God's Purposes Thwarted?

[convicted1]

You can read, you tell me. All I know is that God said he never commanded the children of Judah to sacrifice their children to Baal. I am no expert on theological definitions, but isn't a decree a command? Correct me if I'm wrong.

And it was God himself who said this sacrificing of children did not come into his mind or heart. Now he certainly knew of this sin or else he could not speak about it, so obviously this means he never intended this sin to occur.

Isn't that correct? If not, please explain what God meant when he said this sin did not come into his heart or mind.

Very well stated, and a hearty AMEN from me!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

Very well stated, and a hearty AMEN from me!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

Thanks Willis. Havensdad is trying to argue that God was speaking of his own command when he said "neither came it into my mind", but that is clearly shown false in Jer 32:35 by use of the word "that". God said, "neither came in into my mind, THAT they should do this abomination". This clearly shows Havendad's interpretation error.

 

[convicted1]

Thanks Willis. Havensdad is trying to argue that God was speaking of his own command when he said "neither came it into my mind", but that is clearly shown false in Jer 32:35 by use of the word "that". God said, "neither came in into my mind, THAT they should do this abomination". This clearly shows Havendad's interpretation error.

Well, another way to look at this passage is that I think what He was saying is that He was not behind what they were doing. IOW, He knew what they were going to do waaaaay before they did it, but He did not desire for it to happen. Sound okay to you??

 

[Winman]

Well, another way to look at this passage is that I think what He was saying is that He was not behind what they were doing. IOW, He knew what they were going to do waaaaay before they did it, but He did not desire for it to happen. Sound okay to you??

That's what it sounds like to me, God never intended them to commit this sin, they were acting independently of God. God knew it, else how could he speak of it? He allowed it, but pronounced severe judgment on them for these actions, so they were not getting away unpunished.

 

[Skandelon]

Boy, folks sure can overcomplicate things. What do the scriptures say in simple language?

In those days this was simple language. Our generation is grossly uneducated and deficient in comparison, IMO.

(I'm speaking of those who did have an education, not the masses who didn't. Today with all the forms of entertainment, we don't spend near the same amount of time in study.)

That being said, I do agree that we can overcomplicate things that were never meant to be difficult to understand.

I know this is not as interesting as the theories of Edwards and Arminius, but why don't you fellas try solving this using scripture?

You have set up a false dichotomy (i.e. scholars OR scripture), to create the impression you value scripture more than we do simple because we refer to historical scholars who are giving their opinions on what scripture teaches. By that logic your opinion shouldn't matter to us either and their would be no value in coming to the BB, would there?

 

[Havensdad]

Thanks Willis. Havensdad is trying to argue that God was speaking of his own command when he said "neither came it into my mind", but that is clearly shown false in Jer 32:35 by use of the word "that". God said, "neither came in into my mind, THAT they should do this abomination". This clearly shows Havendad's interpretation error.

Yeah. Not.

"That" is not in the underlying text at all. It is an addition of the interpreters/translators.

In any case, my original statement stands. If you believe that it did not even come into God's mind, and you therefore deny that He knew they were going to do it, then you are admitting that you believe in the heresy of open-theism.

The context, is that God, in his condescending to the children of Judah, is noting that they have done something which He has not commanded them. He is not speaking in terms of His eternality...cause if He was, as I stated above, this would deny His omniscience.

God states, plainly and in multiple places, that it is HE who turns the hearts of men, HE that gives men "hearts that they may follow me," etc. So your argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yeah. Not.

"That" is not in the underlying text at all. It is an addition of the interpreters/translators.

In any case, my original statement stands. If you believe that it did not even come into God's mind, and you therefore deny that He knew they were going to do it, then you are admitting that you believe in the heresy of open-theism.

The context, is that God, in his condescending to the children of Judah, is noting that they have done something which He has not commanded them. He is not speaking in terms of His eternality...cause if He was, as I stated above, this would deny His omniscience.

God states, plainly and in multiple places, that it is HE who turns the hearts of men, HE that gives men "hearts that they may follow me," etc. So your argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever.

When a passage seems to undo an eternal truth and/or an eternal attribute of God, then the interpretation of said passages stands incorrect. This that you are replying to Havensdad is yet another example of poor hermenuetics and proof-texting.



- Peace