Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

[Jarthur001]

I would have to disagree with you here James.

There is not one attribute that God can do without and would allow for Him to maintain being God. God can no more remove His Love and still be God anymore than He could remove His soveriegnty and maintain He is God.
This is from Ryrie's "Basic Theology"


God is who He is because of ALL that He is. All His attributes are absolute (God is.. ) and therefore they are all equal.

Tim and Allan,

Allan, I understand your point. I will also still disagree. Let me say I do not set aside any of Gods attributes. Maybe it’s the way I come to the subject, I’m not sure. But I address what makes God, God before I address who He is. This is Classical Theism as seen in my post before.

I’m late for a date So this will be short. I will like to get back to it later today. Good thread.

I do however agree with the short statement by Ryrie.

Here is what you can ask to see where I’m coming from.

Does God need to give us grace? If He did not, would He still be God?
I say yes. He would still be God, but just not the God of the Bible.

 

[skypair]

Great to "see" you brother. Since i'm in the middle (God's country) I suppose God and myself will have to wait for you guys......... :laugh:

Not so fast there! NE Texas where I now live is part of that territory (I just haven't been able to change my profile on that yet :thumbs: ).

I might just have to stop by and give you a good "blessing --- out!" :laugh:

skypair

 

[skypair]

So do you think God created Adam because He was lonely???

Not only so but the angels before that. Only a narcissist would enjoy eternity alone, don't you think?

Fact is, God desires SONS. What are sons? They grow up to be like you -- they take on your work, your career -- you teach them all you can so that one day they are your glory ("many arrows in His quiver").

I've long questioned the "blessing" that children are so I can understand your question pretty well. But my one exception is that they are a blessing when they grow up wise and strong and close to the tree whence they fell.

skypair

 

[tinytim]

Does God need to give us grace? If He did not, would He still be God?

I have a question now...

Do we need to receive, or perceive, an attribute before we can say God has that attribute?


IOWS, If God had never shown us Grace, would he still be a God of Grace?

If that is the fact, then aren't we limiting God to the scope of what we can perceive God to be?

Are his attributes what He is?
Or are his attributes what we perceive He is?

Is there a possibility that God has more attributes than we can perceive or understand at this point in time?
I believe it could be possible. God is not under obligation to reveal to us everything about Himself.

We understand Grace, Mercy, Love, Faithfulness, because God has poured these out on mankind. But what if there is something else?

 

[skypair]

My thoughts exactly Amy. God is perfectly sufficient in Himself. He has no human emotions. He can not be lonely.

My goodness! Sounds like we are back to the Dark Age theology of "Vassal" and "serf" here!

Couple of "pointers" on God: 1) His LOVE has no heighth or width or depth. 2) If He doesn't love us, we can't know how to love others.

If He lacked anything, He would be less than God.

Without any created beings, what would He be "God" of?

skypair

 

[skypair]

How does the following scripture jive with the idea that God is completely holy, and does not allow or promote sin?

2Ch 18:19-22 NIV
(19) And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that.
(20) Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
(21) " 'I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
(22) "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

Who would that spirit be, tiny? Who has access to heaven and is a "liar and the father of lies?" What spirit met with the Lord and the "sons of God" in Job 1?

SATAN, right? So in this situation, didn't God merely permit Satan to do what Satan was wont to do?

Also, did God not foreknow from whence would come the "enticement" of Ahab in the first place? God didn't cause evil. He was pointing out that no one in heaven knows what He knows and foreknows.

skypair

 

[The Archangel]

Worship and the Holy Spirit.

There has some very good discussion on about this topic—many thanks to tinytim and everyone else for this topic and for the great and quite civil discussion. Hopefully, we all will continue to be a model of Christian behavior and discussion etiquette.

I do not think we are to worship the Holy Spirit. Here’s why: We never see Him being worshiped in scripture. We see the Father being worshiped and we see the Son being worshiped, but not the Spirit.

