Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

Ok, I see what you are saying now. However what I was getting at about 'taking something away' is when you stated this:

Then I responded in this:

And it was your first post coupled with the below that threw me.

As you can see, you first state the God can still be God is you remove somethings but not others, and then state your previous comment is 'Classical Theism'. Since your comment previously consisted of taking an aspect away but still maintaining He is God. The only thing I could think you were refering to was the secularly or general religious view which examines the question of what is God and what constitutes God and this incorperates the 'taking away' question.

However with respect to Hodge, he does not set forth the same view that you did on two specific points. 1. that some attributes are more dominant than others. 2. That God can still be God if He did not have some a particular aspect.

Apparently we just talked past each other (with the exception or #1 just list above), becuase I agree with Hodge in the section you posted. So if you agree with him and I agree with him we actaully agree with each other, we just don't know it yet. :laugh:

 

Please review the Original post of this thread to remind yourself of the purpose. The intent is not to 'prove' or disprove but to engage in an educational discussion.

In doing this there will be certain disagreements among posters. Please remain civil and focus on the reason(s) for the differences and do not attempt to make those reason(s) a part of a posters personality or character traits.

Thanks,
bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

Gladly, tiny --- if others don't belittle the truth. I "play nice" when with others. But why do you accuse me when AA seems to have the "chip on his shoulder?"

"Control" speaks of the outcomes and end results. We ALL, I hope, know that God's kingdom is coming to the New Earth. "Sovereignty" speaks of authority over each and every decision (at least as I understand "Calvin-speak.").

That, friend, is a "loaded" request! Are you kidding?! Omnipotent includes the understanding that God can use His power any way He wants -- include DELEGATING it!! I am amazed that you would even think to inject that attribute in defense of Archangel!!! Are you, too, a "control freak?"

skypair

 

Sorry, froggie --- I like an intellectual discussion just like the next CHRISTIAN. So where do people in such a discussion "come off" making statements like "There are SO many problems here I don’t know where to begin!" or "perhaps most alarming" or "shows your lack of biblical theology"? That's just flat out CHARACTER ASSASSINATION!

I mean, really, frogman -- don't look at me!

skypair

 

Dear Skypair,
After reading post 81 I agree with you. I would like to emphasize the importance for both sides of this question to remain focused on the original intent of the thread.

thanks,
bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

Allan,


I'm sure we are pretty close on this. I often take short cuts on my post, thinking others know what I'm talking about. (mind reading always will help in my post) The truth is, we all come from different angles.

The sum of my point...

Many have the essence of God mixed with His divine attributes. I guess that is ok.
But I think the better view is to see them as two different sets of rudiments of God.

Leibnitz said of Gods attributes....

"perfections" is what Leibnitz calls Gods attributes

This is a bit of a understatement by Leibnitz, but I understand what he means. The problem of going to this extent is that we limit God to what we know. I think you will agree that we can never limit God by only what He has revealed to us. Not that we can state what is beyond the Bible, but to know God is greater then our own understanding.

 

Skypair,

I wrote: There are SO many problems here I don’t know where to begin!

You replied:

Our discussion has nothing to do with a Calvinism/Arminian issue. No, the issue is that the post to which I was commenting showed a lack of understanding of the biblical text. We are not talking interpretation or systems of theology, rather we are talking about simple text. (because the Bible talks about the sovereignty of God, not the sovereignty of man). Classical Arminianism affirms the Sovereignty of God and does not assign man any sovereignty.


Furthermore, my response to you had nothing to do with “Calvinist” airs. It seems that anytime someone who is a Calvinist, which I am, unapologetically, calls into question one of your positions, you accuse us of being Calvinists and you do not deal with the substance of what we say. Instead, you seem to retreat to comments that have to be deleted by the moderator. (and I am thankful I did not see what you wrote).


Additionally, I am a theologically educated person, I hold a Master of Divinity degree from The Southern Baptist Theolgical Seminary and I have been through well over 100 credits of master’s degree classes with, arguably, the world’s finest theological faculty. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I have had excellent teachers. In other words, I know what I am talking about (and I know the Arminian arguments as well as the Calvinist ones--I had to study both).


Now, I know you are entitled to your opinion of what scripture says, even if it is not correct. As a theologian, it is my job to interpret scripture and to point out where and why a less-than-accurate interpretation has been offered. That is what I have done in my post; you simply didn’t like that I called your idea of man’s sovereignty into question.


If you have a problem with what I have said, that doesn’t bother me. Allan and I disagree all the time (but we discuss it in civility). However, you will address me as a Christian brother, and that means with civility. And when you find my theology flawed, tell me why—but point to the text or Erickson’s Theology do not resort to the ad hominem (or at-the-man) argument.


