Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

[The Archangel]

Skypair wrote:

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

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.

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

First of all, God did not need to create us; He was not “lonely.” Before anything was created, God enjoyed perfect fellowship within the trinity. Even if we had never been created, God would still be God.

Your first statement (quoted above) is quite problematic. Our creation did not make God, God, as your statement says. Your statement shows a very basic misunderstanding of biblical theology—the self-sufficiency of God

Secondly, Calvinists do not warp time. Time exists because God created it. Since He created time, God works both in time and outside of time. All of these elements are seen in our redemption—He elected us (however you believe that happened…foreseen faith or unconditional election) before time began and He accomplished our salvation in one moment in time, on the cross at Calvary.

Third, and perhaps most alarming, is your statement, “God rewards our sovereign choices according to His character and His plans.”

There is no such thing as human sovereignty—this is fundamental to true biblical theology. If man is sovereign, then God is not. The sovereignty of both man and God cannot, by definition, simultaneously. Either God is sovereign or man is, not both.

If God makes plans (which your statement says He does) and those plans come to fruition, then He gets the glory regardless of who carries them out. The actor (that would be us) cannot be sovereign if God is making plans.

That you would even suggest man has even a modicum of “sovereignty” shows your lack of biblical theology. For God Himself states:

Isaiah 46:8-11
“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 the case, and it is, God is absolutely sovereign and cannot be thwarted by man, therefore man is not sovereign in any way, shape, or form, for God “Declares the end from the beginning.”

This is the problem with touchy-feely, ooee-gooey theology. I would encourage you to buy and read Grudem’s Systematic Theology or Erickson’s Systematic Theology. Either of these books would go a long way to help you, and you need it, my friend. I'm sorry for the strong tone of this post, but these issues and errors are serious.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[reformedbeliever]

Wow. This thread grew over night! I really don't have anything to add other than to praise God for the Christian like fellowship shown in this thread. I pray other threads can be as such. :thumbs:

 

[reformedbeliever]

I agree Archangel. Sovereign means there are no others to answer to. Man can never be completely sovereign. Man always has God to answer to. God has no one to answer to. God is truly sovereign.

 

[The Archangel]

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 see your point, but I think it is still shaky. Allan wrote an excellent post which I know you saw. I just wanted to add another $ .02…

Generally speaking, when we start thinking in terms of doctrinal development after the closing of the Canon, we are in dangerous territory. As Allan pointed out, the Apostles, who taught the doctrine, probably knew it far better than we did. But, it is still incumbent us to look at scripture for our practice—and worshiping the Holy Spirit is not ever done.

Further, to suggest we have (or even can have) a more developed doctrine of something after the closing of Canon will, inevitably, lead us down a road we wouldn’t want to go. (It’s kind of like Yoda said, “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”)

Liberalism has done this. In issues of things like human sexuality, they argue, “Well, the apostles (or any biblical writer) couldn’t have known what we know now…” referring to genetics or the “shift” in societal norms, etc. This argument is used to justify all kinds of things that the Bible clearly calls sin.

So, I’d encourage you (and all of us) to strive to be and remain radically biblical in all our deliberations and then test our conclusions against scripture.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I agree Archangel. Sovereign means there are no others to answer to. Man can never be completely sovereign. Man always has God to answer to. God has no one to answer to. God is truly sovereign.

Yes! God is always the Creator and man is always the creature. It is always like Romans 9:20 says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

God may do with us as He wishes and He has complete, total, and absolute sovereignty to do so.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Yes! God is always the Creator and man is always the creature. It is always like Romans 9:20 says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

God may do with us as He wishes and He has complete, total, and absolute sovereignty to do so.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

I agree with Reformed's post but with respect to your above I must add the question that is now manifested from this portion of your post:

God may do with us as He wishes and He has complete, total, and absolute sovereignty to do so.

What has God decided to do?

Ok, lets not get off on the whole C/A thing yet. We were doing so good to :laugh:
Seriously, as we progress in our discussions it will come to it soon enough. So lets not jump the gum to quickly - agreed?

