Does God learn? Reframed Question.

[MorseOp]

I honestly don't understand why this one is even up for discussion.:laugh: I am often left in awe when people start trying to undo what God says He is in lieu of some crazy stuff.

Zaac, I honestly want to give webdog the benefit of the doubt. He is a good debater. He is informed and well written. He is good with the one-liners and zingers; indispensable for theological message boards! I do not doubt that he does not understand the depths of God's omniscience. But when 2000 years of church history is pretty much agreed on this issue it should cause you to consider whether your personal position is worth hanging on to. And when both Calvinists and Arminians are agreed on it, well, it is worth stopping the presses.

 

[OldRegular]

God is omiscient. God learns.

Sort of like, well He is but then He isn't!:laugh::laugh:

 

[webdog]

Sort of like, well He is but then He isn't!:laugh::laugh:

No, kind of like Jesus is God...Jesus is man. They cannot be separated as we see being done here. If upholding the hypostatic union as being a mystery and truth places me in the minority in holding this view for the past 2000 years...all praise be to God in not allowing me to blindly follow the crowd in smearing the uniqueness of my Savior!

 

[OldRegular]

Yeah, these guys are arrogant. God can only do what they say he can do. That is why I said in another thread their God is no different from an idol made of stone.

God said, "for NOW I know that thou fearest God" to Abraham, I believe what God said, I don't care what these fellows believe. (Gen 22:12).

Winman it is people like you who attempt to make God in their own image. You seem to prefer a weak wimpy god who will conform to your notions. Furthermore, if you believe in open theism, and some of your remarks imply you do, then you do not believe the God of the Bible!

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, I honestly want to give webdog the benefit of the doubt. He is a good debater. He is informed and well written. He is good with the one-liners and zingers; indispensable for theological message boards! I do not doubt that he does not understand the depths of God's omniscience. But when 2000 years of church history is pretty much agreed on this issue it should cause you to consider whether your personal position is worth hanging on to. And when both Calvinists and Arminians are agreed on it, well, it is worth stopping the presses.

:laugh: I can't help but laugh because I find myself going what next? How on earth do people witness to other people about these new gods they keep creating? It just seems like the more some folks try to ascribe human limitations to God, the more difficult...if not impossible it becomes to witness that this God is capable of saving anyone because he starts to sound just like another person.

 

[webdog]

Winman it is people like you who attempt to make God in their own image. You seem to prefer a weak wimpy god who will conform to your notions. Furthermore, if you believe in open theism, and some of your remarks imply you do, then you do not believe the God of the Bible!

...says the one holding to two salvations.

 

[Zaac]

No, kind of like Jesus is God...Jesus is man. They cannot be separated as we see being done here. If upholding the hypostatic union as being a mystery and truth places me in the minority in holding this view for the past 2000 years...all praise be to God in not allowing me to blindly follow the crowd in smearing the uniqueness of my Savior!

Perhaps it would be better to stop trying so hard to be different just to be different.

What kind of god has to learn? Some of y'all serve an awfully small god.

 

[webdog]

:laugh: I can't help but laugh because I find myself going what next? How on earth do people witness to other people about these new gods they keep creating? It just seems like the more some folks try to ascribe human limitations to God, the more difficult...if not impossible it becomes to witness that this God is capable of saving anyone because he starts to sound just like another person.

New gods? We are discussing the True God, the God of the Bible...not the god we can disassemble and reassemble however we wish to make apparent contradictions, mysteries and paradoxes fit our puny mold of what we can understand God to be and what God MUST be to our dust begotten brains.

 

[OldRegular]

No, kind of like Jesus is God...Jesus is man. They cannot be separated as we see being done here. If upholding the hypostatic union as being a mystery and truth places me in the minority in holding this view for the past 2000 years...all praise be to God in not allowing me to blindly follow the crowd in smearing the uniqueness of my Savior!

I don't believe anyone has denied the hypostatic union. However, as Chalcedon states and I have argued:

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,

 

[webdog]

Perhaps it would be better to stop trying so hard to be different just to be different.

What kind of god has to learn? Some of y'all serve an awfully small god.

Questioning the salvation of board members is against forum rules. Before trying to explain to me the unexplainable, familiarize yourself with something as trivial as BB rules before trying to feed me meat.

 

[webdog]

I don't believe anyone has denied the hypostatic union. However, as Chalcedon states and I have argued:

You conveniently didn't highlight "without division and without separation". Wonder why...

 

[Amy.G]

...says the one holding to two salvations.

Huh?

 

[OldRegular]

...says the one holding to two salvations.

Speak for yourself webdog. I hold to one salvation: I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. I must assume that to be true for all who participate on this Forum.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not at all, I do not hold to Original Sin. I believe God has made man upright.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

I believe all men are made upright, but they are flesh with lusts and desires that tempt them to sin. Adam and Eve had this nature and were able to be tempted.

