Riddle me this, Batman

No, it really doesn't. I'm sorry you feel that it does, but this is not the first time you placed incorrect words in the Arminian's mouths.

You assume that the only way man can choose Christ is for God to change his nature first. Arminians have shown over and over again that Man is depraved, corrupt, and inable, but through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, he is able to choose or reject the gift of salvation. You ignore what it is that we say.

Not so much. It's more a philosophical quandary for all who really think about it. It involves coming to a perception about eternity past, which isn't exactly easy for anyone.

 

Did you think before you wrote this???? ... What is the beginning of eternity? There is no such thing. Eternity, by definition, does not have a beginning.

Because it's not. REad the theology books and find us one that says "se;f-definition" is an attribute of God. Support that for us from somewhere besides your own mind.

Because attributes are not chosen. Attributes are the essence. God is what his attributes are. Don't forget that.

You are not even in the ballpark though. To talk of God's changing his mind is to miss the conversation. God is truth. Therefore he does not make a choice to be truthful. It is something he is.

A lie is an intent to mislead contrary to the state of reality. The lie deviates from reality. How hard can that be????

 

Quite a limited understanding of the nature ofeternity. Proverbs 8 says that Wisdom was created before His works. So, apparently, the order goes God - Wisdom - Time. So before time existed was the beginning of eternity. God created Truth, a moral framework, and so on, before He created the heavens and the earth in eternity past. He created the guidelines for how the heavens and the earth would be run.

God as such is limitless, as we see from his name YHWH. To relate to humanity, he had to define himself. Would you agree to that?

I am happy. That does not make me Happiness. I am extroverted. That does not make me Extrovert. God is YHWH. Attributes of God are just that - attributes. Attributes are characteristics - not the Person itself.

The Bible clearly shows that God changed his mind several times.

But what is reality? God is the Author of Reality. So, from a fiat point of view, philosophically speaking, it would be "impossible" for God to lie, as what he says becomes reality. That's an interesting thought.

 

Hey, Scott. Don't buy into the Open Theism theory. There are better explanations.

1 Samuel 15:29(NASB)
29 “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

 

Before time began God established a moral framework, but that moral framework was based upon what God was. It didn't define His nature, it reflected it.

God is what He is, as we see from the name YHWH. To relate to humanity, He had to reveal himself. He was already defined, because He already was, the self-existant One, Who always was and always will be.

Attributes are essential characteristics. That's the theological definition. God's attributes are God's essential being. God would not be God minus any of His attributes.

This is exactly right, as far as I see it. This is why God IS truth. If God says it, it is reality. It is because God says it that it is true. God is the source of all truth, because He is the source of all reality. God didn't make a choice to always be truthful: He IS truth, because what He says comes to pass, what He says becomes reality. His truthfulness is an essential characteristic of being who He is, because He cannot be who He is and choose to lie.

 

Russell, I agree with your statement here, I think I need to limit my conversations to reasonable people like yourself, others on this board take anything and everything you say even when you agree with them and misconstrue it for an attack. I'm tired of dealing with them.

Just for clarification: I don't believe God can, will, choses to, wants to, hopes to, desires to, likes, or even is tempted to lie. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with our soteriological disagreement and those who are trying to make it seem as if it does are doing so in vain.

 

vanity of vanities saith the preacher.

 

Not so, as we have obviously frustrated your anti-doctrines of God's amazing grace tirade, Brother Bill. You have been unable to repulse the attack on extreme Arminianism presented in this thread.

That's why you keep wanting to "move on".

 

Not so much. It's more a philosophical quandary for all who really think about it.</font>[/QUOTE]So what you're saying is that arminians avoid these quandaries by choosing not to think about the issues before they come to their conclusions? Well, I must admit, you've got me there. </font>[/QUOTE]Who is avoiding the quandry. The question is more of a philosophical question than a soteriological quandary. For this to be a problem with Arminians, we would have to agree on just how depraved humanity is. Even agreeing that God does not lie because it would go against his character does not affect an Arminian's view of soteriological because Arminians do not agree with the Calvinistic doctrine to total depravity in the same way that they do.

