"Reprehensible!" is not an argument

[Skandelon]

But does that mean that God did not know for sure it was going to happen?

Yes or no.

Once again, as in the other thread, it is a simple yes or no answerable question.

Yes or no?

I'm refusing to answer for several reasons:

1. You are refusing to answer my questions forcing me to provide an exegesis but not being willing to provide one of your own. No doubt for the purpose of being able to play offense without having to play defense. Good debate tactic, but no dice.

2. In my experience, you have a problem with defining and sticking the use of any given term. (i.e. ordain, decree, determine, permit, allow, etc) You tend to jump between different terms when pressed so as to cloud the matter. I prefer the terms God used to reveal himself, as He must have had a reason for selecting those terms and not others. So, lets both answer the question that this verse presents to us:

Did those detestable things enter his mind or not? Yes or No?

I've answered NO, what is your answer?

 

[Luke2427]

I'm refusing to answer for several reasons:

1. You are refusing to answer my questions forcing me to provide an exegesis but not being willing to provide one of your own. No doubt for the purpose of being able to play offense without having to play defense. Good debate tactic, but no dice.

2. In my experience, you have a problem with defining and sticking the use of any given term. (i.e. ordain, decree, determine, permit, allow, etc) You tend to jump between different terms when pressed so as to cloud the matter. I prefer the terms God used to reveal himself, as He must have had a reason for selecting those terms and not others. So, lets both answer the question that this verse presents to us:

Did those detestable things enter his mind or not? Yes or No?

I've answered NO, what is your answer?

But what you refuse to do is say what your no means.

I can say "no" too.

No.

There.

See.

But what you want to do is always place the person you debate on the defensive by forcing him to answer your questions while refusing to answer his- particularly when it touches your view of God's omniscience.

 

[Skandelon]

But what you refuse to do is say what your no means.

I can say "no" too.

No.

There.

See.

Good, so we agree that those reprehensible things never entered the mind of God. I'm glad we can agree on something. :applause:

Now, can you explain how that aligns with your teaching that all things flow from the mind of God as the one who decrees all things that come to pass before time began? Thanks

But what you want to do is always place the person you debate on the defensive by forcing him to answer your questions while refusing to answer his-

Ironic that I'm the only one who has answered any questions thus far (except this last one where you finally said you agreed with me). I've already told you what I think the 'no' means and what I think God meant by saying that. I've provided my exegesis. Your turn.

 

[Luke2427]

Good, so we agree that those reprehensible things never entered the mind of God. I'm glad we can agree on something. :applause:

Now, can you explain how that aligns with your teaching that all things flow from the mind of God as the one who decrees all things that come to pass before time began? Thanks

Ironic that I'm the only one who has answered any questions thus far (except this last one where you finally said you agreed with me). I've already told you what I think the 'no' means and what I think God meant by saying that. I've provided my exegesis. Your turn.

No you haven't.

You just reworded the verse.

That's not exegesis.

 

[Skandelon]

No you haven't.

You just reworded the verse.

That's not exegesis.

Not much more that needs to be said as far as my view goes, but at least I've said something, which is more than you can say.

Plus, by admitting that my statement is just a rewording of the verse, haven't you just validated that statement as being equally true? Do you agree that the verse means, "...he is perfectly Holy and sinless and would never come up with (originate) reprehensible ideas like molesting children, or the evil being spoken of here?" If so, just say so and then explain how that aligns with your 'systematic.'

Also, an exegesis includes 'interpretation,' thus a rewording of the text in order to reveal intent of the author and it's meaning would absolutely be within the confines of the exegetical process.

 

[Luke2427]

Not much more that needs to be said as far as my view goes, but at least I've said something, which is more than you can say.

Plus, by admitting that my statement is just a rewording of the verse, haven't you just validated that statement as being equally true? Do you agree that the verse means, "...he is perfectly Holy and sinless and would never come up with (originate) reprehensible ideas like molesting children, or the evil being spoken of here?" If so, just say so and then explain how that aligns with your 'systematic.'

Also, an exegesis includes 'interpretation,' thus a rewording of the text in order to reveal intent of the author and it's meaning would absolutely be within the confines of the exegetical process.

No. By stating that all you did was reword the verse i am validating that you are being intentionally vague.

Grown men do not think they have made a point in a debate over a passage when they just reword it.

 

[Skandelon]

No. By stating that all you did was reword the verse i am validating that you are being intentionally vague.

So you don't agree with what I said then?

Grown men do not think they have made a point in a debate over a passage when they just reword it.

Implication that I'm that I'm boy. How ironically immature of you.

We are done Luke.

 

[Luke2427]

So you don't agree with what I said then?

