Do you think God bluffs?

[Skandelon]

Always the catch 22 questions. Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift? Can God commit suicide? What purpose does this serve?

Non sequitur:

An example of Non sequitur can be given as follows:
1. Men are human.
2. Mary is human.
3. Therefore, Mary is a man.

Your version of Non sequitur:
1. "Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" is a question I can't answer
2. Skandelon's question is one I can't answer
3. Skandelon's questions are equal to the question "Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?"

 

[Skandelon]

The name says it all, I'm afraid (though the word is misspelled). His intent is to be a "stumbling block."

Skandalon spelled "correctly" was taken and it is actually transcribed both ways.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the NT says: "Skándalon always denotes an enticement to conduct which could ruin the person in question."

You do know that they referred to Christ as the Skandalon, right? Read Romans 9:32.

FYI, the whole doctrine surrounding the hardening of Israel and Christ as the stumbling stone for Israel and their receiving a "spirit of stupor" is what first helped me to realize the error of my Calvinistic beliefs. That is why I chose this name.

So, again and unfortunately, the name says it all. This is the reason he wants to define square circles and the like.

Again, this accusation is a logical fallacy call Non sequitur, which I explained above. The questions I have presented are subjects of scholarly debate in many forums and have been for generations. The fact that you all choose to address them with Ad Homenium and non sequitur fallacies is more of a reflection of your own deficiencies than mine.

I, for one, would not want my moniker to denote what his does. But, to each his own. This is a debate forum and he is free to pick whatever moniker he chooses. I find it unfortunate that his persona goes hand-in-hand with his moniker.

The Archangel.

The archangel is Middle English, from Old French archangele, from Late Latin archangelus and according to research, is the eighth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology. And we all know that Lucifer was an archangel, but fell from his position during the Creation for giving himself the title of God.

So, read into that whatever you want but I just think it is interesting how he chose this moniker considering these facts. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

I believe that a true believer is preserved and cannot lose their salvation, but that the scriptures are full of warnings is clear. There are many who are self deceived.

Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

So, it is clear that a person can be self deceived.

If we have true faith, it should move us to action. I heard the question once, "If your faith cannot get you to church on Sunday morning, can it get you to heaven?"

While that may not be entirely accurate, the point is true, if we are true believers it should be reflected in our actions. If we truly believe in God we should fear and not live in sin.

So, those warnings are for us to examine ourselves and make sure our profession is real.

 

[saturneptune]

Non sequitur:

An example of Non sequitur can be given as follows:
1. Men are human.
2. Mary is human.
3. Therefore, Mary is a man.

Your version of Non sequitur:
1. "Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" is a question I can't answer
2. Skandelon's question is one I can't answer
3. Skandelon's questions are equal to the question "Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?"

You know exactly what I mean. The purpose of such questions is to demean basic Christian doctrine, not follow a path of warped logic.

 

[Skandelon]

The purpose of such questions is to demean basic Christian doctrine, not follow a path of warped logic.

This is the logical debate fallacy called "begging the question" because it presumes Calvinism is equal to Christian doctrine, which is the very premise up for debate...and you accuse me of warped logic? Hmmmm

 

[preachinjesus]

How would you word it?

I think the whole illustration is not sound. The idea behind the card game illustration is that God has part of the deck and there is chance. In God's plan and through His existence there is no chance, God isn't gambling with anything, God is sovereign and He not only has the all the cards...He is the dealer and the card maker.

 

[Skandelon]

I think the whole illustration is not sound. The idea behind the card game illustration is that God has part of the deck and there is chance.

I never mentioned a card game. A "bluff" is often associated with cards but is a independent word with real meaning. If it helps you to stay focused on the actual argument then replace the word "bluff" with the word "empty threat." Does that help?

 

[Luke2427]

There a several passages which indicate that God threatens believers: For example, scripture says that:
(1) He would "cut us off" if we do not "continue in his kindness." (Rm 11:22).
(2) He would erase our names from the lambs book of life. (Rev. 3:5)
(3) He would remove forgiveness from one who chooses not to forgive the lessor debt. (Matt. 18:34)

It would seem that there are 2 possiblities:

1. It is possible to have your name erased from the book of life (cut off), so you better strive to continue in the faith and not permit this to happen.

2. It is not possible to have your name erased from the book of life and God was making an empty threat (bluff) to motivate believers to continue in the faith.

