No, the issue is with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text not the text. I have already answered your Spurgeon quotation in detail but never got any response, at least any response that I can find.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
n Arminian Foreknowledge, If God sees it, isn;t it already been determined?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
No, the issue is with YOUR INTERPRETATION of the text not the text. I have already answered your Spurgeon quotation in detail but never got any response, at least any response that I can find.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If the author, not me, states, "God changed his mind." And you don't believe that God really changed his mind then the issue is not with me, but the author of the text.
Now, you are welcome to offer an alternative understanding of what you believe that author actually meant when he said, "God changed his mind," but that is not really addressing MY INTERPRETATION as much as it is addressing the text itself...after all I'm not offering another interpretation. I'm merely reading what the text has said and accepting the mystery (see Spurgeon Quote...I'm not talking about the "all" issue, but the principle of interpretation he applies and his willingness to accept mystery and apparent contradictions in order to stay true to the text rather than a theological system)
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, just as it is the author, not the Mormons, in Psalms that ascribes chicken wings to God. If you really don't believe God has chicken feathers then the issue is not with me but with the author of the text.
Read carefully once again what I said! I said it is not a problem with the text but YOUR INTERPRETATION or to put it in your own words, your "understanding."
I have already explained my interpretation of the text in Post #20
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Correct. If a text is apparently in error or speaking metaphorically (or even anthropomorphically) then the issue is with the text itself...for one of us to appeal to mystery rather than offering an alternative that doesn't make us necessarily in disagreement, it just means that we aren't willing to offer an alternative meaning.
When did I offer an interpretation to this text?
You are a very difficult individual to convey a very simple point unto "sigh"!
There is absolutely no probelm with the text as the Holy Spirit is the Author of the text and there is no contradiction in His words anywhere in scripture. The problem is restricted to THE READER and HIS UNDERSTANDING of the text. It is only a problem when the READER interprets inconsistently with immediate and overall context. The reader LACKS THE MIND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT in dealing with God's Word.
The Mormon has READ INTO THIS TEXT his own presuppositionary theology and that is why HE THINKS it is a problem to the Bible believer.
Those who THINK the words "God repented" is a problem to the overall teaching of Scriptures that God is immutable, unchanging, and sinless is entirely due to their OWN INADEQUATE understanding of scriptures and/or their own presuppositional theology. It is not the words that are the problem but the readers interpretation of those words.
the lord changes not, as His very nature precludes him having to readjust/guess/make corctions, for that is NOT possible for an Infinite being who is Infinite is His wisdom/knowledge!
you are correct, in that Skan misunderstands that God is being described in termininology that we finite beings can relate to and with, and that also his preconceived notion of fairness/free will overrides the meaning of the various texts!
ALL things have already happened from his point of view, ans since he already knows perfectly all that shall ever happen, how can he not have had thatose future events from our persoective already fixed points into history?
How much do you think He determines directly that happens?
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by BobRyan
I will say it again - Calvinism fails in its efforts to "play god". It pretends to know how God knows what He knows - and how he is able to predetermine the future (by robot-programming supposedly).
Yet the fact is their own model would deny God Himself free will - for He knows what HE will do - and He knew all that Christ would do.
If their simplistic model were all that God had to work with - God Himself would not have free will.
Which is your first clue that Calvinism's model is horribly wrong. Maybe they should give up trying to sit in God's chair and admit that while God knows the future - HE still has free will - which provides the "mechanism" for everyone else to have free will as well.
The fundamental flaw in Calvinism is easily observed when we note that Calvinists DO admit that God HAS Free will. No element of "depravity" stops God from having it - no not even in Calvinism. It does not matter if it is in anthropomorphic terms or not. Calvinists have yet to sink to a level of error where they deny that God has TRUE undeniable Free Will. Each time they say the word "Sovereign" as in God making some statement -- He has made a choice and no one forced him to do it.
And given that key detail -- their entire argument against free will collapses as I pointed out in my post above.
in Christ,
Bob
I will say it again - Calvinism fails in its efforts to "play god". It pretends to know how God knows what He knows - and how he is able to predetermine the future (by robot-programming supposedly).
