What UNIQUELY sets apart a 'work of God' from every other common event in history?

[psalms109:31]

Jeremiah 23:
21 I did not send these prophets,
yet they have run with their message;
I did not speak to them,
yet they have prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my council,
they would have proclaimed my words to my people
and would have turned them from their evil ways
and from their evil deeds.

Lamentations 3:
5 The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him,
to the one who seeks him;
26 it is good to wait quietly
for the salvation of the Lord.
27 It is good for a man to bear the yoke
while he is young.

28 Let him sit alone in silence,
for the Lord has laid it on him.
29 Let him bury his face in the dust—
there may yet be hope.
30 Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him,
and let him be filled with disgrace.

31 For no one is cast off
by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to anyone.

Ezekiel 18:25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

 

[Luke2427]

And Jeffrey Dahmer never tortured and ate a child but by the divine power and under the purposeful control and determinate counsel of God.....uhhhh, NO.

See, brother, this is unmitigated proof that you are an Arminian for emotional, not rational or exegetical reasons.

THIS here is the FOUNDATIONAL REASONING for your theology.

It is not "the bible says..."

It is "I find the implications reprehensible."

It doesn't mean it's not true, it means whether or not its true you refuse to accept it because you do not like it.

 

[convicted1]

The best way I can see this is that anything that happens, God either allowed it or He directly brought it to pass. And in all of it, it is good, because the only thing that comes from Him is holy, just, and good. Now, my finite mind can't truly wrap around what I just typed, but how can a finite mind truly comprehend infinite God? I know that what He desires to happen will come to pass, and I take comfort in that.

 

[Luke2427]

The best way I can see this is that anything that happens, God either allowed it or He directly brought it to pass. And in all of it, it is good, because the only thing that comes from Him is holy, just, and good. Now, my finite mind can't truly wrap around what I just typed, but how can a finite mind truly comprehend infinite God? I know that what He desires to happen will come to pass, and I take comfort in that.

Very well said- very biblical.

 

[convicted1]

Very well said- very biblical.

I keep thinking, "Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who can be His counsel"? I know I can't. He is God, and besides Him, there is none other. I just bow to Him in adoration.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

See, brother, this is unmitigated proof that you are an Arminian for emotional, not rational or exegetical reasons.

THIS here is the FOUNDATIONAL REASONING for your theology.

It is not "the bible says..."

It is "I find the implications reprehensible."

It doesn't mean it's not true, it means whether or not its true you refuse to accept it because you do not like it.

BINGO! Give this man his prize Leroy!:laugh:

 

[Winman]

I disagree, the scripture in several places show men doing things which God never commanded, nor things that God desired.

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Three times in Jeremiah God says the Jews sacrificed their children to idols, which he never commanded, neither did this sin come into his mind or heart.

Now it is certain only that God allowed this. He could not have ordained it, because to ordain something is to command it to happen, which God denies he did.

There were other instances besides this mentioned in scripture.

Hos 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

Here again the Jews sinned by setting up kings and princes, but not by the Lord. God denies any involvement in this.

You have to deal with scripture like this, and you can't simply say scripture doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Skandelon]

Very well said- very biblical.

? Luke, he said, "God either allowed it ..." and I've never known you to believe in pure permissive will, right?

Just want clarity on this point...you still do believe that God permits that which he has determined, right? I just remember going round and round with you on this point so I had to comment.

 

[Skandelon]

See, brother, this is unmitigated proof that you are an Arminian for emotional, not rational or exegetical reasons.

THIS here is the FOUNDATIONAL REASONING for your theology.

It is not "the bible says..."

It is "I find the implications reprehensible."

It doesn't mean it's not true, it means whether or not its true you refuse to accept it because you do not like it.

1. I just added this to YOUR list and for some reason you don't like it. Why not? Own it if its true or argue against it if it's not. Your's is the only emotional response here as you are objecting emotionally to the implications of a God who determines that men will molest, kill and eat children by His "divine power and under the purposeful control and determinate counsel of His will." (your words)

2. I have debated 'the bible says' passages with you until we are blue in the face and you know it. And how about Winman's latest 'the bible says,'

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.​

So, please don't pretend that we haven't answered your misinterpretations of your proof texts, because we have...and don't pretend we haven't presented plenty of text which support our view, because we have.

 

[zrs6v4]

? Luke, he said, "God either allowed it ..." and I've never known you to believe in pure permissive will, right?

Just want clarity on this point...you still do believe that God permits that which he has determined, right? I just remember going round and round with you on this point so I had to comment.

I was wondering the same thing

 

[Luke2427]

1. I just added this to YOUR list and for some reason you don't like it. Why not? Own it if its true or argue against it if it's not. Your's is the only emotional response here as you are objecting emotionally to the implications of a God who determines that men will molest, kill and eat children by His "divine power and under the purposeful control and determinate counsel of His will." (your words)

I did not object to anything.