If you choose #2 my question is this: Why would God strive to motivate the elect by telling them something that cannot happen? Is the effectually calling of God not enough of a motivation that they need Christ to threaten them with lies? Why would he lead them to believe the lie that their names might be erased if they didn't continue in the faith? This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Can you please explain?

The book of life passages are not clear. Both sides ought to be honest and admit this.

They can be interpreted several ways and all them be fair.

One of which is this. Everyone's name is written in the book of life on the day of their birth as was the case with all Roman citizens. One could disgrace their nation and have their name blotted out of this book and be exiled.

God could write all names of all men who ever live in the book of life. And he could blot out all names of those who apostatize or die without Christ.

That's a fair interpretation. I am aware of the problems it presents. The comments to Moses predate Rome. Jesus said to rejoice that your name is recorded in the book of life, etc, etc, etc...

Another fair interpretation is that God never threatened to blot out anyone's name from the book of life. Those passages promise that he will not.
Take Revelation 3:5 "Whosoever overcometh... I will not blot out his name from the book of life...." Here is a promise. Your name is secure because you are an overcomer.


A law of hermeneutics says that you must interpret the ambiguous passages in light of the unambiguous ones.

There are PLENTY of CLEAR passages that guarantee that all true believers will persevere and will be preserved.

All ambiguous passages that seem to imply otherwise must be interpreted in light of those clear passages.

 

[Skandelon]

Luke, thanks for your objective view on the book of life passage, but what about the many other texts which seem to warn believers to "continue" or "persevere" or "not grow hardened" lest they fall away, get cut off, etc?

Thanks

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, thanks for your objective view on the book of life passage, but what about the many other texts which seem to warn believers to "continue" or "persevere" or "not grow hardened" lest they fall away, get cut off, etc?

Thanks

We must take them one at a time.

Many, if not the vast majority of them, refer to people who are not yet saved but are being enlightened and beginning to taste of the heavenly gift and partaking of the power of the Holy Spirit- that power that regenerates.

These need to continue because once a person reaches a certain level of enlightenment by the Spirit of God, if they turn back, if they sin willfully, if they are again entangled in the pollutions of this world then they are doomed. These are apostates. They came to the very precipice of the new birth but were choked out and still born. These often become false teachers but all of them are doomed.

The church was jam packed with these people and the epistles often encourage them to go on with God. But there are those who are secure who do not draw back unto perdition.

Other passages do address those who have been born again warning them to continue lest they have their works burned up like wood hay and stubble, etc...

 

[Skandelon]

Other passages do address those who have been born again warning them to continue lest they have their works burned up like wood hay and stubble, etc...

Ok, so is that warning an empty threat to believers in a world where God has predetermined that their works won't be burned up? Understand my question?

 

[Tom Butler]

I'd like to inject something new in the discussion. Up to this point, the assumption has been evident among the posts that the Book of Life is a book containing the names of the saved.

What if the Book of Life was just that--A book containing the names of the Living? And that blotting out a name from the book of life is--they die. God takes them out.

In this case, God took them out because of sin. One example is in I Cor 11, where Paul was castigating some for their behavior at the Lord's Supper. He said, in v 30 "for many are weakly and sickly among you and some are asleep." Dead.

John refers to a "sin unto death" in I John 5:16.

I won't bet the farm on this interpretation, but at the very least it keeps us from having to tippy-toe around the issue of one's losing his salvation.

 

[The Archangel]

Skandalon spelled "correctly" was taken and it is actually transcribed both ways.

I have never seen it transcribed as the way you spell it. I'm not saying it isn't so, but α in Greek is usually transcribed as "a," not "e." But, that the name was taken does make sense.

You do know that they referred to Christ as the Skandalon, right? Read Romans 9:32.

It is interesting that "Skandalon" does not appear in Romans 9:32. The word translated "stumbling stone" is actually πρόσκομμα λίθος (lexical forms) and not σκάνδαλον.

FYI, the whole doctrine surrounding the hardening of Israel and Christ as the stumbling stone for Israel and their receiving a "spirit of stupor" is what first helped me to realize the error of my Calvinistic beliefs. That is why I chose this name.

Equating one's self with Christ is not understood to be, well, sane.

Again, this accusation is a logical fallacy call Non sequitur, which I explained above. The questions I have presented are subjects of scholarly debate in many forums and have been for generations. The fact that you all choose to address them with Ad Homenium and non sequitur fallacies is more of a reflection of your own deficiencies than mine.

It is not a logical fallacy and it is not a non-sequitur. The questions you presented are "square-circle" type of questions in which you allow no appeal to the Biblical facts.