There have been some good and logical arguments made, most notably by John of Japan who quoted Erickson. While the logic of Erickson’s discussion is not bad, his arguments are not compelling.

Erickson rightly notes in the Acts 5 passage (Ananias and Sapphira) that the Holy Spirit is equated to God. Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit and then goes on to say He, that is Ananias, has lied to God. From this passage, it is clear that scripture says the Holy Spirit is God. But, what does the rest of the scripture say?

The rest of the scripture never shows the Holy Spirit being worshiped or as an object of worship. What we do know is this: Christ and the Father send the Spirit to be our helper, our paraclete. As our helper, the Holy Spirit is the Agent of regeneration, he instructs us, points us to Christ, etc.

Because scripture never shows the Holy Spirit being worshiped, it is dangerous for us to worship Him. Now, I do not think we would be committing the sin of idolatry if we do. However, I think we’d be on dangerous ground because scripture doesn’t warrant the worship of the Holy Spirit.

I understand the logic that says, “Since the Holy Spirit is God (which is not up for debate), we should worship Him.” But, if that logic were sound, wouldn’t we see this done in the Bible?

Erickson’s logic in this case is dangerous because it is not played out in the pages of the Bible. I would be equally critical of someone arguing, “Well, since Deborah was a Judge, it would be OK to have women pastors.” (I know, I know, the analogy is not necessarily perfect, but I think you can understand my point).

So, in this case, Erickson’s logic is faulty because he is advocating a practice through a logical deduction that we never see in scripture.

That’s my $ .02.

Many Blessings to all!

The Archangel

 

[skypair]

I mean, Without the element of time, the point God redeemed us is the exact point in which we accepted him. So when we remove the time element, doesn't Calvinism and free will come together?

I would agree with that. The Calvie concepts of total sovereignty, omnipotence, and omnipresence have warped the time element of creation. They cannot get to the concept that the prophet once told the king --- "Thou wouldst have NO power except it were given thee of God."

And that is just the point of free will ---- God DOES give power to man to choose either good or evil. God rewards our sovereign choices according to His character and His plans. And He foreknows how all this will lead to His Own sovereign will being done without Him controlling every detail.

skypair

 

[The Archangel]

Please help me, I must have missed something...

What on earth does "IOW" or "IOWS" mean?????

The Archangel.

 

[Rippon]

Please help me, I must have missed something...

What on earth does "IOW" or "IOWS" mean?????

The Archangel.

In Other Words .

 

[The Archangel]

In Other Words .

THANK YOU! I must have failed abbreviations 101. Double "Duh" on me.

The Archangel.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I understand your point. I will also still disagree. Let me say I do not set aside any of Gods attributes. Maybe it’s the way I come to the subject, I’m not sure. But I address what makes God, God before I address who He is. This is Classical Theism as seen in my post before.

I while I agree with many things of Classical Theism I also don't agree with some of the philosophical opinions set forth in it. Most specifically the presupposition that God can still be God if we take anything from Him or His character. As I said before: God is who He is because of 'all' that He is. All of His attributes are absolute (God is.. ). Therefore they are all equal and thus none predominant except via a philosophical opinion but no biblical proof to this opinion. My main contention is the 'no biblical proof'.

Does God need to give us grace? If He did not, would He still be God?
I say yes. He would still be God, but just not the God of the Bible.

Even you seem to agree that God would no longer be God if you take away even a certain aspect of His Love attribute. Thus exemplifying my point already set forth

 

[Amy.G]

My goodness! Sounds like we are back to the Dark Age theology of "Vassal" and "serf" here!

Couple of "pointers" on God: 1) His LOVE has no heighth or width or depth. 2) If He doesn't love us, we can't know how to love others.

Without any created beings, what would He be "God" of?

skypair

You are trying to give human characteristics to God. Maybe you should do a study on God's name....."I AM".

