The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

[kyredneck]

If you can produce the gobs of non reformed authors Winman cites, then you might have a point. Can you do it?

Post #45:

"He's a grown man, let him speak for himself."

 

[menageriekeeper]

Luke, my brother, do not be concerned about these that attack you. We both know that God is making them attack you. His purpose is higher than ours. Accept the attacks graciously, because it is simply God using them for a greater purpose.

LOL Matt! Does this mean that God is making Luke attack those who disagree with him (Luke)? I sure was glad I had finished my coke off before I read that! :laugh:

Seriously, when in scripture are we ever told that God causes division among His own? Wouldn't that be like scattering the sheep instead of gathering them?

I read you as saying clearly that "God knows all things." But how do you define how it is that God knows all things? That seems to be the sticking point. Does He know them only AFTER they happen, or does He know all things from before the foundation of the world (before time began, in essence)?

Why can't God know things from BOTH perspectives?

 

[glfredrick]

Why can't God know things from BOTH perspectives?

Why can't they be one and the same? For there to be "both" someone other than God is sovereign.

I'd suggest bowing down to whomever you hold is sovereign over God, for ultimately, that "whomever" will be more powerful than the entity we call God (or not... you roll the dice -- I won't).

 

[menageriekeeper]

Why can't they be one and the same? For there to be "both" someone other than God is sovereign.

I'd suggest bowing down to whomever you hold is sovereign over God, for ultimately, that "whomever" will be more powerful than the entity we call God (or not... you roll the dice -- I won't).

From our perspective, there has to be two to have both. But since we believe in the Trinity (you know, that whole 3 in 1 thing we espouse) we technically have 3 and in discussions of time, we have Father and Son, therefore: both. As God says, He is both the begining and the end. Logically, He should be able to see both directions.

Bwahaha, who has more authority and therefore is more "sovereign"? I bow to Christ who in turn says He bows to the Father. It is you who envision that there might be logic/knowledge that we can't yet understand. "Through a glass darkly..." as the scripture goes.

 

[Winman]

LOL Matt! Does this mean that God is making Luke attack those who disagree with him (Luke)? I sure was glad I had finished my coke off before I read that! :laugh:

Seriously, when in scripture are we ever told that God causes division among His own? Wouldn't that be like scattering the sheep instead of gathering them?



Why can't God know things from BOTH perspectives?

Yes, Calvinists teach that God determines everything, but when man sins they say he is not to blame.

Whose fault is it when the elect sin?

 

[glfredrick]

I didn't think you would.

Please do fill me in... You are seeing something that may not even be there.

I seem to recall Jesus pulled one of these verses out of context when they accused him of blasphemy. No?

Neither you nor I are Jesus...

I ask my pastor questions all the time. He has never had to correct me, and believe me, he would. However, he has said that the average church goer would not understand them. He says he enjoys my questions as they make him consider new viewpoints. He in return gives me his views.

Truly, questions are good. But do you accept answers or is your mind made up when you ask the question? If the second option, then you are begging the question and won't be convinced of anything other than what you already know. Again, I'm not saying that to be mean, but that is the way you often come off in these threads. We know that you do not have a formal theological education. We know that you do not do a ton of theological reading, and that when you do, you rely on sources of one particular persuasion. Perhaps it is time to expand your repertoire.

Let me ask you a question, who was speaking in person to Adam and Eve? Cain? Abraham as he was about to sacrifice Isaac?

Just to make sure of my answer, I looked up those passages (and every time "God" spoke in the early chapters of the OT) and the answer is "YHWH" ( יהוה )with an occasional Elohim ( אלהים ) thrown in for emphasis (rarely).

In the Septuigint, the translation is universally "Theos" ( θεός )

The Scriptural record indicates that "God" was speaking.

In particular, in Genesis 3, God spoke of Christ in the third person, "He will bruise his heel..." which further adds confidence that God was the speaker in all of those instances.

If you are thinking "theophany" then, yes, I can cite several other OT passages where it seems that there was a pre-incarnate Christ at work in the world as well.

