Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

[Bro. James]

God going to school on Man

Not a new doctrine--Theology 101, day 1: God is omniscient. He knows the end from before the beginning. He knows our every secret and thought. He knows what we will do before we do it.

He also gave us a free will, which we exercise to willfully break His laws.

He loves us, even when we are unlovable.

He died for us through Jesus, the only begotten of The Father.

Oh, what a Saviour.

Why do we run from God?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is Open Theism! Congratulations!

Oh good Lord....

 

[Skandelon]

I get your meaning but is righteousness that is unattainable, righteousness since it is nonexistent?

It exists in the same manner that some people think big foot exists...in their minds. If they think they can attain righteousness by works of the law then 'yes' it exists as a goal for them to pursue...but you are right, it is a mirage because it is not really there.

That is what Paul is saying in Romans 3:9-10....no one is righteous according to the law...even your good works are rags. Paul is saying NNE can attain righteousness by works. But Calvinists take that to also mean that no one can attain righteousness through faith in Christ. Calvinists are equating works with faith and drawing the false conclusion that because men can't attain righteousness by meritorious works of the law then they must not be able to believe in Christ either... That is unfounded IMO.

 

[Iconoclast]

Anthony, I'm not sure I'm understanding you right. Are you taking me to task? My post was to agree with your response to Winman. Winman is either A. Adovacting Open Theism or B. Having a difficult time understanding figures of speech. This is what happens when someone believes in rigid literalism. The rigid literalist cannot distinguish between figures of speech such as simile, allegory, metaphor, anthropomorphism etc. and true literal meaning.

I know you are in agreement with what I posted. He has posted this way before. I was wondering how to make sense of it.He cannot escape from the implications of what he is saying.
From the looks of it he intends to stand firmly in this position. I did not think . it was acceptable to post such a denial of the Divine attributes. I thought no one had seen or reads his posts anymore. ..that's why it remained

 

[Reformed]

I know you are in agreement with what I posted. He has posted this way before. I was wondering how to make sense of it.He cannot escape from the implications of what he is saying.
From the looks of it he intends to stand firmly in this position. I did not think . it was acceptable to post such a denial of the Divine attributes. I thought no one had seen or reads his posts anymore. ..that's why it remained

I only saw his post through your quoting it. What does it say of our God if He must learn as a man does? It is part of the devil's lie.

 

[OldRegular]

It exists in the same manner that some people think big foot exists...in their minds. If they think they can attain righteousness by works of the law then 'yes' it exists as a goal for them to pursue...but you are right, it is a mirage because it is not really there.

I had not thought of it in that light but sadly you are correct. Many people today believe righteousness can be attained by good works!

That is what Paul is saying in Romans 3:9-10....no one is righteous according to the law...even your good works are rags. Paul is saying NNE can attain righteousness by works. But Calvinists take that to also mean that no one can attain righteousness through faith in Christ. Calvinists are equating works with faith and drawing the false conclusion that because men can't attain righteousness by meritorious works of the law then they must not be able to believe in Christ either... That is unfounded IMO.

As I said I cannot speak for Calvinists. Scripture tells me that the redeemed are declared righteous through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ because of faith. That I believe.

 

[Skandelon]

As I said I cannot speak for Calvinists. Scripture tells me that the redeemed are declared righteous through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ because of faith. That I believe.

And is belief, like meritorious works of righteousness, unattainable? If so, why do you think so? Where is the biblical support for that?

Is it possible that Calvinists have mistakenly taken passages which teach that attaining righteousness by works is impossible and applied that to their doctrine of total inability, which teaches that attaining righteousness by faith is impossible apart from being regenerated by God first?

 

[Van]

And is belief, like meritorious works of righteousness, unattainable? If so, why do you think so? Where is the biblical support for that?

Is it possible that Calvinists have mistakenly taken passages which teach that attaining righteousness by works is impossible and applied that to their doctrine of total inability, which teaches that attaining righteousness by faith is impossible apart from being regenerated by God first?

I think that gives way too much credit to the so-called Calvinists. They all seem to be "cut and paste" folks, seldom presenting any of their own products of actual bible study. They cannot change "their" position because it was copyrighted in the dark ages.

But I agree with you, Calvinism has taken what scripture teaches and rewritten it by redefinition and addition to make it mistaken doctrine. Thus all men becomes all kinds of men, and a ransom for all becomes a ransom for all kinds, and unable to understand spiritual things becomes unable to understand all spiritual things.

 

[Winman]

I know you are in agreement with what I posted. He has posted this way before. I was wondering how to make sense of it.He cannot escape from the implications of what he is saying.
From the looks of it he intends to stand firmly in this position. I did not think . it was acceptable to post such a denial of the Divine attributes. I thought no one had seen or reads his posts anymore. ..that's why it remained

Well, if you want to make sense of what I believe, you have to abandon presuppositions and believe what the scriptures ACTUALLY say. Very simple.

