The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

[jbh28]

We all have opinions, your is no more valid than anyone else's.

If I controlled the BB, I might not allow Calvinist to post here, but again, that's my opinion.

I put up with the seemingly millions of pro-Calvinists threads, you can put up with a few you don't agree with.

I think there is a difference between beliefs of election and saying that God isn't omniscient. I do think though the Winman is slightly confused by the issue and maybe is open to understanding. ----trying to be understanding.

 

[jbh28]

Why would God call those whom He knows will not believe?

My wife and I discussed this last evening. I shared with her the view that some on here call foolish, that we teach God works upon those whom He knows ultimately will not receive Him. This is called a waste of time from those, among other things. My wife and I understood and discussed that God has always done this.

Further, some (several probably) have said it is utter foolishness to say, as believing Calvinists, that God calls to repentance and works on those whom He knows won't receive Him. They call this utter nonsense and mock it. In other words, since we, Calvinists know only the elect will receive Him, they say it is ridiculous for God to call all to Him, knowing some will not come to Him, so thus He should only call His elect.

They do and say this because they are not familiar with Gods' ways and it shows a considerate lack of understanding God, and His ways, and His dealings with man, which is typical in churches today.

He has always done this, calling those who cannot and will not obey.

God called the Israelites into the Promised Land to destroy all others therein. Why call them when He knew they would not do it? By the argument of some it is foolishness to call someone to do a thing that he will not do.

God gave us the Law to keep. Why would He do that? He knew we would not keep it, nor could we. According to some, it is nonsense when God is calling on someone to do something He full well knows they will not keep.

God gave us the 10 commandments. Why would He do this?

God called for Saul to destroy all of the Amalekites, yet He knew he would not do it. Why bother?

God has done this many times in Scripture, calling those whom He knows would not do what He has said or commanded.

He called His people Israel over and over and over to Him in the OT and knew they would not do it.

God called Jeremiah to preach to people who would not listen.

The same God then now commands everyone to repent, knowing that not all will.

Those who believe God calling and working on those who will ultimately reject Him are missing the point about God. He will do as He wills. Those who are His will receive Him, His irresisitible grace will win out. Who are you to say it is nonsense for God to do so?

God is way above our thoughts, and this is how He works in history and among mankind, yet some ridicule this. I'd be very cautious to call how He works, yes, even calling those who will not receive Him, anything other than glorious and Sovereign.

I think God is simply showing us who they are that know Him, who his sheep really are, and only those who are really His will obey His voice and come to Him. On the other side of the coin He justly shows those who are already condemned.

sorry your OP is off already....Here is the OP again and maybe we can get back to that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I know bro. It's unreal that people believe this stuff, especially from a guy who says the Bible is so simple. Someone that says the Bible is simple has other areas that need to be tended to.

Thanks for your input.

:thumbs:

This is what comes of having no doctrines ..... Just Bible

 

[Winman]

I know you have quoted this verse, that's why I did. But, I thought you just got done saying God doesn't know things till they happened? Can't have it both ways. A circle isn't a square.
It's called language. The Bible is clear that God is unchangeable and all knowing. God asking questions doesn't mean that He doesn't know the answers. It's like God testing Abraham. It wasn't for God to learn the answer, but for Abraham.

Actually, a circle is a good analogy of my theory. I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS!!

In Revelation, Jesus said he was the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end. That alone defies our comprehension. He is both the beginning of time, and the end of time at the same time.

Now imagine a clock with Jesus at 12 o'clock position. This represents both the beginning and the end. As you move clockwise, you are advancing in time. This is man's perspective. In this perspective, you can only know things as they happen.

But starting at 12 o'clock, go counter-clockwise. Now you are looking back in time from the end. In this perspective you can know everything that will happen, because you know everything that actually did happen.

And we have this perspective as well. Looking back in time we know exactly what did happen. I know Columbus found the New World in 1492. I know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

However, our perspective of the past is only from the present. We can only tell what has happened in the past from TODAY. But Jesus is the Omega, the END. He exists at the end of time NOW, and can look back and tell us everything that will happen, because from his perspective it already has happened.

Look what God said in Isaiah.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Here God says he can the declare the end of time from the beginning. He can tell us things not yet done.

How can he do this? He can do this because he is both the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end at the same moment.

It all depends upon the perspective he chooses at any given time. Sometimes he speaks in the forward looking perspective. In this perspective he does not know what happens until it occurs, just as we do not.

At other times he speaks to us in the perspective of the Omega looking back in time at those things that have already taken place in his perspective. In this perspective he can tell you everything that will ever happen without error.