BTW - Nothing wrong with responding to a post and set forth your view, but lets TRY not to go to quickly ahead by 'maintaining' that discussion and thus derail the intent of the OP. I need ya'll to watch out for me in this to please.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I agree with Reformed's post but with respect to your above I must add the question that is now manifested from this portion of your post:

What has God decided to do?

Ok, lets not get off on the whole C/A thing yet. We were doing so good to :laugh:
Seriously, as we progress in our discussions it will come to it soon enough. So lets not jump the gum to quickly - agreed?

BTW - Nothing wrong with responding to a post and set forth your view, but lets TRY not to go to quickly ahead by 'maintaining' that discussion and thus derail the intent of the OP. I need ya'll to watch out for me in this to please.

I don't think I understand what your question is Allan. Archangel did't say God decided to do something....... he said " God may do with us as He wishes and He has complete, total, and absolute sovereignty to do so."

What is there to question about that statement? In light of this?

Isaiah 46:8-11
“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.

 

[The Archangel]

I agree with Reformed's post but with respect to your above I must add the question that is now manifested from this portion of your post:

What has God decided to do?

Ok, lets not get off on the whole C/A thing yet. We were doing so good to :laugh:
Seriously, as we progress in our discussions it will come to it soon enough. So lets not jump the gum to quickly - agreed?

BTW - Nothing wrong with responding to a post and set forth your view, but lets TRY not to go to quickly ahead by 'maintaining' that discussion and thus derail the intent of the OP. I need ya'll to watch out for me in this to please.

Hi Allan! I wasn’t intending to go down the Calvinist/Arminian road. My comments were mostly in response to Skypair’s suggestion that man was in some way “sovereign.”

My comments were intended to show that God’s sovereignty is absolute.

Now, to answer your question broadly, I would say this: God had decided to do whatever He wanted (or wants) to do.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Hi Allan! I wasn’t intending to go down the Calvinist/Arminian road. My comments were mostly in response to Skypair’s suggestion that man was in some way “sovereign.”

My comments were intended to show that God’s sovereignty is absolute.

Now, to answer your question broadly, I would say this: God had decided to do whatever He wanted (or wants) to do.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Oh I know that. After re-reading what I wrote, it seemed to imply more than I intended. I noticed you were responding when I was about to go in and delete it. Since I figured you were responding to me I left it alone.

Good posts though.

 

[Jarthur001]

Tim,

You have a winner of a thread here. I would love to keep going over all the doctrines just as we have on this. Good input by many.

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?

Not at all. This is close to what comes 1st. Does theology come before error? No!
The reason why this is asked by so many is that theology is wrote after error comes. But truth always has been, just as God always has been. Even though we may not know all of about God the truth of Him remains. We can only go by how He has shown Himself to mankind. If God had never shown grace to man, this does not mean God has no grace. One has to believe there are may things about God we do not know, for God has not shown them to us. We know all that he feels we need to know at this time.

This can best be seen in the "gender" of God. I have been asked is not God female also? I have to say God is much more then male or female, but for whatever reason He has only revealed Himself as male. That is all I know.

So Grace is part of God even if we did not know of it.

 

[tinytim]

I see your point, but I think it is still shaky. Allan wrote an excellent post which I know you saw. I just wanted to add another $ .02…

Generally speaking, when we start thinking in terms of doctrinal development after the closing of the Canon, we are in dangerous territory. As Allan pointed out, the Apostles, who taught the doctrine, probably knew it far better than we did. But, it is still incumbent us to look at scripture for our practice—and worshiping the Holy Spirit is not ever done.

Further, to suggest we have (or even can have) a more developed doctrine of something after the closing of Canon will, inevitably, lead us down a road we wouldn’t want to go. (It’s kind of like Yoda said, “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”)

Liberalism has done this. In issues of things like human sexuality, they argue, “Well, the apostles (or any biblical writer) couldn’t have known what we know now…” referring to genetics or the “shift” in societal norms, etc. This argument is used to justify all kinds of things that the Bible clearly calls sin.

So, I’d encourage you (and all of us) to strive to be and remain radically biblical in all our deliberations and then test our conclusions against scripture.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

Yes I know the dangers that both you and Allan laid out.
And yes, we shoud test all our doctrine against the Bible, and if it is a new doctrine, it is wrong...

