Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

Thank you for affirming everything I observed. Your attempt to offset with the allusion to post 421 means nothing.
Your motives here mean everything.

God forgive you. Now I too will follow where others have gone before and ignore your efforts to teach your doctrine and lead truth lovers into the dark where you so desperately, and the bad spelling indicative of substance issues as proof, want others to abide.

Non-Denominational Atheism doesn't fool anyone.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Thank you God!

Now everyone in these type threads that have encountered the anti-platformists, who use that self same argument, "no it's not", can recall your declaration about it and take that forward when you do that, when others like the amusing FG2 does that, the Texas one does that same thing, the whole small tiny lot of you, and move on.

Well, I'm glad that I amuse some here. But I'm always amused when pressing others for verses that truly do SAY what they claim and they come up empty handed. Meaning, the verses that they provide don't say what they claim.

Not even the amused one has proven what he/she claims. Amusing!

When I post "no, it's not", I back up my claim by explaining WHY it's not.

 

[Butch5]

Thank you for affirming everything I observed. Your attempt to offset with the allusion to post 421 means nothing.
Your motives here mean everything.

God forgive you. Now I too will follow where others have gone before and ignore your efforts to teach your doctrine and lead truth lovers into the dark where you so desperately, and the bad spelling indicative of substance issues as proof, want others to abide.

Non-Denominational Atheism doesn't fool anyone.

More question begging epithets with no substance. A truth lover would seek the truth, not ignore the evidence.

 

[Butch5]

Okay Butch and I thank you for your respectful reply. But I have to be honest - I have been reading your posts and at times been interacting with you for a few years now and I still have no idea what it is exactly that you believe. I personally think it's because you have to be cryptic or risk getting booted from the forums. But that is just an opinion, I admit it could be wrong - but my point remains - I have no idea where you are coming from.

I will say this - when a Catholic posts his beliefs I understand where he is coming from. Same goes for Arminians, Calvinists, Methodists, or Atheists for that matter.

I guess what I am getting at is that I wish you would simply state what you believe. It's one reason I tend to shy away with interacting with you here - nothing you say makes much sense. At least not to me. I'm not trying to be rude - just giving you some honest feedback.

I'm glad you want me to call you brother - that's a start...

Hi AndOne,

I don't have to be cryptic, what I believe is Ante-Nicene Christianity. I think the reason some don't understand what I believe is because when someone tells us something we evaluate it according to our understanding. So, if our understanding isn't the same, what I say to you may not be understood. My statements aren't evaluated in my the context of my argument they're evaluated within the context of the hearers understanding or doctrinal position. When I interpret Scripture I use a four fold method of hermeneutics. They are, grammatical/historical interpretation, historical precedent, Absolute authority of Scripture, and sound logic. Sadly, I find this last one severely lacking in many other's interpretations. I Don't form doctrines on inference but only from what is stated in Scripture.

As I said, there is much error in modern Christianity, anyone who studies the history of the church will see that. Many of these erroneous doctrines are held by Christians today. It's from this understanding that my positions are usually judged.

I don't have the tensions in my theology that we see in these threads. People trying to reconcile free will with predestination, OSAS/NOSAS, and so on. The reason is because I've gone back to the beginning and looked at what was taught in the very beginning. That doesn't mean I read a passage of Scripture and interpret it. It means looking at history. looking at what was believed by those who were taught by Jesus and the apostles. The history is a fact, it's not an interpretation. I look at the history and the historical arguments and I compare them to Scripture. What I find is that the vast majority of it lines up perfectly without all of the problems that you see today. There was no tension in the church between free will and predestination in the beginning. There was no tension between OSASand NOSAS. These tensions are the result of men later in time who moved away from what was taught in the beginning.

I submit that one of the biggest problems is that too many today simply either cannot or refuse to make logical argument and/or to put their doctrines to the test to see if they really are logical.