Both meet at 12 o'clock. It is both the beginning and the end. The perspective is whether he looks clockwise in a forward looking perspective, or looks counter-clockwise in a back-in-time perspective.

I know this is a wild theory. But I was intrigued how Jesus said he was both Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Many say God is outside time, but this seems to me to suggest he is time itself.

Just a theory, I could easily be in error. I am not trying to push this on anybody. Just stuff that goes through my head.

 

[preacher4truth]

Actually, a circle is a good analogy of my theory. I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS!!

In Revelation, Jesus said he was the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end. That alone defies our comprehension. He is both the beginning of time, and the end of time at the same time.

Now imagine a clock with Jesus at 12 o'clock position. This represents both the beginning and the end. As you move clockwise, you are advancing in time. This is man's perspective. In this perspective, you can only know things as they happen.

But starting at 12 o'clock, go counter-clockwise. Now you are looking back in time from the end. In this perspective you can know everything that will happen, because you know everything that actually did happen.

And we have this perspective as well. Looking back in time we know exactly what did happen. I know Columbus found the New World in 1492. I know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

However, our perspective of the past is only from the present. We can only tell what has happened in the past from TODAY. But Jesus is the Omega, the END. He exists at the end of time NOW, and can look back and tell us everything that will happen, because from his perspective it already has happened.

Look what God said in Isaiah.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Here God says he can the declare the end of time from the beginning. He can tell us things not yet done.

How can he do this? He can do this because he is both the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end at the same moment.

It all depends upon the perspective he chooses at any given time. Sometimes he speaks in the forward looking perspective. In this perspective he does not know what happens until it occurs, just as we do not.

At other times he speaks to us in the perspective of the Omega looking back in time at those things that have already taken place in his perspective. In this perspective he can tell you everything that will ever happen without error.

Both meet at 12 o'clock. It is both the beginning and the end. The perspective is whether he looks clockwise in a forward looking perspective, or looks counter-clockwise in a back-in-time perspective.

I know this is a wild theory. But I was intrigued how Jesus said he was both Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Many say God is outside time, but this seems to me to suggest he is time itself.

Just a theory, I could easily be in error. I am not trying to push this on anybody. Just stuff that goes through my head.

So now you are teaching that Jesus is "time?" You have got to quit attempting to try and find some "big truth" in one verse! This is EXACTLY why I had a thread I started on why Bible only can, and has been, and will be dangerous for some to use by itself.

Brother, seriously, go get some theological training. I say this out of concern for you and those whom you teach. It will help greatly. I know you will listen to none of us, but perhaps in school you will listen to them.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Actually, a circle is a good analogy of my theory. I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS!!

In Revelation, Jesus said he was the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end. That alone defies our comprehension. He is both the beginning of time, and the end of time at the same time.

Now imagine a clock with Jesus at 12 o'clock position. This represents both the beginning and the end. As you move clockwise, you are advancing in time. This is man's perspective. In this perspective, you can only know things as they happen.

But starting at 12 o'clock, go counter-clockwise. Now you are looking back in time from the end. In this perspective you can know everything that will happen, because you know everything that actually did happen.

And we have this perspective as well. Looking back in time we know exactly what did happen. I know Columbus found the New World in 1492. I know the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

However, our perspective of the past is only from the present. We can only tell what has happened in the past from TODAY. But Jesus is the Omega, the END. He exists at the end of time NOW, and can look back and tell us everything that will happen, because from his perspective it already has happened.

Look what God said in Isaiah.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Here God says he can the declare the end of time from the beginning. He can tell us things not yet done.

How can he do this? He can do this because he is both the Alpha, the beginning, and the Omega, the end at the same moment.

It all depends upon the perspective he chooses at any given time. Sometimes he speaks in the forward looking perspective. In this perspective he does not know what happens until it occurs, just as we do not.

At other times he speaks to us in the perspective of the Omega looking back in time at those things that have already taken place in his perspective. In this perspective he can tell you everything that will ever happen without error.

Both meet at 12 o'clock. It is both the beginning and the end. The perspective is whether he looks clockwise in a forward looking perspective, or looks counter-clockwise in a back-in-time perspective.

I know this is a wild theory. But I was intrigued how Jesus said he was both Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Many say God is outside time, but this seems to me to suggest he is time itself.

Just a theory, I could easily be in error. I am not trying to push this on anybody. Just stuff that goes through my head.