Gen 32:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Does God say he always knew Abraham feared God here, or does he say NOW I know that thou fearest God? What does it say?

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Does God here say he already knows whether Sodom and Gomorrah had done according to the cry of it, or does God say he will go down NOW and SEE, and if not, I WILL KNOW? What does the scripture say here?

2 Chr 32:30 This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.

Does God here say he knew Hezekiah's heart, or does he say he will try Hezekiah that he MIGHT KNOW all that was in his heart? What does the scripture say?

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it plainly says, and you call me a blasphemer for believing the scriptures for what they actually say.

I would call your argument a very poor argument indeed.

Perhaps what is wrong is your presuppositions??

 

[Greektim]

I think that gives way too much credit to the so-called Calvinists. They all seem to be "cut and paste" folks, seldom presenting any of their own products of actual bible study. They cannot change "their" position because it was copyrighted in the dark ages.

But I agree with you, Calvinism has taken what scripture teaches and rewritten it by redefinition and addition to make it mistaken doctrine. Thus all men becomes all kinds of men, and a ransom for all becomes a ransom for all kinds, and unable to understand spiritual things becomes unable to understand all spiritual things.

[sarcasm]Yep... we do our theology in a vacuum, love to cut and paste, seldom study the Bible, unable to change "our" position due to copyright infringement, and are only "so-called" Calvinists.[/sarcasm]

FYI... I wasn't always a Calvinist. I have barely read any Calvinist literature, mainly b/c I am in the field of NT studies and biblical theology not systematics or reformed theology. I arrived there through personal influences and the study of Scripture.

The above is as Roman Catholic as it gets... i.e. pontificating ex cathedra. When you become the arbiter of truth, you are then allowed to dogmatize like this. Until then, it just comes off as prideful. All of that could be avoided by simply prefacing with "I believe that Calvinism has taken what scripture [sic.]..."

 

[Van]

[sarcasm]Yep... we do our theology in a vacuum, love to cut and paste, seldom study the Bible, unable to change "our" position due to copyright infringement, and are only "so-called" Calvinists.[/sarcasm]

FYI... I wasn't always a Calvinist. I have barely read any Calvinist literature, mainly b/c I am in the field of NT studies and biblical theology not systematics or reformed theology. I arrived there through personal influences and the study of Scripture.

The above is as Roman Catholic as it gets... i.e. pontificating ex cathedra. When you become the arbiter of truth, you are then allowed to dogmatize like this. Until then, it just comes off as prideful. All of that could be avoided by simply prefacing with "I believe that Calvinism has taken what scripture [sic.]..."

To bad this deep study of scripture can never be presented, only charges of arrogance and pride toward those who actually present their views. And if a truth is presented, why that is "dogmatizing" and evil. Anytime a person attacks how something is said, rather than what is said, you know the response is calculated to evade truth and offer logical fallacy. Opps, or so I believe.

 

[Van]

How much stock should we put in the fiction that we were chosen unconditionally as foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world? None.

God declares from the beginning what will occur. God makes prophecy. But He does so not by knowing the future (which He may know), but by causing what He said would occur to occur. Totally different idea. So God declares something will happen, then He causes what was declared to happen. He can predestine the "son-placing" which is our promised resurrection, and then make that "son-placing" occur when Christ returns.

So the issue is not that "predestination" was not known before the 4th century, but only that the Calvinist fictional doctrine of predestination was not known before the 4th century.

And this leaves aside the Calvinist fictional doctrine of exhaustive determinism.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not a new doctrine--Theology 101, day 1: God is omniscient. He knows the end from before the beginning. He knows our every secret and thought. He knows what we will do before we do it.

He also gave us a free will, which we exercise to willfully break His laws.

He loves us, even when we are unlovable.

He died for us through Jesus, the only begotten of The Father.

Oh, what a Saviour.

Why do we run from God?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


Bro. James

:applause::applause:

 

[quantumfaith]

[sarcasm]Yep... we do our theology in a vacuum, love to cut and paste, seldom study the Bible, unable to change "our" position due to copyright infringement, and are only "so-called" Calvinists.[/sarcasm]

FYI... I wasn't always a Calvinist. I have barely read any Calvinist literature, mainly b/c I am in the field of NT studies and biblical theology not systematics or reformed theology. I arrived there through personal influences and the study of Scripture.

The above is as Roman Catholic as it gets... i.e. pontificating ex cathedra. When you become the arbiter of truth, you are then allowed to dogmatize like this. Until then, it just comes off as prideful. All of that could be avoided by simply prefacing with "I believe that Calvinism has taken what scripture [sic.]..."

Thank you GT, I wish everyone would adopt this posture.

 

[Iconoclast]

I only saw his post through your quoting it. What does it say of our God if He must learn as a man does? It is part of the devil's lie.

Yes...his posts are off the theological radar screen worse than the missing malaysian jet plane. He chops up a list of anthropomorphic language and speaks of a god who basically needs to watch fox news to learn what is taking place in this world.

here he stands firm with this false god he describes;

Well, if you want to make sense of what I believe, you have to abandon presuppositions and believe what the scriptures ACTUALLY say. Very simple.