But because the Bible was not fully completed while the Apostles were around... (John penned his last words 30-40 yrs after Peter's and Paul's death) They would not have had the written record of scripture we can so easily access to build our doctrine from.

And since the doctrine of the Trinity had to be fleshed out by the early church fathers shows that the early church did not have a clear view of what the Trinity meant.

But since then, the doctrine of the Trinity has become an established doctrine based upon the full counsel of scripture.

As someone said earlier, I am not advocating we worship the Holy Spirit apart from the trinity...
But since He is God.. when we worship God, we are worshipping Him.

This is all confusing, because the Trinity is confusing to us....

Soooo...

Lets start sharing how we view the Trinity...
What are your favorite models? (And NO, I am not talking about Supermodels!!! )

While no model is perfect? Each one points out something different, and therefore shows us more of God.


My favorite model is a book, or any 3-D object...

While Height is seperate from Depth, and Width,
You can't have a 3-D object without all three.. and all three have the same type of attributes.

I know it has flaws, but it makes sense to me.

What are some of your models?... for instance, the egg, Water, cloverleaf...

 

[reformedbeliever]

Oh I know that. After re-reading what I wrote, it seemed to imply more than I intended. I noticed you were responding when I was about to go in and delete it. Since I figured you were responding to me I left it alone.

Good posts though.

Gottcha!!!!!!!!! :thumbs:

 

[reformedbeliever]

Yes I know the dangers that both you and Allan laid out.
And yes, we shoud test all our doctrine against the Bible, and if it is a new doctrine, it is wrong...

But because the Bible was not fully completed while the Apostles were around... (John penned his last words 30-40 yrs after Peter's and Paul's death) They would not have had the written record of scripture we can so easily access to build our doctrine from.

And since the doctrine of the Trinity had to be fleshed out by the early church fathers shows that the early church did not have a clear view of what the Trinity meant.

But since then, the doctrine of the Trinity has become an established doctrine based upon the full counsel of scripture.

As someone said earlier, I am not advocating we worship the Holy Spirit apart from the trinity...
But since He is God.. when we worship God, we are worshipping Him.

This is all confusing, because the Trinity is confusing to us....

Soooo...

Lets start sharing how we view the Trinity...
What are your favorite models? (And NO, I am not talking about Supermodels!!! )

While no model is perfect? Each one points out something different, and therefore shows us more of God.


My favorite model is a book, or any 3-D object...

While Height is seperate from Depth, and Width,
You can't have a 3-D object without all three.. and all three have the same type of attributes.

I know it has flaws, but it makes sense to me.

What are some of your models?... for instance, the egg, Water, cloverleaf...

The sun. We have light, heat, and the sun itself. Although an analogy of anything created fails when it comes to God, who is not created, but actually the Creator.

 

[Jarthur001]

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'.

In classical theism, we do not remove from God anything. We start with a blank slate and ask what is God? Hodge called it "Being of God"

Systematic Theology - Volume I
Author: Hodge, Charles

1. Definitions of God.
THE question whether God can be defined, depends for its answer on what is meant by definition. In this sense God cannot be defined. No creature, much less man, can know all that is proper to God; and, therefore, no creature can give an exhaustive statement of all that God is.

To define, however, is simply to bound, to separate, or distinguish; so that the thing defined may be discriminated from all other things. This may be done (1.) By stating its characteristics. (2.) By stating its genus and its specific difference. (3.) By analyzing the idea as it lies in our minds. (4.) By an explanation of the term or name by which it is denoted. All these methods amount to much the same thing. When we say we can define God, all that is meant is, that we can analyze the idea of God as it lies in our mind; or, that we can state the class of beings to which He belongs, and the attributes by which He is distinguished from all other beings. Thus, in the simple definition, God is ens perfectissimum, the word ens designates Him as a being, not an idea, but as that which has real, objective existence; and absolute perfection distinguishes Him from all other beings. The objection to this and most other definitions of God is, that they do not bring out with sufficient fulness the contents of the idea. This objection bears against such definitions as the following: Ens absolutum, the self-existent, independent being; and that by Calovius, “Deus est essentia spiritualis infinita;” and Reinhard’s373373Dogmatik, p. 92. “Deus est, Natura necessaria, a mundo diversa, summas complexa perfectiones et ipsius mundi causa;” or Baumgarten’s “Spiritus perfectissimus, rationem qui ipsius rerumque contingentium omnium seu mundi continens;” or, that of Morus, “Spiritus perfectissimus, conditor, conservator,
et gubernator mundi.” Probably the best definition of God ever penned by man, is that given in the “Westminster Catechism”: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” This is a true definition; for it states the class of beings to which God is to be referred. He is a Spirit; and He is distinguished from all other spirits in that He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being and perfections. It is also a complete definition, in so far as it is an exhaustive statement of the contents of our idea of God.
In what sense, however, are these terms used? What is meant by the words “being,” and “perfections,” or “attributes” of God? In what relation do his attributes stand to his essence and to each other? These are questions on which theologians, especially during the scholastic period, expended much time and labor.