Win- I find that as a very interesting theory—not one I completely agree with, but one that is at least worth consideration. But here’s what I personally deduce from Scripture--Do verses such as Gen 22:12 that portray God as saying “and now I know” really describe Him as learning something new? Or are they God reaffirming certain truths He already knew? In Gen 22:12—what God (the angel of the Lord) supposedly learns is that Abraham “fears God.” Does God not already know this or has He forgotten Abraham’s track record of faith & obedience up to this event. Scripture is clear that God knows all (1 Jn 3:10), even going so far as in Isa 46:10—that He knows & declares “the end from the beginning & from ancient times things not yet done.” And Pss 139:16 indicates that he knew all our days before we lived them. How could God not know that Abraham feared Him considering He knows all & has witnessed past events that clearly demonstrate Abraham’s track record of obedience & faith. In Gen 18:20-21 God says He will know of Sodom’s sin only if He goes down & sees for himself—did God really have to do this to know or would his omnipresent ability & knowledge about the past/current events give him the needed information. I have no problem with those who endorse the idea that God knows all possibilities & allows us the freedom to act in and of ourselves (via free will) to make or own choices, but to say that God can learn comes awful close to open theism, & it is this very platform (verses such as Gen 22:12) that open theist attempt to use to demonstrate their false teaching with faulty exegesis. Now I want to be very clear—I’m not associating your personal theory with open theism—I just think we have to be careful when we ay that God has the ability to learn—b/c it does question his genuine omniscience—but I do find your theory noteworthy & will look more into it-God bless!.

 

[Winman]

So now you are teaching that Jesus is "time?" You have got to quit attempting to try and find some "big truth" in one verse! This is EXACTLY why I had a thread I started on why Bible only can, and has been, and will be dangerous for some to use by itself.

Brother, seriously, go get some theological training. I say this out of concern for you and those whom you teach. It will help greatly. I know you will listen to none of us, but perhaps in school you will listen to them.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Tell me, are the words "beginning" and "end" terms of time? And Jesus says he IS the beginning and he IS the end. He is time itself.

Are the terms "which is" (the present) and "which was" (the past), and "which is to come" (the future) terms of time?

You need to learn to think for yourself. I do.

 

[jbh28]

So now you are teaching that Jesus is "time?" You have got to quit attempting to try and find some "big truth" in one verse! This is EXACTLY why I had a thread I started on why Bible only can, and has been, and will be dangerous for some to use by itself.

Brother, seriously, go get some theological training. I say this out of concern for you and those whom you teach. It will help greatly. I know you will listen to none of us, but perhaps in school you will listen to them.

Precisely what I was going to say. God is bound by time.

 

[preacher4truth]

Oh Boy...

Winman, refer to my post about you needing training. And go get some immediately if not sooner.

How about you go argue Jesus is "time" with your verse, with another who wants to argue He is "no, he is bread!" from another.

With your reasoning one could conclude a watch and a loaf of bread. I say this with all reverence to who He is, not to what you are painting Him to be in your own weak methodology. (I am assuming a methodology)

You have got to quit proof texting. You prove your premise that Scriptures are simple to be a completely erroneous ideology.

That He is Alpha and Omega simply states and shows Him as the Eternal being who has always existed, not that He is time. He created time.

Your analogy takes away from His Deity.

You do believe in the Deity of Christ, correct?

 

[quantumfaith]

Win- I find that as a very interesting theory—not one I completely agree with, but one that is at least worth consideration. But here’s what I personally deduce from Scripture--Do verses such as Gen 22:12 that portray God as saying “and now I know” really describe Him as learning something new? Or are they God reaffirming certain truths He already knew? In Gen 22:12—what God (the angel of the Lord) supposedly learns is that Abraham “fears God.” Does God not already know this or has He forgotten Abraham’s track record of faith & obedience up to this event. Scripture is clear that God knows all (1 Jn 3:10), even going so far as in Isa 46:10—that He knows & declares “the end from the beginning & from ancient times things not yet done.” And Pss 139:16 indicates that he knew all our days before we lived them. How could God not know that Abraham feared Him considering He knows all & has witnessed past events that clearly demonstrate Abraham’s track record of obedience & faith. In Gen 18:20-21 God says He will know of Sodom’s sin only if He goes down & sees for himself—did God really have to do this to know or would his omnipresent ability & knowledge about the past/current events give him the needed information. I have no problem with those who endorse the idea that God knows all possibilities & allows us the freedom to act in and of ourselves (via free will) to make or own choices, but to say that God can learn comes awful close to open theism, & it is this very platform (verses such as Gen 22:12) that open theist attempt to use to demonstrate their false teaching with faulty exegesis. Now I want to be very clear—I’m not associating your personal theory with open theism—I just think we have to be careful when we ay that God has the ability to learn—b/c it does question his genuine omniscience—but I do find your theory noteworthy & will look more into it-God bless!.