Yet the fact is their own model would deny God Himself free will - for He knows what HE will do - and He knew all that Christ would do.
If their simplistic model were all that God had to work with - God Himself would not have free will.
Which is your first clue that Calvinism's model is horribly wrong. Maybe they should give up trying to sit in God's chair and admit that while God knows the future - HE still has free will - which provides the "mechanism" for everyone else to have free will as well.
The fundamental flaw in Calvinism is easily observed when we note that Calvinists DO admit that God HAS Free will. No element of "depravity" stops God from having it - no not even in Calvinism. It does not matter if it is in anthropomorphic terms or not. Calvinists have yet to sink to a level of error where they deny that God has TRUE undeniable Free Will. Each time they say the word "Sovereign" as in God making some statement -- He has made a choice and no one forced him to do it.
And given that key detail -- their entire argument against free will collapses as I pointed out in my post above.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, we know you believe God determines all things, because His is "Deterministically Sovereign"
It is just a mystery how He can determine evil things.
God works all things to support your doctrines of TULIP through deterministic control and to maintain the doctrines of fatalism. That is is ultimate purpose.
You logically embrace this cause and effect because your doctrine cannot be changed from this logically dependent point of determinism.
Yes, we know you believe God determines all things, because His is "Deterministically Sovereign"
It is just a mystery how He can determine evil things.
What is mysterious about that? We have provided a very rational Biblical based explanation numerous times. You cannot created free will without permitting alternative options, one of which is evil. Sin is something God can never be pleased with and so it is a matter of necessary permission in connection with free will but even permission is determined for a greater good (Psa. 76:10; Rom. 8:28; etc.).
God works all things to support your doctrines of TULIP through deterministic control and to maintain the doctrines of fatalism. That is is ultimate purpose.
Why not accurately quote the scripture? God works "ALL THINGS" for the good because He works all things "according to His purpose" which is good even though it includes and permits things that are not good and does so intentionally by design.
You logically embrace this cause and effect because your doctrine cannot be changed from this logically dependent point of determinism.
You simply reject "God" as a God who is not Sovereign is no God at all. Your "god" can be put in your pocket and taken out only when you need him because your theory really makes your own "will" ultimately sovereign, thus "god."
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Already? That is a finite linear word which puts God in the future looking back at what has "already" happened. Just adopt the mystery which is the very nature of an infinite God and leave it at that.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
The feeling is mutual.
Correct. And, as Spurgeon noted, the biblical author has all the words of the human language to pull from if he wished to say something differently than he did, so there is not much reason for us to attempt to justify or qualify that which the text clearly states.
I agree, but don't assume your "Holy Spirit" is always the right one as you have the FREEDOM to interpret Him just as you have the FREEDOM to interpret scripture. I'm just saying that sometimes accepting the paradox (mystery) is better than attempting to qualify texts to make them fit our box.
I know you feel as if the idea of God relenting doesn't fit your understanding of God's unchanging nature, but some don't feel their understanding of God's oneness fits your understanding the the Trinity. God's ways are mysterious and there is nothing wrong with understanding that God can both relent within the context of time and space while maintaining his divine qualities. Accept the mystery of it.
I couldn't agree more, as I have absolutely no problem with either of those teachings, as reflected in fact that I'm not the one attempting to qualify either of those teachings. Only those trying to explain away one of those teachings thinks God's chosen words are "a problem."
A "paradox" is not a contradiction but to claim that God can LITERALLY "repent" but God cannot change is a contradition, just as it is a contradiction to claim LITERALLY that God has chicken wings but God is a spirit is a contradiction not a paradox.
The problem is CONTEXT! You are EXCLUDING context from your interpretation and thus making a pretense of "paradox" when there is no pardox at all but a direct contradiction due to a failure to consider the GREATER CONTEXT.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
So, you equate obvious poetic symbolism with a clearly recorded factual narrative? Interesting. And you accuse me of not understanding the context?
- Status