I'm open to answer any question you have about what I believe, I've nothing to hide. Here are the basics of what I believe.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi AndOne,

I don't have to be cryptic, what I believe is Ante-Nicene Christianity. I think the reason some don't understand what I believe is because when someone tells us something we evaluate it according to our understanding. So, if our understanding isn't the same, what I say to you may not be understood. My statements aren't evaluated in my the context of my argument they're evaluated within the context of the hearers understanding or doctrinal position. When I interpret Scripture I use a four fold method of hermeneutics. They are, grammatical/historical interpretation, historical precedent, Absolute authority of Scripture, and sound logic. Sadly, I find this last one severely lacking in many other's interpretations. I Don't form doctrines on inference but only from what is stated in Scripture.

As I said, there is much error in modern Christianity, anyone who studies the history of the church will see that. Many of these erroneous doctrines are held by Christians today. It's from this understanding that my positions are usually judged.

I don't have the tensions in my theology that we see in these threads. People trying to reconcile free will with predestination, OSAS/NOSAS, and so on. The reason is because I've gone back to the beginning and looked at what was taught in the very beginning. That doesn't mean I read a passage of Scripture and interpret it. It means looking at history. looking at what was believed by those who were taught by Jesus and the apostles. The history is a fact, it's not an interpretation. I look at the history and the historical arguments and I compare them to Scripture. What I find is that the vast majority of it lines up perfectly without all of the problems that you see today. There was no tension in the church between free will and predestination in the beginning. There was no tension between OSASand NOSAS. These tensions are the result of men later in time who moved away from what was taught in the beginning.

I submit that one of the biggest problems is that too many today simply either cannot or refuse to make logical argument and/or to put their doctrines to the test to see if they really are logical.

I'm open to answer any question you have about what I believe, I've nothing to hide. Here are the basics of what I believe.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

With respect, and no intent to inflame or insult, it sounds to me like you are drifting toward the EO camp. Maybe drifting isn't the right word, but I trust you understand what I mean. I am not offering any judgment as to the direction it seems you're moving, just wondering if that might be the case.

 

[Butch5]

With respect, and no intent to inflame or insult, it sounds to me like you are drifting toward the EO camp. Maybe drifting isn't the right word, but I trust you understand what I mean. I am not offering any judgment as to the direction it seems you're moving, just wondering if that might be the case.

By EO you mean Eastern Othodox, correct? If so, I don't know what their positions are. I've not studied the denomination. All I do is look at what was first taught, compare that to Scripture and see if it fits.

I've found a group of men who are knowledgeable in the original languages and history. As a group we look at the doctrines of the Church and trace them back through church history to their source. If we can't trace their origins to the apostles then the doctrines get rejected.

 

[nobdysfool]

By EO you mean Eastern Othodox, correct? If so, I don't know what their positions are. I've not studied the denomination. All I do is look at what was first taught, compare that to Scripture and see if it fits.

I've found a group of men who are knowledgeable in the original languages and history. As a group we look at the doctrines of the Church and trace them back through church history to their source. If we can't trace their origins to the apostles then the doctrines get rejected.

Yes, Eastern Orthodox. It just sounded as if that was where you were moving toward. I understand the paradigm you and those you are working with are using, it makes sense. I guess maybe my only question would be, in your studies, have you identified doctrines that the apostles believed and taught that have not continued through the centuries? it would seem to me, from a logical standpoint, that such could be the case.

Also, is there any allowance made for unfolding revelation, or progressive revelation of truths that may come over time? It seems somewhat illogical to believe that the understanding of Scripture would remain at a First Century level and never progress, or new (to us) truths come to light from scripture, 21 Centuries later..

 

[Butch5]

Yes, Eastern Orthodox. It just sounded as if that was where you were moving toward. I understand the paradigm you and those you are working with are using, it makes sense. I guess maybe my only question would be, in your studies, have you identified doctrines that the apostles believed and taught that have not continued through the centuries? it would seem to me, from a logical standpoint, that such could be the case.

Hi nobdysfool,

Yes, we there are doctrines that were taught early on that have been dropped or lost through time. One doctrine the Two Kingdoms. While it is somewhat given lip service today, it was literally practiced early on. Also the doctrine of 6000 years has been lost in the modern church.