Thanks so much Gabriel on how you approach your responses to others. You insight and spirit in such manner is appreciated, particularly your manner.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Thanks so much Gabriel on how you approach your responses to others. You insight and spirit in such manner is appreciated, particularly your manner.

Thank for the kind words. Although I always don’t agree with others—if I ever want them to respect my ideas—I have to respect their ideas—so how I say something to them is just as important as what I’m saying to them. Honestly my theology aligns up more with the abrasive & rebuking voices in this thread, but I personally never forget that it was being open-minded to other theories that brought me to the reformed camp-- when I was at one time diametrically opposed to its teachings. :jesus:

 

[Tom Butler]

Winman, it appears you have thought through your position, and have appealed to scripture for support.

Since we recognize that there are some scriptures which seem to contradict, one good rule of hermeneutics is to interpret ambiguous passages in the light of clear, unambiguous scriptures. Some passages are open to more than one interpretation, and I think God's questions to Adam in the garden, and the angel's words to Abraham in Genesis can fall into that category.

On the other hand, other scriptures dealing with the same matters are clear and not subject to any other interpretation. One I can think of, for instance is Acts 2:23, where Peter preached:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain

No matter how one sees that passage, whether emphasizing the determinate counsel or the foreknowledge of God, it is clear that God knows, and has known from eternity, the actions of men in crucifying the Lord Jesus.

I understand that your view is more nuanced than I am treating it, but it seems to me that this verse doesn't require any nuancing.

To adopt your view, one must also do away with God's attribute of immutability. For God not to know something, then at some point in time knows it, would be a change in Him.

There is a sense in which God is outside of time; and, that he sees all things--even future events--as in his mind already accomplished.

I believe God is omniscient, omnipotent and immutable. And i believe your view undermines all three.

That said, I'm going to re-read your post to make sure I haven't misread you. And if you think I have, I'm open to hear it.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thank for the kind words. Although I always don’t agree with others—if I ever want them to respect my ideas—I have to respect their ideas—so how I say something to them is just as important as what I’m saying to them. Honestly my theology aligns up more with the abrasive & rebuking voices in this thread, but I personally never forget that it was being open-minded to other theories that brought me to the reformed camp-- when I was at one time diametrically opposed to its teachings. :jesus:

God bless you brother, though we see things slightly differently "theologically" speaking, your attitude of tolerance, difference and intellectual honesty speaks highly of you.

 

[Winman]

I believe God is omniscient, omnipotent and immutable. And i believe your view undermines all three.

That said, I'm going to re-read your post to make sure I haven't misread you. And if you think I have, I'm open to hear it.

It is just a theory. I could easily be wrong. If you see real problems with it where it violates scripture let me know. But show me scripture and let me hear in YOUR words why it is wrong. One big problem I have with Cals/DoGs here is that they MINDLESSLY PARROT the writings of Reformed writers. I'm sorry, but most of these guys could not think themselves out of a wet paper bag, yet they believe themselves brilliant.

Say what you will, but I can think for myself.

I don't know if anybody realizes this, but I am actually agreeing with both sides here. I believe in free will, at the same time I agree with Cals that God brings his purposes to pass and is in control.

Again, that may seem a contradiction, but some scripture appears to contradict itself.

I do not believe there is any contradiction, I believe the problem our failure to properly understand scripture.

But I'll tell you this, we will never figure it out by mindlessly parroting teachers who obviously failed to reconcile these scriptures in the past.

 

[Luke2427]

I bet I have posted John 6:64 at least 50 times in the past year saying that God knows from the beginning all who will believe. I believe this, and this is whom I have always said I believe God elects. But you Cals have denied every time that election could be based on foreknowledge. Electing those whom he knows will believe would refute Unconditional Election.

I believe God knows all things. At the same time I am confronted with scripture that clearly suggests he does not know some things until they happen such as would Abraham truly sacrifice Isaac in Gen 22:12.

I don't understand this, well, I think I do, but it is purely a theory of mine and could possibly be error. I am not like many here who believe themselves infallible.

Look, if you guys want to try to get me banned, that is your privilege. I am showing the truth as I see it in scripture. But I will say this, this forum permits all sorts of controversial views, we have Preterists, those who believe in the Gap theory, those who believe the world billions of years old...
All sorts of controversial views.

I submit scripture to support my views. If you think I am wrong, then simply refute the scripture I submit.

The problem Winman is that you lack the humility to even stop to CONSIDER if your views meet the standards of orthodoxy.

You lack the theological education to even know the importance of orthodoxy.

And you lack the needed reverence and fear for this subject so much that you are LITERALLY posting that God almighty is not omniscient.