 

[Winman]

Post #45:

"He's a grown man, let him speak for himself."

I may have quoted non-reformed authors in my 3600+ posts, but you could count them on one hand and have a few fingers left over.

I have quoted reformed authors several times, usually when those here deny their own doctrine. For example, I have shown that some reformed scholars teach a man can be regenerated for years before they actually trust Christ. This would be a spiritually alive, born again person who is also spiritually dead in trespasses and sins at the same time!

Who needs non reformed scholars? Your own scholars give me all the ammo I'll ever need.

 

[webdog]

So, I'm thinking that you have a problem with this VERSE that says that Christ set aside His deity...

Phl 2:5-8 (ESV) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

I'll note that the first heresy that hit the church in the 1st century was the heresy that said that Christ was only God and not man.

There is no real sense in dealing with the rest of the post until we settle this issue.

...you also realize that kenosis is deemed a heresy in itself by many, right? Where does that passage say He "emptied Himself" or set aside His deity? You do realize what that means, right? If He gave up his divinity, it makes the atonement worthless. Man, you seriously need to reconsider your position on this!

That passage IS saying that Christ took the form of a bond servant and was made in the image of man...not that He gave up His divinity. If you believe in the doctrine of kenosis, we don't have a common ground to move on from.

 

[webdog]

Post #45:

"He's a grown man, let him speak for himself."

So the answer is no, I take it.

Not really one to call him out then, huh?

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, Calvinists teach that God determines everything, but when man sins they say he is not to blame.

Whose fault is it when the elect sin?

What does "elect" have to do with sin?

Also, YOU are saying (in opposition to MULTIPLE POSTS where Calvinists have made it VERY clear) that God is deterministic. Just like you wish for we "cals" to realize that you believe that "God knows everything" you must give on this point that God is not deterministic. HE IS NOT.

Again, to be "deterministic," God would have to have made robots. He did not. The same passages in the Scripture that you use we use. Scripture is not divided against itself.

For what it is worth, if you wish to find a true expression of a deterministic deity, check out Islam. Allah is deterministic.

 

[Winman]

Please do fill me in... You are seeing something that may not even be there.

That's possible, I have said several times I could be wrong.

Neither you nor I are Jesus...

You are the master of the obvious.

Truly, questions are good.

Yes, you Cals/DoGs should try questioning your doctrine sometime.

But do you accept answers or is your mind made up when you ask the question? ... We know that you do not have a formal theological education. We know that you do not do a ton of theological reading, and that when you do, you rely on sources of one particular persuasion. Perhaps it is time to expand your repertoire.

I'm like anybody else, I like to think I am right, but I have found through experience that this isn't always the case. I trust my pastor, I know he knows more "theology" than me. I take his views very seriously. You are wrong about me following a particular persuasion though, anybody who knows me such as my teachers in school will easily tell you that I have never followed the crowd.

Just to make sure of my answer, I looked up those passages (and every time "God" spoke in the early chapters of the OT) and the answer is "YHWH" ( יהוה )with an occasional Elohim ( אלהים ) thrown in for emphasis (rarely)...
The Scriptural record indicates that "God" was speaking.
In particular, in Genesis 3, God spoke of Christ in the third person, "He will bruise his heel..." which further adds confidence that God was the speaker in all of those instances.
If you are thinking "theophany" then, yes, I can cite several other OT passages where it seems that there was a pre-incarnate Christ at work in the world as well.

John 1:18 says that no man hath seen God at any time, how do you explain this?

 

[kyredneck]

I may have quoted non-reformed authors in my 3600+ posts, but you could count them on one hand and have a few fingers left over.

OK.

I have quoted reformed authors several times.........

This is very true. In fact, Winman, in your obsessive quest to stamp out the truths of God's Sovereign Grace you've quoted reformed authors more than a lot of Calvinists here on this board. For someone who claims not to read commentaries or the 'works of man', and all the while accusing the Calvinists of being 'mindless parrots', just who are you parroting with all these reformed quotes? I must deduce that you are a parrot Winman, and a very hypocritical one at that.