I simply pointed out to you that your statement proves that your theology is based, not on Scripture, but on the fact that you don't like the idea that God might ordain terrible things.

Saying, "God ordained blah, blah, blah (some terrible thing)... UH.. NO!" is not an argument.

It is just you identifying that, whether or not it is true, you don't like it and therefore refuse to accept it.

2. I have debated 'the bible says' passages with you until we are blue in the face and you know it. And how about Winman's latest 'the bible says,'

The last passage we debated ended up with you saying basically, "I don't care if your interpretation is sound exegetically- I reject it because you do not appeal to enough authorities."

 

[Luke2427]

? Luke, he said, "God either allowed it ..." and I've never known you to believe in pure permissive will, right?

Just want clarity on this point...you still do believe that God permits that which he has determined, right? I just remember going round and round with you on this point so I had to comment.

Your memory is poor- that's the problem here.

We had a debate a year ago where we discussed the validity of the word "allow" where I said in NO UNCERTAIN terms that the word "allow" is PERFECTLY acceptable as long as you understand it properly. To allow means to permit or not to prevent.

God does not prevent what he has ordained. He allows it. He ordained that Christ would be crucified and then when the time came- he allowed it to take place.

We have to keep covering the same ground because your memory is failing.

 

[Skandelon]

Your memory is poor- that's the problem here.

We had a debate a year ago where we discussed the validity of the word "allow" where I said in NO UNCERTAIN terms that the word "allow" is PERFECTLY acceptable as long as you understand it properly. To allow means to permit or not to prevent.

God does not prevent what he has ordained. He allows it. He ordained that Christ would be crucified and then when the time came- he allowed it to take place.

Right, that is what I was referring to and that is just as I remembered you saying it.

Some people, like Willis (the guy you agreed with), believe in bare permission (remember that term?), where as you believe that everything is ordain/decreed/determined and yet also feel the need to tell us that God has to permit that which he already determined. Seems a bit redundant but whatever.

So, Willis talks about God EITHER permitting OR decreeing all things, and you high five him as if that statement supports your view that all things are determined and then allowed.

We have to keep covering the same ground because your memory is failing.

I'll accept your apology now. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

I did not object to anything.

I simply pointed out to you that your statement proves that your theology is based, not on Scripture, but on the fact that you don't like the idea that God might ordain terrible things.

Saying, "God ordained blah, blah, blah (some terrible thing)... UH.. NO!" is not an argument.

That is because you typically only list all the pretty nice stuff, or those things He is actively bringing to pass for the redemption of the world; as if we disagree with those things and you avoid the harsh reality of what your dogma actually teaches.

Just own it, Luke believes that Jeffrey Dahmer never tortured and ate a child except by the divine power and under the purposeful control and determinate counsel of God.

With the same sovereign will that he brought about the forgiveness of sin; He brought about the sin itself. Good thing God is there to fix all the problems He created for Himself to fix, huh? :laugh:

The last passage we debated ended up with you saying basically, "I don't care if your interpretation is sound exegetically- I reject it because you do not appeal to enough authorities."

Now its your memory that is going. The last debate ended with you going into no man's land claiming things that no Calvinist or any scholar has ever taught, for reasons that are clearly obvious.

I pointed out not only my exegetical objections but I also appealed to orthodoxy by asking you to provide scholarly support for the position you were defending. You could not do so.

The thread remains unanswered by you...

 

[Luke2427]

Right, that is what I was referring to and that is just as I remembered you saying it.

Some people, like Willis (the guy you agreed with), believe in bare permission (remember that term?), where as you believe that everything is ordain/decreed/determined and yet also feel the need to tell us that God has to permit that which he already determined. Seems a bit redundant but whatever.

So, Willis talks about God EITHER permitting OR decreeing all things, and you high five him as if that statement supports your view that all things are determined and then allowed.


I'll accept your apology now. :smilewinkgrin:

Your memory is still failing.

We discussed this at length.

Evil is the absence of good. It is the inevitable result of the removal of good just as cold is the inevitable result of the removal of warmth and just as darkness is the inevitable result of the removal of light.

When I decide (determine, ordain, decree) for this room to be dark, I will turn off the light. That is not me creating darkness, Skan. It is me ALLOWING, BASED UPON MY DETERMINATION, for darkness to exist and ensue.

That is what Willis recognizes and you should recognize this too.

There is no reason for you, as intelligent as you are, to not be able to see the congruity between God both ALLOWING AND DETERMINING things to come to pass.

You can disagree that God does it if you like- BUT EVERY PERSON ON BAPTISTBOARD CAN UNDERSTAND IT- so I am sure that you can too.

 

[Skandelon]

Your memory is still failing.

We discussed this at length.

Evil is the absence of good. It is the inevitable result of the removal of good just as cold is the inevitable result of the removal of warmth and just as darkness is the inevitable result of the removal of light.

