Do you think God bluffs?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Woooo.....snap!

Crackle & Pop :tongue3:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To bluff one has to deceive another by deception. Basically lying. God does not bluff. :thumbsup:

Yea right I said that also......BTW Gerald, Where did you go after you shot that RPG off on the Al Martin sermon? You left me behind to shoot it out .... I didnt even have cover...LOL. NOT COOL!

 

[freeatlast]

Yea right I said that also......BTW Gerald, Where did you go after you shot that RPG off on the Al Martin sermon? You left me behind to shoot it out .... I didnt even have cover...LOL. NOT COOL!

Sorry guy. I posted about a dozen posts and it was clear that some of those who think they are conservative are really liberal in nature and started whining about feelings so i just quite posting. I did give a copy to a friend and he is making his wife and daughter listen to it. I intend to give it to my pastor. That will be interesting. I have often times thought about bringing a glass of ice water into the service and pouring it down the backside of those women when they bend forward to get up and are showing a plumber look. Maybe I will just give them a copy of the message instead. :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

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.

I appreciate the analogy and understand they aren't meant to completely represent all aspects of your view, but if I may offer one that does more accurately represent the situation I think it will bring more clarity to our point of contention:

Suppose you have 3 sons and all are born quadriplegic and cannot feel anything from his neck down. They were born in this condition at your request because their older brother broke your rules and this was your chosen way to punish them because they too would also break the rules. Now, you say to all three of them, "I want you to run a marathon and if you don't I throw you into the basement to be tortured for the rest of your life." You choose one of them, pick them up and run a marathon with him on your back and he is the only one not thrown in the basement.

He says, "But dad, what about my brothers?"
"You I have loved, them I have hated...just be happy you were chosen cause you deserved the basement too," you reply
"But dad, why did they deserve the basement?"
"Because they didn't run the marathon," you reply.
"But they couldn't, they were born paralyzed," he objects.
"Rules are rules and since their big brother broke them and they broke them too there are consequences, life ain't fair."
"But why did you do it this way?"
"I am glorified by this. Oh, by the way if you ever get up a walk, I'll throw you in the basement with them," you reply
"I can't get up and walk," he says.
"I know, but this is just a warning not to do what I know you can't do."

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Why warn the elect against doing something that they were born unable to do?

 

[Amy.G]

I have often times thought about bringing a glass of ice water into the service and pouring it down the backside of those women when they bend forward to get up and are showing a plumber look.

We do not have that problem at my church, honestly. Maybe that's why I had trouble relating to the sermon you posted.

 

[glfredrick]

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Why warn the elect against doing something that they were born unable to do?

Will you cease and desist this wrongful attack against those who are yet Calvinists or Reformed, or will you wear the badge of Pelagian instead of Arminian as you purport. More and more, I find you as disingenuous in your actual intent to truly represent Arminianism.

In fact, I think that you are simply at war with Calvinism and any persons who accept that theology.

Shame on you...

And, yes, I am calling you out on this one. You can check. I've made a few posts of late about your integrity to stand on what you believe, but I am in the process of changing my mind. What you said above is an outright act of war against a brother in the Lord.

Just in case you cannot figure it out on your own, what on earth does being one of the elect have to do with a deterministic God? No such thing as a deterministic God and YOU KNOW IT.

Again, cease and desist or wear the stripes of your true color... which is it?

 

[Skandelon]

Creating a position whereby God "self-limits" His utter sovereignty is the same as replacing that Kingship with human sovereignty.

Scripture is quite clear that their are rulers, principalities, and authorities of this dark world that God has established and permitted to reign. You see it as making God less Sovereign if these rulers can in any way originate their own evil intent and implement that evil in this fallen world, so you have created a construct by which God is the origin of every intent and choice (even the evil ones). He plays both sides of the chess board. He is the only agent, the only decision maker and thus left holding the bag of culpability for all sin. If you think that is "Sovereignty" that is fine, but don't beg the question by presuming that anyone who disagrees with that presumption is lessing God.