Also, for your sake (since you have taken offense), I will try to make my rhetoric softer. However, in doing so, I would encourage you not to take offense to everyone who questions your positions, which you seem to do.

Back to your post.

Certainly God is a rewarder of those who seek Him. However, what do you do with Romans 3 that says, “No one seeks after God?” Does the Bible contradict itself?


And, as another has pointed out, Sovereign, by definition, means in control. I would encourage you, again, to comment on the following passage:

Isaiah 46:8-11 (ESV)
"Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
[9] remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
[10] declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
[11] calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

If this is a declaration of the sovereignty of God (which it is), how then do you harmonize what you have called “The sovereignty of man?”

To other, pressing matters:

Neither my wife nor I are sovereign. The order in our house is a biblical order, and it is this: She graciously submits to my authority (which is not my personal authority, but is authority based on my role as her husband) as I submit myself to Christ as my authority (and that authority is doubly His because He is God and He is my Lord).


I do take offense at being called a "Control Freak"

Since you have called me a “Control Freak,” I invite you to graciously retract your comments. Why? Because you don’t know me; you’ve never met me; you have not set foot inside my home and the Bible requires a charge (which this is) to be confirmed by two or three witnesses, which you do not have. As you cannot corroborate your charge, I invite you to retract it.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

The words deism and theism both have a meaning of god.

However, they have taken on different meanings.

Deism is Latin.

Deists uses this logic to explain away supernatural works and miracles of God.
A Deists today would also be a humanist. The belief that reason leads to God and not faith.

Classical Theism is the study of the fact of God. One word used today that would sum up theism is apologetics .Though one could use the Bible in this, I feel it best to use logic and proof apart from the Bible.

This would include Aquinas work. Yes he was RCC, but in this one area he set a standard for all to follow. If you have a problem with Aguinas or feel it will cause a problem in your Baptist church, go to ICR for help on this. Or maybe Hank Hanegraaff..the Bible answer man would have something.

One way to show this is through the circle of science vs faith argument.

What is science? Science we must know by observation. If we cannot watch it happen, we then must place faith in something of someone to believe it to be true. If we read it in a book we place faith in the writer of the book that they know what they are talking about. I go on to show this is true in all cases using many examples. Then I say, there is a God, based on one thing all will agree that is true. Even a small child will understand this. A great statesman will also agree. 1 + 1 = 2

There are absolutes. If there are absolutes there must be God, for at some point we must trace this back to one final absolute.

Mathematics proves God. 1 + 1 = 2. In order to have 2 you must have two sets of 1. If you have 1 pop can and you add another pop can you then have 2 pop cans. This is always true. Always! Why this proves God is if you have 0 pop cans and add this to 0 pop cans, you end with 0 pop cans. You cannot start with nothing and add nothing to it, and get something. NEVER. Not in a day or 1000000000000000000000000000 billion years. NEVER.

0 + 0 = 0 goes in the circle of known science. In order to have a pop can in our story someone must add one from outside the circle. That someone is God. God created all things.

This is pretty much the line of reason Aquinas follows.

This does not prove the God of the Bible. And this is not the goal of Classical Theism. It is only to prove there is a God.

Later in Theology, one goes into who the God of the Bible is, based on the Bible.

The danger of apologetics is that it can lead to Deism. We cannot know it all about God, nor can we always place reason on our faith. Yet, there are times when we can, and there is nothing wrong with that in a limited way.

I do feel it should be covered in Theology, but the caution should be addressed as well.

 

Tim,

1. Since we are using Erickson in this debate, I thought I'd quote from his larger work Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (CTse).

"Deism resolved to accept only those tenets of religion which could be tested and demonstrated by reason" (p. 42).

"Another illustration of deism is an automobile with cruise control. The speek, once set, will be maintained, even if the driver removes his or her foot from the accelerator" (418).

2. Deism is that philosophy which says that God has created the universe with a set of laws in place and has distant himself from the universe, leaving it to run by the laws He has put in place.

3. So in deism a person finds no supernatural intervention. That's why the Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus in the tomb.

 

While I agree with your definition of deism, I don't agree with your assesment of theism.

For Deism is also theism. They are not antithetical to each other.

 

Hello Tim,

I think these statements are true, however more could be added.

Good point.

No you cannot prove God. I used the wrong words there. You can build a better model of faith that there is a God. In other words....it takes more faith to NOT believe in God. I have debated this in front of many God -haters and saw their jaws drop in the middle of the debate.

It is a Faith, but God gave us many reasons to believe.

 

Precisely. Remember, the deist believes in God, that theism; his problem, however, is his limiting of what God can do.

Deism really took form in the Age of Reason, The Enlightenment. One can see why. It is purely a rational system.

 

this is true....