 

[skypair]

God is truth and truth only. Yet God can control man with his own sin nature, and use the sins of man to bring about his will.

Please consider that God is Spirit for a moment. Just as Christ was "the word made flesh," God is all truth Personified. Truth always cuts 2 ways -- good outcome or bad outcome.

If God is totally sovereign, then both are caused by God/truth. If man is given some degree of sovereignty, then what man experiences as bad outcome is his own fault because a) truth never lies and b) truth is revealed to all men.

God placed the tree in the garden and KNEW it would happen...He counted on it. Because God knew Adams choice before Adam even knew he had a choice.

Yes, and this is a very free will (or human responsibility) way of looking at how evil entered the earth. Choices are there -- God knows all truth -- man knows only some truth such that man can be tempted by untruth.

Whether people judge it to be the best or not, I like your "formulation" of God as Truth, Jarthur. When we speak of Christ in God and us in Christ, we see that Christ and the word are part of the truth and what we know is only part of that but growing closer to the Christ part all the time!

skypair

 

[Allan]

IOWS, If God had never shown us Grace, would he still be a God of Grace?

If that is the fact, then aren't we limiting God to the scope of what we can perceive God to be?

I understand you, but I think it might be better stated that we are limited in scope to what we understand of God that God has revealed Himself to be.

But here again, this deal with the Theology of God's revelation
Here is an excert from Ryrie's "Basic Theology"

I. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

Unquestionably the knowledge of God is desirable; the religious yearnings of mankind testify to that. But is it possible?

The Scriptures attest to two facts: the incomprehensibility of God and the knowability of God. To say that He is incomprehensible is to assert that the mind cannot grasp the knowledge of Him. To say that He is knowable Is to claim that He can be known. Both are true though neither in an absolute sense. To say that God is incomprehensible is to assert that man cannot know everything about Him. To say that He is knowable is not to assert that man can know everything about Him.

Both truths are affirmed in the Scriptures: His incomprehensibility in verses like Job 11:7 and Isaiah 40:18, and His knowability in verses like John 14:7; 17:3; and 1 John 5:20.

I am using him at present because it is on my Parsons Technology Program so I can cut and paste and it is short as well.

Are his attributes what He is?
Or are his attributes what we perceive He is?

Again it is both, but I would state from your "or" it as "what HE has chosen to reveal of Himself unto His creation".

Is there a possibility that God has more attributes than we can perceive or understand at this point in time?
I believe it could be possible. God is not under obligation to reveal to us everything about Himself.

We understand Grace, Mercy, Love, Faithfulness, because God has poured these out on mankind. But what if there is something else?

Yes, and is summed up in the above

 

[tinytim]

I understand the logic that says, “Since the Holy Spirit is God (which is not up for debate), we should worship Him.” But, if that logic were sound, wouldn’t we see this done in the Bible?

Not necessarily... We have a better concept of the Trinity now than the first church did. Isn't it possible that we understand more about the fact that the Holy Spirit is God now than even Paul understood it.

We have been studying the Trinity for around 2000 yrs. (well, not all of us... :laugh: ) So our doctrine is much more precise than what the early fisherman/apostles would have understood.

The Idea of the Trinity, would have been new to them.
So, it is not a far stretch to see that they would have not worshipped Him as God, because they would not have fully understood that He was God.

 

[skypair]

JJ, JArthur,

I think we can clear up whether the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped by saying this -- the Holy Spirit IS worship in one of His manifestations.*

Now folks do try to do that nowadays -- "worship Worship" (or is it "Worship worship?"), that is. Some think they have done a great job of "worship" when they field a great choir with great soloists and contemporary lyrics backed up by a whole orchestra and words and scenes on the "big screen" over head. They "worship Worship" -- worship the Spirit and often there is no real "content" but "Praise Him, Praise Him, Bow down before Him and praise Him, blah, blah, blah..." Can you tell that I don't feel like this glorifies the Father and Son?