Gen 32:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Does God say he always knew Abraham feared God here, or does he say NOW I know that thou fearest God? What does it say?

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Does God here say he already knows whether Sodom and Gomorrah had done according to the cry of it, or does God say he will go down NOW and SEE, and if not, I WILL KNOW? What does the scripture say here?

2 Chr 32:30 This same Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.
31 Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.

Does God here say he knew Hezekiah's heart, or does he say he will try Hezekiah that he MIGHT KNOW all that was in his heart? What does the scripture say?

 

[OldRegular]

Yes...his posts are off the theological radar screen worse than the missing malaysian jet plane. He chops up a list of anthropomorphic language and speaks of a god who basically needs to watch fox news to learn what is taking place in this world.

Fox is fair and balanced so if God has to learn anything better Fox than MSNBC!:thumbsup::laugh::thumbsup::laugh:

 

[Greektim]

To bad this deep study of scripture can never be presented, only charges of arrogance and pride toward those who actually present their views. And if a truth is presented, why that is "dogmatizing" and evil. Anytime a person attacks how something is said, rather than what is said, you know the response is calculated to evade truth and offer logical fallacy. Opps, or so I believe.

The issue is not presenting truth, but how you present it. Even Paul said to speak truth, but do so in love seasoned w/ salt. And since this thread has been reduced to cinder, I figured I would point out your pontification technique. It really does come off as pride more than confidence. Less appealing. The opposing view is thus more attractive. Take the advice or leave it. It was just a suggestion. Your rhetoric is as one who could be described as a Baptist/fundie pontiff. I know you don't think of yourself in that way. But the manner of your speech says otherwise.

PS... I'm calling bull crap on the "To [sic] bad this deep study of scripture [sic] can never be presented..." statement. I have presented deeper grammatical and syntactical exegesis than any post I have seen from you. I know you don't know Greek, but I do. So to say that deep study isn't happening is either ignorance or arrogance (which is ironic since that was the accusation you leveled just after the quoted statement). Then again, I don't know that our definitions of "deep study of Scripture" is going to match. But whatever...

 

[Iconoclast]

Reformed

Winman is either

A. Advocating Open Theism

or B. Having a difficult time understanding figures of speech.

This is what happens when someone believes in rigid literalism.


The rigid literalist cannot distinguish between ;
figures of speech such as simile, allegory, metaphor, anthropomorphism etc. and true literal meaning.

Your post reminded me that most have winman on ignore and cannot see these posts...thankfully....but it is instructive to observe how this error happens...let's examine this;

Winman posts...

But for God himself to tell us "for now I know" is not figurative speech.

If the plain sense of scripture makes plain sense, look for no other sense.

Show where scripture says God cannot learn.

Why does God "search" the heart if he cannot learn? Why does he test or "try" people?

Look at the numerous scriptures that says God searches men's hearts and tries them "to know" what is in their hearts;

If God cannot learn, why does he need to try persons "to know" what is in their hearts?

You folks sure got a lot of scripture to explain away.

Does God say he always knew Abraham feared God here, or does he say NOW I know that thou fearest God? What does it say?

Does God here say he already knows whether Sodom and Gomorrah had done according to the cry of it, or does God say he will go down NOW and SEE, and if not, I WILL KNOW? What does the scripture say here?

Does God here say he knew Hezekiah's heart, or does he say he will try Hezekiah that he MIGHT KNOW all that was in his heart? What does the scripture say?

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it plainly says, and you call me a blasphemer for believing the scriptures for what they actually say.

 

[Luke2427]

Very poor example. Everyone knows Jesus is not literally bread and that you cannot eat his body and drink his blood.

But for God himself to tell us "for now I know" is not figurative speech.

If the plain sense of scripture makes plain sense, look for no other sense.

You just don't like when scripture does not agree with your presuppositions.

Skandelon,

I'd like to know what you think of Winman's claim that God LITERALLY did not know that Abraham would trust him until he saw Abraham prove it.

Let me say this.

To be an Arminian and be even remotely consistent you really do have to deny the omniscience of God.

But, frankly, you might as well deny the existence of God. Your God who learns as he goes is no mightier than Zeus- and does not exist any more than the Greek god either.

 

[Winman]

Reformed



Your post reminded me that most have winman on ignore and cannot see these posts...thankfully....but it is instructive to observe how this error happens...let's examine this;

Winman posts...

LOL, you WISH folks had me on ignore, because I constantly show scripture that refutes you.

You cannot refute me with scripture, so you resort to calling me names. Childish, but it's all you've got.

Why don't you simply show scripture that says God cannot learn? I have shown numerous scriptures that shows God does learn.

Instead of accusing me of blasphemy, why don't you present scriptural EVIDENCE to support your view? I DO.

Wow, Iconoclast shows his strength, he knows how to post smilies. Again, impressive.