Being of God.
By being is here meant that which has a real, substantive existence. It is equivalent to substance, or essence. It is opposed to what is merely thought, and to a mere force or power. We get this idea, in the first place, from consciousness. We are conscious of self as the subject of the thoughts, feelings, and volitions, which are its varying states and acts. This consciousness of substance is involved in that of personal identity. In the second place, a law of our reason constrains us to believe that there is something which underlies the phenomena of matter and mind, of which those phenomena are the manifestation. It is impossible for us to think of thought and feeling, unless there be something that thinks and feels. It is no less impossible to think of action, unless there be something that acts; or of motion, unless there be something that moves. To assume, therefore, that mind is only a series of acts and states, and that matter is nothing but force, is to assume that nothing (nonentity) can produce effects.
God, therefore, is in his nature a substance, or essence, which is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable; the common subject of all divine perfections, and the common agent of all divine acts. This is as far as we can go, or need to go. We have no definite idea of substance, whether of matter or mind, as distinct from its attributes. The two are inseparable. In knowing the one we know the other. We cannot know hardness except as we know something hard. We have, therefore, the same knowledge of the essence of God, as we have of the substance of the soul. All we have to do in reference to the divine essence, as a Spirit, is to deny of it, as we do of our own spiritual essence, what belongs to material substances; and to affirm of it, that in itself and its attributes it is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. When, therefore, we say there is a God, we do not assert merely that there is in our minds the idea of an infinite Spirit; but that, entirely independent of our idea of Him, such a Being really exists. Augustine374374Enarratio in Psalmum, lxvii. I. 5, edit. Benedictines, vol. iv. p. 988 c. says, “Deus est quædam substantia; nam quod nulla substantia est, nihil omnino est. Substantia ergo aliquid esse est.”

If, therefore, a divine essence, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, exists, this essence existed before and independent of the world. It follows also that the essence of God is distinct from the world The Scriptural doctrine of God is consequently opposed to the several forms of error already mentioned; to Hylozoism, which assumes that God, like man, is a composite being, the world being to Him what the body is to us; to Materialism, which denies the existence of any spiritual substance, and affirms that the material alone is real; to extreme Idealism, which denies not only the reality of the internal world, but all real objective existence, and affirms that the subjective alone is real; to Pantheism, which either makes the world the existence form of God, or, denying the reality of the world, makes God the only real existence. That is, it either makes nature God, or, denying nature, makes God everything.

Now Hodge puts more points into this, which is fine. He follows the with this lineup.

1. Definitions of God.
2. Divine Attributes.
3. Classification of the Divine Attributes.
4. Spirituality of God.
5. Infinity.
6. Eternity.
7. Immutability.
8. Knowledge.
9. The Will of God
10. The Power of God.
11. Holiness of God.
12. Justice.
13. The Goodness of God.
14. The Truth of God.
15. Sovereignty

I'm not sure I would add "goodness" to this list. God is good, but God does not have to be good in order to be God. But...that is my view.

 

[Jarthur001]

Yes I know the dangers that both you and Allan laid out.
And yes, we shoud test all our doctrine against the Bible, and if it is a new doctrine, it is wrong...

But because the Bible was not fully completed while the Apostles were around... (John penned his last words 30-40 yrs after Peter's and Paul's death) They would not have had the written record of scripture we can so easily access to build our doctrine from.