When I decide (determine, ordain, decree) for this room to be dark, I will turn off the light. That is not me creating darkness, Skan. It is me ALLOWING, BASED UPON MY DETERMINATION, for darkness to exist and ensue.

That is what Willis recognizes and you should recognize this too.

Luke, you know I love you bro, but Willis said, "The best way I can see this is that anything that happens, God either allowed it or He directly brought it to pass." And you equate that to your view that God is allowing everything based upon his determination of everything? Really?

I know Willis and I can assure you that is not what he was meaning. I think he probably meant exactly what he said, "God either allowed it or He directly brought it to pass."

But, it sounds like you're interpreting him with about the same accuracy as you do most, so I shouldn't be surprised.

There is no reason for you, as intelligent as you are, to not be able to see the congruity between God both ALLOWING AND DETERMINING things to come to pass.

We aren't debating your view...I have had my fill of that. We are debating your approval of what Willis said as it compares to your view. You say "BOTH/AND" and Willis said, "EITHER/OR"

It's ok to misread someone every once an a while bro, just don't dig your heals in so hard and attack those who point it out. Were just talking...

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you know I love you bro, but Willis said, "The best way I can see this is that anything that happens, God either allowed it or He directly brought it to pass." And you equate that to your view that God is allowing everything based upon his determination of everything? Really?

I don't know for sure what Willis meant and neither do you.

What I am saying is that his STATEMENT is UTTERLY consistent with what I purport.

I know Willis and I can assure you that is not what he was meaning. I think he probably meant exactly what he said, "God either allowed it or He directly brought it to pass."

I am pretty confident that Willis did NOT mean that God allowed it because he was not quite sure exactly whether or not that reality in which it happened would come to pass.

He, more than likely, believes that God knew exactly what would come to pass in the universe he would build and went right ahead and built that universe anyway allowing evil to come to pass because it would serve a higher and nobler purpose.

I think you admit that you are at least sympathetic to openness theology- I think Willis is probably closer to me than you along those lines.

But, it sounds like you're interpreting him with about the same accuracy as you do most, so I shouldn't be surprised.

low blow. Let's don't go back to that mess, ok?

 

[Luke2427]

We aren't debating your view...I have had my fill of that. We are debating your approval of what Willis said as it compares to your view. You say "BOTH/AND" and Willis said, "EITHER/OR"

I don't mean this disrespectfully but I don't blame you.

I think you have been thoroughly trounced in that debate.

Honestly, just be honest, you have been reduced to your last remaining line of defense which is-

God ordained bad things- UH NO!!

and...

So... you are not appealing to enough authorities.

That's where you are left.

And here is what you will do in response to this post because you have nothing else-

You will say, "It is not wrong for me to ask you to provide scholars that support your view..."

And all that that amounts to is proving that that's all you have left.


In a nutshell, after three years of debating, all you have left is appeal to emotions and appeal to authorities.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't know for sure what Willis meant and neither do you.

I know you believe "BOTH/AND" and he believes "EITHER/OR" because I actually read your words and sentences.

I think you admit that you are at least sympathetic to openness theology- I think Willis is probably closer to me than you along those lines.

I have never denied God's omniscience (which is what you are implying). Willis, and even most Calvinists are far from your views IMO. You can always prove me wrong by simply finding some quotes of Calvinistic scholars who teach that God has to hide the truth from non-elect people otherwise they may believe and be saved and God wants to prevent that which is why he uses 'parables' and other such preventative means. Good luck.

And I'll do you the favor to just ignore your second post, you are clearly hurt and trying to hurt me back, so I'll leave you alone...

 

[Luke2427]

I know you believe "BOTH/AND" and he believes "EITHER/OR" because I actually read your words and sentences.

Sin is allowed by God- it is not brought to pass by his direct agency.

That is what Willis and I BOTH believe, if I understand him correctly.

I have never denied God's omniscience (which is what you are implying).

It is not what I am implying.

Open theists claim that they do not deny God's omniscience either.

Willis, and even most Calvinists are far from your views IMO.

Every Christian views some passage in a way in which the majority of people in his circle do not.

You do that as well.

You say things that most Arminians would not sign off on.

I think to say that because Calvin and I say the same thing about a passage which most Calvinist scholars have not addressed very thoroughly that Calvin and I are very different from most Calvinists ACROSS THE BOARD is silly.

You can always prove me wrong by simply finding some quotes of Calvinistic scholars who teach that God has to hide the truth from non-elect people otherwise they may believe and be saved and God wants to prevent that which is why he uses 'parables' and other such preventative means. Good luck.

And, as I say above, this is all you have left.

Calvin said it, but even if he didn't it does not mean it is not true.

And I'll do you the favor to just ignore your second post, you are clearly hurt and trying to hurt me back, so I'll leave you alone...

I really am not hurt.

Also, I do not think that is why you choose to ignore it.