What you are attempting to do is use your own definition of theological terms to argue against the Arminian position, and it doesn't really work. For your question to have a theological point, the Arminians must believe in the type of total depravity that is understood by the Calvinist side. Since we don't, your argument doesn't amount to much.

 

Jonah's and the Ninevites. Jeremiah's story of the potter. God's grieving in the naming of Saul as King and the grief before the Flood. Joel 2:14 is quite clear that God's intentions can turn.

I'm not buying into Open Theism, although I have read a good bit about it. Perhaps God is saying that in this specific situation he will not change his mind, especially considering that the chapter begins and ends with words showing that God is grieving His decision to make Saul king.

It is an interesting discussion though. Open Theism makes some good points, although as a whole there are a few too many holes for my liking.

 

Good line, Scott. How is my understanding limited? How do you have a beginning of eternity?? That doesn't even make sense.

No in teh sense that you use. Self definition in the sense of revelation I can agree with. God had to "propositionalize" himself so that we could understand his nature. God did not define himself in terms of "This is what I am going to be and this is what I am not going to be."

In theology, God is what his attributes are. You have confused that here with states. A person is the sum total of their inherent attributes. Again, this is basic theology and your approach shows teh danger of doing theology without the benefit of using these terms in teh way theology has used them for years. You can't just make up new ideas about attributes and essence. It prevents communication.

apart from the very limited nature of your understanding of this, it is irrelevant. My point was that God is truth, he does not decide to be truthful. There are no other options.

It seems an absurd thought to me. Reality is that which corresponds to the actual state of affairs. But your statement here yet again undersmines your whole philosophy. It is a reality that people go to hell because of unbelief. If God is the author of reality, then he is the author of people going to hell and he is the author of their unbelief. That presents a major philosophical, theological problem for you.

However, that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, the difficulty of carrying on conversations about this when you clearly are not on the same page as I am with it is easily seen and is very frustrating. I do not say that to put you down in anyway, please understand. I say that only because it, to me, is like me trying to talk nuclear physics with a nuclear scientist. He would soon get very frustrated because he uses terms and ideas in ways that I don't.

Again, I challenge you to think through some of htese issues from the historical theological standpoint. Don't start just making up usages of attributes and reality and the like. It makes it very hard to discuss things.

 

I'm not arguing on these points, but from where are these conclusions drawn? Is there scriptural support for one way or the other? Or is is just philosophy and speculation drawn indirectly from other facts, or "the historical theological standpoint" with "the way theology has used [terms] for years"?
I think we are getting in way over our heads here in debating the nature of eternity of what God could have done or been. He could have created a reality in which the whole concept of "lie" is meaningless.

Then I still wonder why anytime someone phrases it as God "creating people for Hell", or being "the author of sin", people react and claim Calvinism is beng misrepresented. I know there are paradoxes, but what you're saying is tantamount to "it is, it isn't". And this used to deflect the challenging of these positions (i.e you use it to try to show that Arminians are in a bind, because it "must" be this way, but when the Arminians try to attack the premise head on, "that is not our position"!).
That too is based on an assumption about the nature of reality and eternity that we could not possibly fully comprehend. It is time-bound human prerspective logic.

 

Scriptural revelation and historical theology both bear out the usage of certain ideas and terms that are being bantered about here. When people use terms in different ways, it is virtually impossible to communicate, much less agree.

Talk about speculation ... I don't see anyway in which this is possible. The concept of a "lie" can never be meaningless unless the concept of truth is meaningless.

No, What I was saying is that Scott has just undermined his system by admitting that he has the same problem that he accuses us of having.

A person can say, "That is not my position," but they must give an answer for why. Scott, nor anyone has his side, has yet done so. They have given no scriptural reason (as we have). They have given no logical or theological reason (as we have). In short, they merely say, "It isn't so because I said it isn't." That is far different than what we have done.

Scott is the one who made that statement about God being the ultimate cause and author of reality. The comments I made were based on his statement of his belief.

I find this argument way too convenient. I think revelation is clearer than this. I do believe that we cannot comprehend some things about God. I don't find this particular topic one of them.