I believe real Sovereignty is God accomplishing His ultimate purpose despite the free evil rebellion of his creatures. I don't think God has to play both sides of the chess board in order to win. He is not a kid playing with plastic army men so that he can guarantee a victory in the war. He is a God with a real enemy and He is big enough, powerful enough and sovereign enough to ensure victory despite their being free and rebellious.

Skandelon has been very public about his support for Libertarian Free Will ... That, to me at least, means that he is somewhat more human-centered

This begs the question up for debate. Arminianism is only more human centered if its not true. If Calvinism isn't true then its man-made and there is nothing more man-centered than that. Let's just both agree that who ever is wrong has the man-made and thus man-centered dogma, okay?

Also note that I am not attacking Skandelon. He has been very public in this position and I believe that I am representing his views as accurately as I can. I appreciate the fact that he argues for what he believes without holding to some nebulous "no position" status as do some here on the board.

The quote Cypress was replying to was by saturneptune who wrote, "Your whole agenda is to bring those who believe in God's sovereignty down to your level," which is a misrepresentation of my views because as I just explained, it begs the question of the debate.

 

[Luke2427]

I appreciate the analogy and understand they aren't meant to completely represent all aspects of your view, but if I may offer one that does more accurately represent the situation I think it will bring more clarity to our point of contention:

Suppose you have 3 sons and all are born quadriplegic and cannot feel anything from his neck down. They were born in this condition at your request because their older brother broke your rules and this was your chosen way to punish them because they too would also break the rules. Now, you say to all three of them, "I want you to run a marathon and if you don't I throw you into the basement to be tortured for the rest of your life." You choose one of them, pick them up and run a marathon with him on your back and he is the only one not thrown in the basement.

He says, "But dad, what about my brothers?"
"You I have loved, them I have hated...just be happy you were chosen cause you deserved the basement too," you reply
"But dad, why did they deserve the basement?"
"Because they didn't run the marathon," you reply.
"But they couldn't, they were born paralyzed," he objects.
"Rules are rules and since their big brother broke them and they broke them too there are consequences, life ain't fair."
"But why did you do it this way?"
"I am glorified by this. Oh, by the way if you ever get up a walk, I'll throw you in the basement with them," you reply
"I can't get up and walk," he says.
"I know, but this is just a warning not to do what I know you can't do."

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Why warn the elect against doing something that they were born unable to do?

Two things:

First a question: How does LWF solve the problems that your analogy represents?

Secondly, the analogy assumes things about God's purposes that we do not know. It is based upon some mysteries that we may never solve.

We know God has decreed all things.
We know God is just.
We know God has chosen to save some and not others.
We know that man is responsible to repent.

These are things we know.

We do not know how man is responsible to do what he cannot do. There are things we do not know about that. But what Arminianism does, rather than leaving those questions unanswered, is answers them to suit men doing great damage to very clear teachings of Scripture.

It is better to leave such matters to God and accept the Bible rather than create a system based on man-made answers that undermines the Word of God.

 

[Skandelon]

Will you cease and desist this wrongful attack against those who are yet Calvinists or Reformed, or will you wear the badge of Pelagian instead of Arminian as you purport. More and more, I find you as disingenuous in your actual intent to truly represent Arminianism.

You will need to point to a specific comment which represents my view as being Pelagian rather than Arminian. In the scenario I presented I wasn't taking issue with the issue of Original Sin (which Pelgian doesn't affirm), I was taking issue with Total Depravity (i.e. total inability = quadriplegic) and most importantly the part where the father warns the chosen son not to do something he was born unable to do, which was representative of the "empty threat" question of the OP. Nothing in this post supports or even addresses the issue of Pelagianism vs Arminianism.

I forgive and thus ignore the rest of you post because I think it was based upon your misunderstanding of this point.