* The Holy Spirit is the knowledge (ergo "guide you into all Truth"), EMOTIONS (Worship), and will of God.

Anyway, that's one view.

skypair

 

[Allan]

Worship and the Holy Spirit.

There has some very good discussion on about this topic—many thanks to tinytim and everyone else for this topic and for the great and quite civil discussion. Hopefully, we all will continue to be a model of Christian behavior and discussion etiquette.

I do not think we are to worship the Holy Spirit. Here’s why: We never see Him being worshiped in scripture. We see the Father being worshiped and we see the Son being worshiped, but not the Spirit.

There have been some good and logical arguments made, most notably by John of Japan who quoted Erickson. While the logic of Erickson’s discussion is not bad, his arguments are not compelling.

Erickson rightly notes in the Acts 5 passage (Ananias and Sapphira) that the Holy Spirit is equated to God. Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit and then goes on to say He, that is Ananias, has lied to God. From this passage, it is clear that scripture says the Holy Spirit is God. But, what does the rest of the scripture say?

The rest of the scripture never shows the Holy Spirit being worshiped or as an object of worship. What we do know is this: Christ and the Father send the Spirit to be our helper, our paraclete. As our helper, the Holy Spirit is the Agent of regeneration, he instructs us, points us to Christ, etc.

Because scripture never shows the Holy Spirit being worshiped, it is dangerous for us to worship Him. Now, I do not think we would be committing the sin of idolatry if we do. However, I think we’d be on dangerous ground because scripture doesn’t warrant the worship of the Holy Spirit.

I understand the logic that says, “Since the Holy Spirit is God (which is not up for debate), we should worship Him.” But, if that logic were sound, wouldn’t we see this done in the Bible?

Erickson’s logic in this case is dangerous because it is not played out in the pages of the Bible. I would be equally critical of someone arguing, “Well, since Deborah was a Judge, it would be OK to have women pastors.” (I know, I know, the analogy is not necessarily perfect, but I think you can understand my point).

So, in this case, Erickson’s logic is faulty because he is advocating a practice through a logical deduction that we never see in scripture.

That’s my $ .02.

Many Blessings to all!

The Archangel

An Excellent post and also by JoJ.

I think the difference here might actually be semantics. I don't 'think' John of Japan nor Erickson is stating we should have services in church dedicated to the worship of the Spirit, but that as we worship God the Father we in turn do worship the Son and the Spirit by virture of their being. I beleive their argement of worshipping the Holy Spirit is more about the scope of worship than the specific of whom is worshipped.

I guess it could be put this way as well. When we worship there nothing wrong in acknowledging the Holy Spirit in our worship since not only is He part of the God-head but without Him there is no worship. But at the same time remembering He takes more pleasure in revealing and leading us to Christ than glory for Himself, just as Christ takes more pleasure in leading and revealing the Father. And guess what? The Father takes pleasure in revealing and giving glory to both the Son and the Spirit, but our worship is directed toward God the Father from whom ALL blessing flow (and that includes the Son and the Spirit).

Just my take on it.

 

[tinytim]

Allan, that is a good way to bring all points together...
And make it practical.

 

[Allan]

Not necessarily... We have a better concept of the Trinity now than the first church did. Isn't it possible that we understand more about the fact that the Holy Spirit is God now than even Paul understood it.

We have been studying the Trinity for around 2000 yrs. (well, not all of us... :laugh: ) So our doctrine is much more precise than what the early fisherman/apostles would have understood.

The Idea of the Trinity, would have been new to them.
So, it is not a far stretch to see that they would have not worshipped Him as God, because they would not have fully understood that He was God.

I agree with what you set forth with regard to the early church, but not so much with the Apostles. If they didn't understand it, they could not have taught it or worse they would have taught different variations or opinions of what the trinity was and it would have manifested itself in some of their writtings. Yet we find in their writtings not variations but consistancy.

Again, just my take.