Also, is there any allowance made for unfolding revelation, or progressive revelation of truths that may come over time? It seems somewhat illogical to believe that the understanding of Scripture would remain at a First Century level and never progress, or new (to us) truths come to light from scripture, 21 Centuries later..

The group accepts progressive revelation within the Scriptures. In other words God gave revelation progressively from Genesis to Revelation. So, when we look at a doctrine in Scripture we look first in Genesis and follow the development of the doctrine through the Scriptures. So, we don't use Revelation to see how Daniel understood the end times. If we look at Daniel we only look at what had been revealed prior to and in his day. Daniel didn't have any revelation that came later so we don't look at that to see how he understood it.

When we looked at the destiny of the wicked, we started in Genesis. We traced the doctrine through the OT first to see what the OT said and how the OT saints understood it before we got to the NT. By doing this we can see how the doctrine develops from the begining.

As far as any revelation after the the book of Revelation we don't acknowledge. There's really no way to verify anything after the Scriptures.

 

[fizzygiraffe]

Unbelievable! Nobody happening into this thread is ever going to think first off, wow, what I'm seeing here would really make Jesus proud!


You all have 22 pages going here and you're saying the same things to each other. Getting madder all the while as this conversation moves nowhere because the first post baited the whole bit of conflict.

The First Cause is defined in theology as God. You'll notice you're being asked, is God God according to the Westminster confession? No darlins, God was God before the WCF was ever penned.
Of course God didn't create sin. He created the rules to live by. Our transgression is the sin. That's not his creation. That's our doing.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

Oh, I like you Fizzy.
This thread isn't about doctrinal debate. This thread has about five atheists throwing barbs, hate speech, pejoratives, false doctrine, their own creation of scripture, at Reformation Christians.
We've got one that argues God isn't omniscient, and the Bible isn't true. We've got another that thinks anyone not bowing to his assaults is begging in their rhetoric that proves his ignorance of scripture is just that when he denies scripture as written. While cherry picking single verses to support his hate of all things Reformation, God, etc...
We've got another that doesn't own a Bible but takes quickie look-sees on Bible sites after a keyword search. These results he uses to say the same thing the other two do. They circle and circle and circle and circle their arguments that amount to saying: No, the Bible is wrong, God isn't real, and nothing written matters.
But in a way that has sincere Christians here thinking somehow they're going to persuade atheists to STOP doing THAT!
Meanwhile, more pages more ad's. There's a mission to the motive.


Welcome to the forums. I really don't think Christ would join here.

 

[nobdysfool]

Hi nobdysfool,

Yes, we there are doctrines that were taught early on that have been dropped or lost through time. One doctrine the Two Kingdoms. While it is somewhat given lip service today, it was literally practiced early on. Also the doctrine of 6000 years has been lost in the modern church.

Those both could make for some interesting discussions, provided that the food fight element stays out of it.

The group accepts progressive revelation within the Scriptures. In other words God gave revelation progressively from Genesis to Revelation. So, when we look at a doctrine in Scripture we look first in Genesis and follow the development of the doctrine through the Scriptures. So, we don't use Revelation to see how Daniel understood the end times. If we look at Daniel we only look at what had been revealed prior to and in his day. Daniel didn't have any revelation that came later so we don't look at that to see how he understood it.

When we looked at the destiny of the wicked, we started in Genesis. We traced the doctrine through the OT first to see what the OT said and how the OT saints understood it before we got to the NT. By doing this we can see how the doctrine develops from the begining.

As far as any revelation after the the book of Revelation we don't acknowledge. There's really no way to verify anything after the Scriptures.

I guess maybe I didn't say what i was thinking clearly. First a little background. I believe that the Scriptures are not only wide, they are also deep, and there are understandings and revelations that are not apparent unless one takes the time to dig, excavate, and drill down. I have never been comfortable with the seemingly prevailing idea that all of the nuggets of truth are just lying about, strewn on the surface like jewels in a parking lot, and don't have to involve any effort on our part to find them and pick them up.