 

[glfredrick]

Scripture is quite clear that their are rulers, principalities, and authorities of this dark world that God has established and permitted to reign. You see it as making God less Sovereign if these rulers can in any way originate their own evil intent and implement that evil in this fallen world, so you have created a construct by which God is the origin of every intent and choice (even the evil ones). He plays both sides of the chess board. He is the only agent, the only decision maker and thus left holding the bag of culpability for all sin. If you think that is "Sovereignty" that is fine, but don't beg the question by presuming that anyone who disagrees with that presumption is lessing God.

I believe real Sovereignty is God accomplishing His ultimate purpose despite the free evil rebellion of his creatures. I don't think God has to play both sides of the chess board in order to win. He is not a kid playing with plastic army men so that he can guarantee a victory in the war. He is a God with a real enemy and He is big enough, powerful enough and sovereign enough to ensure victory despite their being free and rebellious.

This begs the question up for debate. Arminianism is only more human centered if its not true. If Calvinism isn't true then its man-made and there is nothing more man-centered than that. Let's just both agree that who ever is wrong has the man-made and thus man-centered dogma, okay?

The quote Cypress was replying to was by saturneptune who wrote, "Your whole agenda is to bring those who believe in God's sovereignty down to your level," which is a misrepresentation of my views because as I just explained, it begs the question of the debate.

The above is metaphysical dualism and stems from thought apart from Christianity. I reject that God is not divinely sovereign even over the powers, principalities, demons, and yes, Satan himself. No divine war. God won before the war began, for He alone is God.

You are continuing to expose your true nature and it is getting worse by the minute.

 

[webdog]

Thanks.

But once again, it is your lack of understanding that leads you to this conclusion as well.

Laymen can get all they need and much more from their devotional study of the Scripture.

The problem is when laymen like yourself do not have the humility to admit that there are many things that are too much for them with their current level of training.

An 18 year old who aspires to be a brain surgeon must admit that such a subject is FAR beyond his current intellectual capabilities and he must study many hours worth of more intelligent men than himself who have gone on before him- and he must realize that he must subject himself to a long history on the matter. He must do this and more before he ever carves open the skull of any human being or he is deadly dangerous.

You, like Winman and Snow, lack the humility to admit these things but you do not hesitate to carve open the skulls of people who think you know what you are talking about- people who LIKE what you say so they, in their ignorance, are more willing to turn their brains over to you than to those who are truly qualified to help them; and the damnable thing about it is that you do not hesitate to hack away at their brains.

People like you, who think the Holy Spirit reveals truths via osmosis to people who lack the humility to be trained, are very dangerous to the simple.

But you are also not smart enough to KNOW how dangerous you are. You are, imo, ignorant and arrogant enough to hack away at the brains of people without a second thought.

Having an education does not mean you can understand with your finite mind how one God can be three distinct people. I've heard some of the greatest theological minds say they will never grasp that concept this side of Heaven...but here you are on the BB having it all figured out. That and you know how the hypostatic union works as well. Education has lead to great pride, I'm afraid.

 

[Winman]

Thanks.

But once again, it is your lack of understanding that leads you to this conclusion as well.

Laymen can get all they need and much more from their devotional study of the Scripture.

The problem is when laymen like yourself do not have the humility to admit that there are many things that are too much for them with their current level of training.

An 18 year old who aspires to be a brain surgeon must admit that such a subject is FAR beyond his current intellectual capabilities and he must study many hours worth of more intelligent men than himself who have gone on before him- and he must realize that he must subject himself to a long history on the matter. He must do this and more before he ever carves open the skull of any human being or he is deadly dangerous.

You, like Winman and Snow, lack the humility to admit these things but you do not hesitate to carve open the skulls of people who think you know what you are talking about- people who LIKE what you say so they, in their ignorance, are more willing to turn their brains over to you than to those who are truly qualified to help them; and the damnable thing about it is that you do not hesitate to hack away at their brains.