Whether or not you are a full blown open theist is besides the point here. You are clearly promoting on baptistboard the WORST aspect of open theism.

Now you need to get out from under this ignorant, backwater fundy mess and put yourself under some folks who have sense enough to help you get on the right path.

It is perfectly ok to be uneducated. It is perfectly ok to study the Scriptures without a seminary degree; but when you go to digging this deep and coming up with this mess- it's time for you to humble yourself and get some training.
You are diving into water that is too deep for the scuba equipment you possess.

You are trying to scale the Mariana Trench in your swim trunks.

You are not intellectually equipped for this kind of depth and you are becoming dangerous because you lack the humility to admit it.

 

[Robert Snow]

The problem Winman is that you lack the humility to even stop to CONSIDER if your views meet the standards of orthodoxy.

You lack the theological education to even know the importance of orthodoxy.

And you lack the needed reverence and fear for this subject so much that you are LITERALLY posting that God almighty is not omniscient.

Whether or not you are a full blown open theist is besides the point here. You are clearly promoting on baptistboard the WORST aspect of open theism.

Now you need to get out from under this ignorant, backwater fundy mess and put yourself under some folks who have sense enough to help you get on the right path.

It is perfectly ok to be uneducated. It is perfectly ok to study the Scriptures without a seminary degree; but when you go to digging this deep and coming up with this mess- it's time for you to humble yourself and get some training.
You are diving into water that is too deep for the scuba equipment you possess.

You are trying to scale the Mariana Trench in your swim trunks.

You are not intellectually equipped for this kind of depth and you are becoming dangerous because you lack the humility to admit it.

Just when I think you could not possibly be more condescending toward others you outdo yourself.

 

[Luke2427]

Just when I think you could not possibly be more condescending toward others you outdo yourself.

I put you in that same category, Robert.

Everything I said to Winman is applicable to you too, imo- perhaps not quite to the same degree, but applicable still.

However, if you will not renounce this ridiculous mess that Winman is spewing which undermines the omniscience of God, I'd say it applies to you to the EXACT same degree.

 

[Robert Snow]

I put you in that same category, Robert.

Everything I said to Winman is applicable to you too, imo- perhaps not quite to the same degree, but applicable still.

However, if you will not renounce this ridiculous mess that Winman is spewing which undermines the omniscience of God, I'd say it applies to you to the EXACT same degree.

Well, if being "highly educated" means being like you, I will pass.

You remind me a a remark I heard a preacher say many years ago about Christians who value their doctrine and orthodoxy above God's love and concern for sinners. You may be as straight as a gun barrel, but your just as empty!

 

[Tom Butler]

It is just a theory. I could easily be wrong. If you see real problems with it where it violates scripture let me know. But show me scripture and let me hear in YOUR words why it is wrong. One big problem I have with Cals/DoGs here is that they MINDLESSLY PARROT the writings of Reformed writers. I'm sorry, but most of these guys could not think themselves out of a wet paper bag, yet they believe themselves brilliant.

Say what you will, but I can think for myself.

I don't know if anybody realizes this, but I am actually agreeing with both sides here. I believe in free will, at the same time I agree with Cals that God brings his purposes to pass and is in control.

Again, that may seem a contradiction, but some scripture appears to contradict itself.

I do not believe there is any contradiction, I believe the problem our failure to properly understand scripture.

But I'll tell you this, we will never figure it out by mindlessly parroting teachers who obviously failed to reconcile these scriptures in the past.

I thought I had appealed to scripture for my view. And although I am a DoG, I tried not to argue for that soteriology, but to argue for God's omniscience and immutability. Which, seems to me, any non-Cal could argue for, as well.

And I had no Reformed writers in mind when I made my case. And I would certainly never suggest that you can't think for yourself. You have proven that you can.

 

[Winman]

I thought I had appealed to scripture for my view. And although I am a DoG, I tried not to argue for that soteriology, but to argue for God's omniscience and immutability. Which, seems to me, any non-Cal could argue for, as well.

And I had no Reformed writers in mind when I made my case. And I would certainly never suggest that you can't think for yourself. You have proven that you can.

I am not saying God does not know all things, I believe he does. What I am suggesting is that he might have two perspectives, in one view he sees things as they happen, in the other view he can see all things that will ever take place.

Look, if a person is honest they must admit that God makes statements that suggests he does not know some things until they happen such as Gen 22:12.

You cannot simply ignore scripture you do not like because it disturbs your personal doctrine.

Perhaps we will never understand this, perhaps this is an area of knowledge that we are not allowed to know, but I am not going to disregard scripture because it upsets someone else's "canned" doctrine.