I remember a pastor back in the 1970s (one of several in the church I attended) who could take one Scripture as his staring point in a sermon, and drill down, and down, and down, and bring out amazing things that were all scriptural, and confirmed by other passages, all from just one verse or passage. He was a pleasure to listen to, there was no fluff, just Scripture, and him expounding on it. i don't see much of that today.

What I'm asking, is do you see new understandings, more clarity and deeper applications within the Scriptures, things that the apostles and their proteges either didn't see or saw only vaguely, that others after them saw more clearly, and were able to bring better understanding?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Unbelievable! Nobody happening into this thread is ever going to think first off, wow, what I'm seeing here would really make Jesus proud!


You all have 22 pages going here and you're saying the same things to each other. Getting madder all the while as this conversation moves nowhere because the first post baited the whole bit of conflict.

The First Cause is defined in theology as God. You'll notice you're being asked, is God God according to the Westminster confession? No darlins, God was God before the WCF was ever penned.
Of course God didn't create sin. He created the rules to live by. Our transgression is the sin. That's not his creation. That's our doing.

The simple response for everyone concerned would be to have simply said, "I don't particularly like the word "cause" that the Westminster folks used. But of course - the concepts concerning God's sovereign control of all things according to a minutely executed plan is correct as the Westminster Confession outlines. Sin, just like everything else, is and always has been completely under the control of God.

Everyone agrees and end of discussion!

The problem is that not everyone agrees with that simple statement.

As you can see - the issues run deeper.

Some people will not allow for that basic premise because they think it infringes on their independence from God.

Hence - the ongoing discussion and the resulting rabbit trails.

 

[fizzygiraffe]

The simple response for everyone concerned would be to have simply said, "I don't particularly like the word "cause" that the Westminster folks used. But of course - the concepts concerning God's sovereign control of all things according to a minutely executed plan is correct as the Westminster Confession outlines. Sin, just like everything else, is and always has been completely under the control of God.

Everyone agrees and end of discussion!

The problem is that not everyone agrees with that simple statement.

As you can see - the issues run deeper.

Some people will not allow for that basic premise because they think it infringes on their independence from God.

Hence - the ongoing discussion and the resulting rabbit trails.

Isaiah 45:7 in the first set of texts that most Bible folk read informs what you outlined. I think what people are doing here, at least the sincere ones and not those who are not at all interested in the rhema, are confusing the matter of sin with thinking God makes us to sin. It is in his control as are all things and he makes it happen.
First Cause isn't a term I have issues with. It's matter of fact even in the words themselves. First/Cause. The Creator. First source. God.

What is the real point here? You said you'd rather people answered your way. Synopsizing your remarks there.
But that's how you see it. What happens in these type situations, and this happens in churches too if you get a group of people together off to the side after the service and ask a particular question seeking a particular answer regarding Bible doctrine, is people share their perspective as you did. And then when others have a different one they feel a few things about that.
They feel like they're being told they're wrong. Because people are not parroting near enough the same things they said.
They feel like they've misread and have up to that point held their faith wrong, lived wrong, whatever the doctrine under discussion is.
And finally, for ego's sake, and we still have that no matter how hard we try to think we don't, they try to convince others to agree with them that their personal perspective isn't all that wrong. Really they're working to console those personal hits, doubts, that have run through their own mind and that led them to believe all this time to this point they've been foolish and wrong!
People don't like the idea of, "I'm wrong!" Because the I in that equation is the foundation stone upon which a personal life is worked out.

Ever think to ask what would happen if you the author of this debate just said, OK, you're all right in how you see it because you're all going to have to live with how you see and interact with God as the self you think this particular doctrine has created you to be.

Because whether or not you do that, that's how it is.
That's how it is with all doctrinal points. God said this....do this....God is this....
You believe in God. You obey from the heart the will of God. How you see it is how it is when the Christian commits their life to what they believe God is. And is inside them.

Know what?
God knows that.
People don't argue doctrine to defend God at his word. They argue to defend their comprehension of and living by that understanding of God's word.

 

[Butch5]

Those both could make for some interesting discussions, provided that the food fight element stays out of it.