The Bible often presents two facts that appear to be contradictory, but are not contradictory--hence the word antinomy. For instance, in Genesis 50 we see that Joseph's brothers acted, of their own free will, in an evil way against Joseph. But, God intended the brothers' free and evil action for good--to serve His purposes.

These two things are complimentary, not at odds.

The questions you ask seek to apply human logic to solve these antinomies, all the while discounting the inherent tension that the Bible is all-too-happy to have coexisting.

So, to call into question one's belief that scripture is all-sufficient (even with the antinomies) is to say that scripture itself is not sufficient. And, in doing so, you are (perhaps) causing people to add human philosophy to explain away the intentional tension in the Bible, thereby moving them away from the proper view of scripture. So, in this way, you are causing people to stumble.

The archangel is Middle English, from Old French archangele, from Late Latin archangelus and according to research, is the eighth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology. And we all know that Lucifer was an archangel, but fell from his position during the Creation for giving himself the title of God.

So, read into that whatever you want but I just think it is interesting how he chose this moniker considering these facts. :smilewinkgrin:

I should have expected such impetuous childishness from you. For the record, "Lucifer" is not the only "archangel." And, had you looked at my blog, you'd have seen that I used to be a professional trumpet player--hence "the archangel."

What is more, an Archangel does God's will (though I don't do it perfectly). A stumbling block--who is not himself Christ--has only one goal: To trip persons up.

Matthew 18:7:

“Woe to the world for temptations [σκάνκαλον] to sin! For it is necessary that temptations [σκάνκαλον] come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation [σκάνκαλον] comes!

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

I'd like to inject something new in the discussion. Up to this point, the assumption has been evident among the posts that the Book of Life is a book containing the names of the saved.

What if the Book of Life was just that--A book containing the names of the Living? And that blotting out a name from the book of life is--they die. God takes them out.

In this case, God took them out because of sin. One example is in I Cor 11, where Paul was castigating some for their behavior at the Lord's Supper. He said, in v 30 "for many are weakly and sickly among you and some are asleep." Dead.

John refers to a "sin unto death" in I John 5:16.

I won't bet the farm on this interpretation, but at the very least it keeps us from having to tippy-toe around the issue of one's losing his salvation.

The issue is that the 'book of life' is about the saved.. whether alive or dead.

Note this passage which speaks of those alive but not written in the book of life (these are followers of the anti-christ.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Even the end judgment and how they are judged is determined whether or not they are written in the books of life. (whether with mercy and grace or not).. thus they are judged on their works

 

[Skandelon]

Equating one's self with Christ is not understood to be, well, sane.

Equating, no. Trying to be like him, yes. Try to see the good in others and not always presuming the bad. I'm actually a pretty nice fella.

It is not a logical fallacy and it is not a non-sequitur. The questions you presented are "square-circle" type of questions in which you allow no appeal to the Biblical facts.

Uh? I welcome appeals to the biblical facts, in fact the very question I asked was based on biblical facts about God's making warning and threats. Other posters have engaged without resorting to this type of accusation, why do you?

The Bible often presents two facts that appear to be contradictory, but are not contradictory--hence the word antinomy. For instance, in Genesis 50 we see that Joseph's brothers acted, of their own free will, in an evil way against Joseph. But, God intended the brothers' free and evil action for good--to serve His purposes. These two things are complimentary, not at odds.

I agree and many a conversation has been had on that very passage. Now, I'm presenting questions about these passages and for some reason I'm deemed illogical and dismissed with accusations about my moniker?

The questions you ask seek to apply human logic to solve these antinomies, all the while discounting the inherent tension that the Bible is all-too-happy to have coexisting.

So make that argument and stop the ad homenium and speculation about my intentions. Typically I'm the one defending the coexisting tensions and fighting the Calvinists appeal to logic, so I'd be happy to hear that case made in this regard.

So, to call into question one's belief that scripture is all-sufficient (even with the antinomies) is to say that scripture itself is not sufficient. And, in doing so, you are (perhaps) causing people to add human philosophy to explain away the intentional tension in the Bible, thereby moving them away from the proper view of scripture. So, in this way, you are causing people to stumble.

Interesting you have that perspective because my intent was to make the argument for the sufficiency of scripture. It's not my view that attempts to argue that the scripture cannot be understood unto salvation without a prior work of regeneration. And it is scripture which produces these warnings that could be undermined by our doctrinal constructs if we presume they are empty threats. (i.e. if you don't forgive your brother God won't forgive you, etc)

I should have expected such impetuous childishness from you.