Jesus also came in the flesh and could be tempted, yet he never obeyed his flesh when it tempted him to sin and was without sin.

It is not our nature that makes us sinners, it is actually committing sin that makes one a sinner. All men have sinned, Jesus NEVER sinned.

Your acceptance of Augustine's false doctrine forces you to deny that Jesus came in true human nature, the nature of the seed of Abraham as scripture says. I have no such difficulty, because I believe (and have shown) that all men are made upright.

Yet another denial of scripture ...over and over again:type: This is like the BB groundhog day

 

[OldRegular]

You conveniently didn't highlight "without division and without separation". Wonder why...

Just to provoke you!

 

[Iconoclast]

So whether made of the seed of Abraham (acknowledging that He was born a Jew), or, as the linage can be traced to Adam through Abraham (for Abraham was in the seed of Adam) the fact remains that Christ was sinless in the human nature.

I really don't see your point as being that different from what I posted.

The verse winman quotes from hebrews 2 ....does not relate to this thread,except to reveal that he lacks understanding.
He took on the seed of Abraham is a text teaching particular redemption:thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Huh?

Not only confusing Amy G., but weird, to say the least! But that is webdog!

 

[Winman]

I don't know that I have ever stated Adam had a different "nature" before or after the fall. Only that the nature Adam had after the "eyes were opened" was no longer pure and undefiled. Adam was defiled, Abraham was defiled. The seed that anointed Mary's egg (to be rather graphic) was not of Adam nor of Abraham, but of the Word of God. In that conception, it follows that Christ was as the Eden Adam (before the fall) in that the human nature of Christ was without sin, capable of being tempted to sin (just as Adam was when presented the fruit by Eve), but remained undefiled to the cross.

First of all, Adam and Eve could be tempted just like us. Their nature was no different than ours.

Adam did not have God's nature, because God cannot be tempted.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

A person can attempt to tempt God, but it will have no effect upon him, he has no internal lust or desire that would tempt him to do evil.

Jesus on the other hand had the same nature we have. He was actually tempted to sin just as we are. The scriptures say he "suffered" being tempted.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

When Jesus fasted 40 days, the scriptures say he was very hungry. He felt this hunger, he wanted to eat. This is why the devil tempted him to turn stones into bread. Jesus had the same infirmity or weakness of flesh that pulls and tugs on us. God does not get hungry, he could not be tempted like this.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The scriptures say Jesus was tempted in ALL POINTS as we are. He felt the same pull and tug of the flesh that we feel, yet he never sinned. God does not feel the tug and pull of the flesh.

Adam and Eve were no different than us, the three lusts of the flesh are described in her temptation.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Eve saw that the tree was good for food. This is the lust of the flesh or the appetite. We get hungry when we see good food, this is what Eve felt.

Eve saw the tree was pleasant to the eyes. We are all attracted to beauty, many a man has fallen into sin because he saw a beautiful woman and desired her.

Eve saw the tree would make her wise, this is the pride of life. We all want to be intelligent, often we want to be smarter than our fellow man so we can boast or feel proud.

Now, did Eve feel these temptations before the fall or after? BEFORE! Adam and Eve were always flesh and could always be tempted. They were no different than we are today.

The curse was on the ground, everything began to grow old and decay. Animals who cannot sin died, even non-living things grow old, rust and decay, stars burn out, etc... This was the curse. There is not one word concerning man's moral nature being affected by the curse, you can't show it here or anywhere in all of scripture.

The curse was actually a good thing, for if man lived forever as a sinner he would simply become more and more corrupt. It is because we know we will die and face judgment that we repent and trust Christ. If we lived forever, I doubt any man would turn from sin and trust Christ.

So, Adam and Eve were always flesh, yet they were very good, because they had never sinned. It is when a man sins he becomes a sinner.

Jesus received his flesh from his mother Mary and could be tempted. God is a spirit and cannot be tempted. Jesus had the same nature as Abraham and was tempted in all points as we are, yet he never sinned.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, these guys are arrogant. God can only do what they say he can do. That is why I said in another thread their God is no different from an idol made of stone.

God said, "for NOW I know that thou fearest God" to Abraham, I believe what God said, I don't care what these fellows believe. (Gen 22:12).

This as posted is a denial of the character and attributes of the biblical God,sorry to say But carry on by all means...it has not stopped you before:thumbsup:

another heresy here;

Jesus on the other hand had the same nature we have. He was actually tempted to sin just as we are. The scriptures say he "suffered" being tempted.

 

[Zaac]

New gods? We are discussing the True God, the God of the Bible...not the god we can disassemble and reassemble however we wish to make apparent contradictions, mysteries and paradoxes fit our puny mold of what we can understand God to be and what God MUST be to our dust begotten brains.

If your god is not omniscient, then your god is no different than the one the Mormons created or the ones the Jehovah's Witnesses created.