I guess maybe I didn't say what i was thinking clearly. First a little background. I believe that the Scriptures are not only wide, they are also deep, and there are understandings and revelations that are not apparent unless one takes the time to dig, excavate, and drill down. I have never been comfortable with the seemingly prevailing idea that all of the nuggets of truth are just lying about, strewn on the surface like jewels in a parking lot, and don't have to involve any effort on our part to find them and pick them up.

They both are good discussions. The 6000 years doctrine is fascinating to me.

I remember a pastor back in the 1970s (one of several in the church I attended) who could take one Scripture as his staring point in a sermon, and drill down, and down, and down, and bring out amazing things that were all scriptural, and confirmed by other passages, all from just one verse or passage. He was a pleasure to listen to, there was no fluff, just Scripture, and him expounding on it. i don't see much of that today.

What I'm asking, is do you see new understandings, more clarity and deeper applications within the Scriptures, things that the apostles and their proteges either didn't see or saw only vaguely, that others after them saw more clearly, and were able to bring better understanding?

The group and pastor that I have now do seem to find those gems that are so often overlooked in the modern church. Are they things that the apostles didn't know? I don't know. I don't know if I would go that far. Luke tells us that Jesus opened the understanding of the apostles and expounded the OT Scriptures about Him. So, I'd be hard pressed to say we find something that apostles didn't know. There may be things that they didn't readily expound on, such as the 6000 years doctrine. It's in the Scriptures, but it's in bits and pieces. It's not laid out like justification by faith is.

The study is usually expository in nature and those who are well acquainted with the original languages will usually translated the text. They're able to point out nuances in the texts that may not be apparent in English, but I think, more importantly they point out places in the text where translators have to make decisions. This is interesting because this is where translator bias can enter into our English texts. I also think this is where those 4 points that mentioned really come into play. If you like to study the texts it's pretty fascinating, at least I think so.

 

[nobdysfool]

The group and pastor that I have now do seem to find those gems that are so often overlooked in the modern church. Are they things that the apostles didn't know? I don't know. I don't know if I would go that far. Luke tells us that Jesus opened the understanding of the apostles and expounded the OT Scriptures about Him. So, I'd be hard pressed to say we find something that apostles didn't know. There may be things that they didn't readily expound on, such as the 6000 years doctrine. It's in the Scriptures, but it's in bits and pieces. It's not laid out like justification by faith is.

The study is usually expository in nature and those who are well acquainted with the original languages will usually translated the text. They're able to point out nuances in the texts that may not be apparent in English, but I think, more importantly they point out places in the text where translators have to make decisions. This is interesting because this is where translator bias can enter into our English texts. I also think this is where those 4 points that mentioned really come into play. If you like to study the texts it's pretty fascinating, at least I think so.

Of course, I don't think we have 100% of the writings of the apostles, or their proteges. They probably didn't really think about preserving such documents. In the cast of Paul I don't think he had any thought as to his writings being Scripture themselves. It wasn't what he set out to do. He was just trying to minister to those whom he had taught, and ministered to.

Even if all knowledge was given to them, they spoke and wrote about what was important at the time, what needed to be addressed for a persecuted church. Did any of them consider that we'd be here 21 centuries later, pouring over their writings? Probably not. I don't know that I'd say that they were given ALL knowledge, I think there are still things to discover, hidden within the Word. Men spend their entire lives digging into the Word and most would admit that they feel like they've only scratched the surface, if even that. I believe there is much that we still haven't discovered, even though it may be, as it were, hidden in plain sight.

As for the translators, undoubtedly some bias gets in, they are fallible humans after all. I do believe the Scripture which says, "In a multitude of counselors, thee is safety". I do believe that God does influence and guide the translators so that His Word is not corrupted, overall. Reading several different translations allows one to get a broader view of possible meanings. Ultimately it comes down to the Holy Spirit quickening the Word to the reader (or hearer).

 

[Butch5]

Of course, I don't think we have 100% of the writings of the apostles, or their proteges. They probably didn't really think about preserving such documents. In the cast of Paul I don't think he had any thought as to his writings being Scripture themselves. It wasn't what he set out to do. He was just trying to minister to those whom he had taught, and ministered to.