It is too vague to agree with or disagree with.

You have not said what you think the verse means.

I think it is apparent that you think the verse means that God LITERALLY did not KNOW that they were going to do this thing.

Implication that I'm that I'm boy. How ironically immature of you.

We are done Luke.

Another way to say that is- "I'm taking my toys and going HOME!"

 

[Skandelon]

It is too vague to agree with or disagree with.

So you believe God is too vague to agree or disagree with? Hmmm

You have not said what you think the verse means.

Yes I did, you just didn't like it because it doesn't address your finite linear worldview

I think it is apparent that you think the verse means that God LITERALLY did not KNOW that they were going to do this thing.

No, I think it literally means that this detestable thing didn't enter into his mind until they did it. It originated with them, not God, but I still affirm God's infinite omniscience. I don't believe one cancels out the other as you do, because I don't attempt to force an infinite characteristic into a finite box.

Another way to say that is- "I'm taking my toys and going HOME!"

If "toys" mean "rational, objective, adult conversation" and "home" means "with someone besides you," then you may be right. How about we go back to being cordial as you were doing so well for quite some time?

 

[Luke2427]

So you believe God is too vague to agree or disagree with? Hmmm

That's childish, Skan.

You know better.

Scripture requires exegesis, and you know it. Many verses require tons and tons of study to comprehend.

For you to act like I'm accusing God of something here for saying that verse requires intense exegesis is childish posturing and only an idiot would fall for it.

I guess you are banking that there are some very stupid people on baptistboard who will read this ridiculous comment of yours and side with you over it.

I'd be surprised if many of them are that stupid.

Yes I did, you just didn't like it because it doesn't address your finite linear worldview

No you didn't.

No, I think it literally means that this detestable thing didn't enter into his mind until they did it.

What do you think these four words mean in that verse "enter into his mind"?

It originated with them, not God, but I still affirm God's infinite omniscience. I don't believe one cancels out the other as you do, because I don't attempt to force an infinite characteristic into a finite box.

That's like saying "I think wet water is dry but I still affirm that wet water can never be dry."

It's ridiculous and if it is true then NOTHING is and discussion is silly because logic is meaningless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Most people that are not Calvinists, I think, are not Calvinists, not because they cannot see it taught in the Scripture but because they do not like what they think Calvinism implies about God.

because many want to keep real free will intact, so that I did 'something" to have God save me, and also many rebel against idea that God would be in absolute control, as that makes him a "monster", and us "puppets/robots!"

 

[Luke2427]

That's childish, Skan.

You know better.

Scripture requires exegesis, and you know it. Many verses require tons and tons of study to comprehend.

For you to act like I'm accusing God of something here for saying that verse requires intense exegesis is childish posturing and only an idiot would fall for it.

I guess you are banking that there are some very stupid people on baptistboard who will read this ridiculous comment of yours and side with you over it.

I'd be surprised if many of them are that stupid.



No you didn't.




What do you think these four words mean in that verse "enter into his mind"?



That's like saying "I think wet water is dry but I still affirm that wet water can never be dry."

It's ridiculous and if it is true then NOTHING is and discussion is silly because logic is meaningless.

Skandelon, I am waiting for a response to this.

Please especially note the bolded statements.

 

[Crabtownboy]

because many want to keep real free will intact, so that I did 'something" to have God save me, and also many rebel against idea that God would be in absolute control, as that makes him a "monster", and us "puppets/robots!"

I do not see Calvinism taught in scripture ... and I do see some aspects of Calvinism taught by the Gnostics and in the writings of Augustine. Remember Augustine was a Gnostic sympathizer and attendee of their services before he became a Christian. He, Augustine, says he did not have the self-discipline to be a member of an Agnostic group, but he did believe their tenets and he introduced some into his Christian theology and writings.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I do not see Calvinism taught in scripture ... and I do see some aspects of Calvinism taught by the Gnostics and in the writings of Augustine. Remember Augustine was a Gnostic sympathizer and attendee of their services before he became a Christian. He, Augustine, says he did not have the self-discipline to be a member of an Agnostic group, but he did believe their tenets and he introduced some into his Christian theology and writings.

The earlier "monster"commentary voids any credibility with me in your grasp on Calvinism.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The earlier "monster"commentary voids any credibility with me in your grasp on Calvinism.

Fine, but it would be nice to give a fuller explanation.

Do a bit of research on Augustine and Gnosticism. Calvin was a great admirer of Augustine. It is obvious that Calvin picked up and incorporated ideas from Augustine ... who got them from the Gnostics, especially from the Manichaeism gnostics.

Augustine claims he rejected Gnostic beliefs later in life, but they did not entirely disappear from his belief system.