You started it.

I was trying to be funny. Apparently you didn't catch that. Lighten up a bit. It is just a moniker.

I had these references more in mind:

The Scandalon
"[The Lord] shall be a sanctuary; but [unto the houses of Israel] a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence..." Isaiah 8:14

"We Preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness..." I Corinthians 1:23

 

[Luke2427]

Ok, so is that warning an empty threat to believers in a world where God has predetermined that their works won't be burned up? Understand my question?

No. It is not an idle threat. If-then's are not contrary to the DoG.

I can plan for my son who struggles with focus to have more work than he can do in 20 minutes when he gets home from school to practice focus- I can tell him "If you get this work done in 20 minutes then you can go out and play." If he would focus he could, but I know he will not focus. I actually intend for him to do another page for more practice at focusing.

But it is an absolutely true statement- If you will... then... Perfectly accurate.

This is no bluff, I am still orchestrating and bringing to pass the outcome I desire and my son is still fully responsible for not getting his work done in 20 minutes.

Now, that is true and I am only human.

If I can get THAT close as a human to this scenario- then what is it to God???

Nothing. He is more than able.

The Bible teaches us that that is the way it works. We don't have to fully understand it- we just have to trust Him and his Word.

 

[saturneptune]

This is the logical debate fallacy called "begging the question" because it presumes Calvinism is equal to Christian doctrine, which is the very premise up for debate...and you accuse me of warped logic? Hmmmm

Your whole agenda is to bring those who believe in God's sovereignty down to your level.

 

[pinoybaptist]

There a several passages which indicate that God threatens believers: For example, scripture says that:
(1) He would "cut us off" if we do not "continue in his kindness." (Rm 11:22).
(2) He would erase our names from the lambs book of life. (Rev. 3:5)
(3) He would remove forgiveness from one who chooses not to forgive the lessor debt. (Matt. 18:34)

It would seem that there are 2 possiblities:

1. It is possible to have your name erased from the book of life (cut off), so you better strive to continue in the faith and not permit this to happen.

2. It is not possible to have your name erased from the book of life and God was making an empty threat (bluff) to motivate believers to continue in the faith.

If you choose #2 my question is this: Why would God strive to motivate the elect by telling them something that cannot happen? Is the effectually calling of God not enough of a motivation that they need Christ to threaten them with lies? Why would he lead them to believe the lie that their names might be erased if they didn't continue in the faith? This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Can you please explain?

God is a God of bluffs, skandelon.
I don't take Him seriously, you shouldn't take Him seriously, either, you know.
He's a liar, right ?
I mean, somebody who bluffs, what else can you call Him ?
So, He tells Israel He's gonna punish them ? Did He ? I guess He bluffed.
Then He tells Israel He's gonna bless them if they continue in His ways, did He ? Nahh. I guess He bluffed.
Heck.
He said in many places of His word He's sovereign and some idiot, superstitious king somewhere even said He does what He will in the army of heaven and of earth. Whaaatt ?
He musta been still drunk from being a werewolf when he said that.
Naaaahhh.
Fergit et, man.
Ets up ta ya, though.
Ya kin take Him seriously, or ya kin jist say, yeah, yeah, and go on with life.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Your whole agenda is to bring those who believe in God's sovereignty down to your level.

Thank you, sir.

 

[freeatlast]

There a several passages which indicate that God threatens believers: For example, scripture says that:
(1) He would "cut us off" if we do not "continue in his kindness." (Rm 11:22).
(2) He would erase our names from the lambs book of life. (Rev. 3:5)
(3) He would remove forgiveness from one who chooses not to forgive the lessor debt. (Matt. 18:34)

It would seem that there are 2 possiblities:

1. It is possible to have your name erased from the book of life (cut off), so you better strive to continue in the faith and not permit this to happen.

2. It is not possible to have your name erased from the book of life and God was making an empty threat (bluff) to motivate believers to continue in the faith.

If you choose #2 my question is this: Why would God strive to motivate the elect by telling them something that cannot happen? Is the effectually calling of God not enough of a motivation that they need Christ to threaten them with lies? Why would he lead them to believe the lie that their names might be erased if they didn't continue in the faith? This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Can you please explain?

You have missunderstood the passages. He is not suggesting He will blot them out He is saying He will not blot them out.

There is no bluff with God.