And since the doctrine of the Trinity had to be fleshed out by the early church fathers shows that the early church did not have a clear view of what the Trinity meant.

But since then, the doctrine of the Trinity has become an established doctrine based upon the full counsel of scripture.

As someone said earlier, I am not advocating we worship the Holy Spirit apart from the trinity...
But since He is God.. when we worship God, we are worshipping Him.

This is all confusing, because the Trinity is confusing to us....

Soooo...

Lets start sharing how we view the Trinity...
What are your favorite models? (And NO, I am not talking about Supermodels!!! )

While no model is perfect? Each one points out something different, and therefore shows us more of God.


My favorite model is a book, or any 3-D object...

While Height is seperate from Depth, and Width,
You can't have a 3-D object without all three.. and all three have the same type of attributes.

I know it has flaws, but it makes sense to me.

What are some of your models?... for instance, the egg, Water, cloverleaf...

I have shared this before. No model works fully as has been said above, but I feel Dr Morris had about the best model. Time, Space and matter. I'm to lazy to type the whole thing. You should be able to find it on ICR web site. Do a search for "triune-universe" and you should find it. If you have "The Long War Against God" a small bit of it is in that book.

 

[skypair]

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

BEGIN by dropping the Calvinist "airs." And you're saying "fellowship with Himself?" Isn't that narcisism at its extreme?! Perhaps you have similar feelings?

Secondly, Calvinists do not warp time. Time exists because God created it. Since He created time, God works both in time and outside of time. All of these elements are seen in our redemption—He elected us (however you believe that happened…foreseen faith or unconditional election) before time began and He accomplished our salvation in one moment in time, on the cross at Calvary.

I think you misunderstand the entire thrust of my comments here.

Third, and perhaps most alarming, is your statement, “God rewards our sovereign choices according to His character and His plans.”

So God is NOT "the rewarder of them who diligently seek Him?" Well, thanks for taking Christianity "off the table." How then should we worship Him?

The sovereignty of both man and God cannot, by definition, simultaneously. Either God is sovereign or man is, not both.

Of course it can! Do you allow your husband/wife to have any sovereignty? Or do you control EVERYTHING in your home?

That you would even suggest man has even a modicum of “sovereignty” shows your lack of biblical theology. For God Himself states:

You appear to confuse "sovereignty" with "control." God has control over everything though He gives sovereignty to all mankind. How does He have control? The laws of God always bring things back to His foreknown and intended ends.

This is the problem with touchy-feely, ooee-gooey theology.

[demeaning comments deleted]

 

[tinytim]

Please Skypair play nice...
Look up the word Sovereignty...

I am sensing tension between you and others here..
And just because you disagree with others gives you no right to belittle them..
This thread is going good so please don't blow it.

This is a call to all...
Just because we disagree over things gives us no right to blow up.

Please discuss this in an educated manner.
In your belief system, what is the difference between being In control, and sovereignity?

And please phrase your answer in accordance with God being Omnipotent.

 

[skypair]

God may do with us as He wishes and He has complete, total, and absolute sovereignty to do so."

Then why do you disagree that He can allow us to have sovereignty?

Have you considered that DISPENSATIONALLY God actually administers His kingdom through MEN? Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, ... the names are endless! But MEN whom 1) God spoke to and 2) who made choices before God used them! You know what? Calvinism ignores this totally! Calvinism acts as if God is the "Great Puppetmaster!" Calvinism (and no doubt the author in question, OP) ignores all decisions for God as "automatic" -- God's "doing," not man's.

There is almost nothing as antithetical to scripture as leaving men's choices out of the "equation!!"

skypair

 

[skypair]

Lets start sharing how we view the Trinity...
What are your favorite models? (And NO, I am not talking about Supermodels!!! )

Soul, spirit, body -- Father, Spirit, Son. There could not be a simpler nor more complete explanation of how we are created in God's image! And I add --- you MUST be saved soul, then spirit, then body.

skypair

 

[Dr. Bob]

Sky - please be very careful on this thread. I was asked to allow it for intelligent discussion and not ranting/hate speech with those who might disagree with it or hold different views. This is about ERICKSON, not me or you.

This thread is NOT to champion your view, but to discuss Erickson's theology, a subject many are interested in.

Thank you.