan and as a member of the fan club being reduced on the sidelines - I found myself frozen yet chosen. Judaism ignited a flame which melted the iced over mindfulness.

Yes, post Judaism surprisingly makes allusions constantly to the Messiah Yeshua in reservation. Regardless, I have discovered most Judaic members surprisingly acknowledge Jesus as the most important figure in the last millenniums. I suppose to most, this will not do because in contrast Muslims might indicate the same by saying Jesus was the Last Prophet. Though recognizable, not paramount according to the standards of Christians. For me personally, Moses was foundational, not only the instrument of Grace, the giver of Law by the Giver of Law, but obviously because all of the Prophets pointed back to the Law. While Jesus is the answer for the unhinged door in reconciliation Jesus followed his tradition and the Law of Moses and demonstrated the faith of Abraham.

Yeshua = the L-rd will save
YeOshua = the L-rd saved

Regardless of my now delineation from Christianity to Judaism I'd be as John said a liar if I denied Jesus was not my savior as a lost sheep of Israel. Messianic Jew? I was not raised Jewish therefore the traditions of Jews seemingly suit me not well, however, from a religious perspective quite the tailored made three piece equivalent. Oral tradition rather than westernized institutions of academia for example, I have not attended universities; therefore, oral tradition seemingly better describes the knowledge received today.

Shalom

I believe Calvinism would have been much better had it began by going back to Scrioture instead of reforming Roman Catholic doctrine (particularly with the meaning of Christ's death). This was a major complaint by those outside of Calvinism at the time, so it's nothing new. But there is simply too much baggage carried forward.

To be fair, we have to be very careful with Judiasm as well. Technically Christianity is older than Judiasm. Judiasm began after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as it was necessary because the Hebrew faith centered on the Temple which required a shift towards the teachings of the Pharisees (rabbis rather than priests, the law belonging to the people rather than the Temple).