People like you, who think the Holy Spirit reveals truths via osmosis to people who lack the humility to be trained, are very dangerous to the simple.

But you are also not smart enough to KNOW how dangerous you are. You are, imo, ignorant and arrogant enough to hack away at the brains of people without a second thought.

Luke, if anyone on this forum is ignorant, it is you. Why, you think you know EVERYTHING. You never listen to anyone. You are not only ignorant, but you are exceedingly proud as well.
You are just a kid, when you get older you will realize just how ignorant you were when you were young just like the rest of us.
And if anyone has had their brains carved, it is you. You have never had an original thought in your life. You spout the party line continuously. You ignore any scripture that contradicts your doctrine.

The scriptures themselves teach we have no need that anyone teach us.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

If you would simply read the scriptures and ask God to help you understand them, you would learn a lot. Did Timothy study under theologians? No, he learned from his grandmother and mother.

2 Tim 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Timothy learned the scriptures as a child from his grandmother and mother. And I assure you Timothy understood scripture far better than you EVER will.

 

[Aaron]

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?

To suggest that God "threatens" as opposed to warns is enough to reveal the childish misconceptions and literary offenses committed by such a conclusion of the passages wrenched from their contexts here. It's ironic that you would post the very passages that sound death knells for your theology.

Your faith says that one can believe and yet reject, but the Scriptures you posted are clearly saying that no one is cut off but by unbelief. So the warning is against unbelief. Do you really believe, and how do you know? There are hosts of baptized church members sitting at the table of Christ who have only fooled themselves and us into thinking they truly believe, who think they are of the house of Israel only to find themselves cut off in the end.

But for you, faith is not enough. It is not enough to believe, one must believe AND choose. And worse, maintain his own faith.

 

[Luke2427]

Having an education does not mean you can understand with your finite mind how one God can be three distinct people. I've heard some of the greatest theological minds say they will never grasp that concept this side of Heaven...but here you are on the BB having it all figured out. That and you know how the hypostatic union works as well. Education has lead to great pride, I'm afraid.

No one has figured anything out fully.

But that God can become a man is not illogical.

That God can exist in three distinct person is not illogical.

As for God dying for men, that is not even difficult. We KNOW why he died for men- that he might SHOW the exceeding riches of his grace.

That one is very simple.

 

[Skandelon]

Two things:

First a question: How does LWF solve the problems that your analogy represents?

Well, the kids wouldn't be born quadriplegic (i.e. Totally Depraved), instead they would be born in a state that they could respond to the Father's appeal to be reconciled.

Note: The analogy doesn't fully represent either view, nor is it meant to. I believe men are born with a sin nature, but not hardened in such a way they cannot willingly believe God's revelation of himself.

Secondly, the kid who is "saved" (based on his LFW choice to respond to his father) would hear the warning "don't fall away" as something that could happen if indeed he is self deceived enough to think he is saved when he is not.

Secondly, the analogy assumes things about God's purposes that we do not know. It is based upon some mysteries that we may never solve.

Agreed, but all the points of my analogy were representative of points in the Calvinistic dogma, not any unknown mysteries. For example, I never presumed that the father originated the evil of the older brother or anything like that...

We do not know how man is responsible to do what he cannot do.

That is tantamount to saying man is able to do what he is not able to do. Responsible literally means "response - able," (able to respond) so to suggest that man is responsible for something he is unable to willingly respond to is nonsensical to the very definition of the word.

There are things we do not know about that. But what Arminianism does, rather than leaving those questions unanswered, is answers them to suit men doing great damage to very clear teachings of Scripture.

It is better to leave such matters to God and accept the Bible rather than create a system based on man-made answers that undermines the Word of God.

That is the exact same argument I make against Calvinism. Both systems attempt to answer hard questions. The problem is that your answers, in my view, contradict scriptures teaching regarding God's holiness and inability to even tempt men to evil. And your answers provide nothing on which human culpability can rest. In other words, you give men a perfect excuse on that final day.