Do you still get a lot of your 'ammo' from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/ ?

 

[Robert Snow]

OK.



This is very true. In fact, Winman, in your obsessive quest to stamp out the truths of God's Sovereign Grace you've quoted reformed authors more than a lot of Calvinists here on this board. For someone who claims not to read commentaries or the 'works of man', and all the while accusing the Calvinists of being 'mindless parrots', just who are you parroting with all these reformed quotes? I must deduce that you are a parrot Winman, and a very hypocritical one at that.

Do you still get a lot of your 'ammo' from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/ ?

Why do you Primitive Baptist church goers get so upset when someone point's out the errors of hyper-Calvinism?

 

[Winman]

OK.
This is very true. In fact, Winman, in your obsessive quest to stamp out the truths of God's Sovereign Grace you've quoted reformed authors more than a lot of Calvinists here on this board. For someone who claims not to read commentaries or the 'works of man', and all the while accusing the Calvinists of being 'mindless parrots', just who are you parroting with all these reformed quotes? I must deduce that you are a parrot Winman, and a very hypocritical one at that.
Do you still get a lot of your 'ammo' from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/ ?

I got a reformed quote from that site, so what? I will search "does regeneration precede faith" and many sites pop up. That site had a quote from an assistant of R.C. Sproul that was documented, so I presented it. If it is the truth, what does it matter where I got it? I searched this because I already knew that some Cals/DoGs hold this view. In fact, I was using this quote to prove to some Cals/DoGS that denied you held this doctrine.

By the way, that chuch is hyper-dispensationalist which I also strongly disagree with.

 

[Winman]

By the way, if I really wanted to make your doctrine look foolish I could go to the Outside the Camp website. According to them, most of the Cals/DoGs here would be considered Pelagians!

There are a few here though that would be right at home. Wild stuff.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, it's these kind of statements that usually result in snide remarks. This is not only insulting and rude, but completely uncalled for. You have a habit of slipping this kind of nonsense in good debates and then pretend to be innocent of any wrong doing. Please stop. You have been respectful these past few weeks, why are you blowing it now?

The problem webdog is that you took this quote completely out of context. The honorable thing to do would have been to quote the WHOLE post including that part where I clarified what I meant.

 

[Luke2427]

I agree so much, statements like this only serve to be inflammatory and convey the message of "my ways are so above yours." Continually "yanking anothers chain" in such manner is simply not the proper thing to do. One can tell another brother that they believe them to be wrong or in error in a much more appropriate manner.

Quantum, I expect more of you. Quote the whole post. The context conveys a far different meaning than the snipped line webdog chose to focus on.

We have come to expect that from some- don't sink to their level, please.

 

[Luke2427]

If Luke is any indication of Calvinist fervor, no wonder Calvin murdered those who disagreed with him. Thank God these men, like Luke, don't control the government, or we might all be running for our lives.

I guess this is the logical conclusion to Calvinism. Since the non-elect have no hope of heaven, why not kill them now, no great loss.

Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of history.

Even ARMINIAN historians would not make such a claim.

This is why I said what webdog is criticizing above. Ignorance is a terrible danger in Christendom.

 

[Luke2427]

The irony is when I respond to such garbage by calling it what it is, I'm the one that is construed as "starting" the inflammatory back and forth, and he will go back and pull random replies of mine to prove that I'm the instigator here on the BB. If it weren't so sad it would be laughable.

Sad- right. Sad and true that you are inflammatory.

Many others concur.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum, I expect more of you. Quote the whole post. The context conveys a far different meaning than the snipped line webdog chose to focus on.

We have come to expect that from some- don't sink to their level, please.

Luke, we should all strive (and I include myself) not to post any snips whatsoever, realizing of course, our "human nature" does at time get the best of us to retort. And I do not mean this only directed at my DoG brothers, but ALL of us.