I honestly believe the verses used to support the Calvinist premise that God has chosen a select few to be saved to the neglect of all the rest is based upon a misunderstanding of three things:

1. They misapply passages that are in reference to the way in which God chose his divinely appointed apostles by applying them to the method God has chosen to save all souls. Proof that God sovereignly hand picks his messengers in no way proves that He sovereignly hand picks who will and will not believe their message.

2. They fail to recognize that in the two passages that the term predestination is mentioned it is in reference to those who already believe. Believers are "predestined to be conformed to Christ's image." And believers are "predestined to be adopted as his sons." Neither of these goals have been accomplished in our lives but if we believe in Christ, God has predetermined that we too will be "adopted as His son and conformed to his image."

3. They mistakenly apply passages having to do with God's choosing to save the Gentiles while temporarily hardening the Jews to support their view of the depravity of man's heart and God's election of certain individuals. Passages having to do with the hardened Jews are often used by Calvinists to support their doctrine of Total Depravity. Passages having to do with the revelation of God's choice to allow Gentiles entrance into the Covenant of grace are used to support their doctrine of Unconditional Election.

 

[Skandelon]

But that God can become a man is not illogical.

I suspect it would be deemed illogical by those of your persuasion had he not done it. Any self limitation of His divine attributes are deemed illogical quite often by Calvinists, yet Christ is a perfect example of divine self limitation.

That God can exist in three distinct person is not illogical.

Again, are we sure people wouldn't have deemed it illogical had he not done it? It's only seen as logically consistent because He chose to do it and you have accepted that as fact.

As for God dying for men, that is not even difficult. We KNOW why he died for men- that he might SHOW the exceeding riches of his grace.

And his love for the whole world.

 

[Skandelon]

The above is metaphysical dualism and stems from thought apart from Christianity. I reject that God is not divinely sovereign even over the powers, principalities, demons, and yes, Satan himself. No divine war. God won before the war began, for He alone is God.

1. I'm not promoting dualism because I affirm that Satan is a creature not creator and has only power granted to him by God.

2. I too believe God is divinely sovereign over the powers, principalities, demons and Satan himself. The difference is our understanding of Sovereignty. For you that means playing both side of a chess board in that God originates his own moves in the same way he originates the moves of his enemies. He causally determines their motives, desires and choices just as he does his own leaving no real distinction between God and these evil rulers.

3. I, on the other hand, believe he gives them true freedom to do what they determine but that he is able to foreknow their moves, over power their intent and accomplish His purpose in and through their rebellion.

4. War is not my analogy. It's scriptures.

You are continuing to expose your true nature and it is getting worse by the minute.

Why do you have to make this personal? I don't do that to you despite my disagreement with your views. Believers have disagreed about this issue for decades brother, but we don't have to be disagreeable. :flower: <--- not a tulip

 

[webdog]

No one has figured anything out fully.

But that God can become a man is not illogical.

That God can exist in three distinct person is not illogical.

As for God dying for men, that is not even difficult. We KNOW why he died for men- that he might SHOW the exceeding riches of his grace.

That one is very simple.

With our finite minds absolutely it is illogical, like walking on water, parting a sea, grabbing a serpent by the tail and it turning into a rod, etc.. These are not things that can be figured out using logic. We don't accept it on logic, we accept it by faith.

 

[Skandelon]

With our finite minds absolutely it is illogical, like walking on water, parting a sea, grabbing a serpent by the tail and it turning into a rod, etc.. These are not things that can be figured out using logic. We don't accept it on logic, we accept it by faith.

:applause:

Correct! And why do we accept it by faith? Because God did it and scripture says so, not because it's logical.

 

[webdog]

:applause:

Correct! And why do we accept it by faith? Because God did it and scripture says so, not because it's logical.

yeppers...like God sovereignly changing His mind and acting and reacting according to man, as Scripture shows.