Even if all knowledge was given to them, they spoke and wrote about what was important at the time, what needed to be addressed for a persecuted church. Did any of them consider that we'd be here 21 centuries later, pouring over their writings? Probably not. I don't know that I'd say that they were given ALL knowledge, I think there are still things to discover, hidden within the Word. Men spend their entire lives digging into the Word and most would admit that they feel like they've only scratched the surface, if even that. I believe there is much that we still haven't discovered, even though it may be, as it were, hidden in plain sight.

I don't think they were given all knowledge. I just thing they were given understanding of the OT prophesies concerning Christ.

As for the translators, undoubtedly some bias gets in, they are fallible humans after all. I do believe the Scripture which says, "In a multitude of counselors, thee is safety". I do believe that God does influence and guide the translators so that His Word is not corrupted, overall. Reading several different translations allows one to get a broader view of possible meanings. Ultimately it comes down to the Holy Spirit quickening the Word to the reader (or hearer).

I agree with you here, I'm just not sure this makes it into practice. My main concern is that the Catholic church had, for the most part, sole possession of the Scriptures (at least as authority is concerned) in the west for about a thousand years. During that time corruptions entered into the faith. The Reformers got rid of some of those corruptions, but not all of them. I believe these corruptions do influence the translators as the translate the text. If this is the case then even looking at several translations may not yield much benefit since all of the translators are pretty much coming from the same place. Let me give you an example. Think of the word spirit, what comes to mind? Now think of the word breath? What comes to mind? I'd bet you had two different mental pictures, correct? The readers of the original language saw the same word both times so they would have the same mental image both times. Take Jesus' words.

63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (Jn. 6:63 NKJ)

The translators see the first use of spirit as the Holy Spirit. There are Christians who believe that this passage is talking about spiritual life being given by the Holy Spirit. There are those who see the spirit as the "real" man and that is what his real life is.

However, let me suggest another interpretation with a few details added. Jesus was Jewish and was address Jewish people who knew their Old Testament. The OT at that time was the Septuagint. So, when Jesus said the word pneuma, His hearers heard the same word that they read in their OT in this passage.

17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. (Gen. 6:17 NKJ)

The word "breath" is the Greek word "pneuma". I believe there would have been a connection made in hearers (and those later reading the Gospel) mind between Jesus saying it's the breath (spirit) that gives life and the OT speaking about the breath of life.

However, I believe that by choosing the word spirit instead of breath in John 6:63 the translators actually inserted their theology into the text. I'm not saying this was malicious, they would translate it the way they understood it. The only point I'm trying to make is that things like this do happen and I believe it can have big effect on how we see the Scriptures.

 

[Marvin Knox]

People don't like the idea of, "I'm wrong!" Because the I in that equation is the foundation stone upon which a personal life is worked out.

How right you are with that point.

It's hard for people to admit that they have been wrong and change their theology.

Sometimes it has to do with simple pride and sometimes something deeper like family religious ties like Mormonism, J.W.'s, Catholicism etc.

Ever think to ask what would happen if you the author of this debate just said, OK, you're all right in how you see it .....

I never considered doing that because everyone isn't right in how they see it.

There are many times when both sides of an argument are right and you must accept both to get to the bottom of how it really works. I'm talking about the many paradox's in scripture.

I believe that this is one of those times.

God's predestination of all things that occur in His creation and the free will of those in that creation are completely compatible. Many choose to just take a side and end up with the wrong theology IMO.

because you're all going to have to live with how you see and interact with God as the self you think this particular doctrine has created you to be.

Because whether or not you do that, that's how it is.
That's how it is with all doctrinal points.

I'll disagree with your saying that's just the way it must be.

I have changed many viewpoints concerning theology over the years.

If no one had stepped out and corrected me I'd still be off in the weeds.

Thank God someone loved me enough not to let me be wrong without at least trying to make me see the light.

 

[fizzygiraffe]

God is transcendent. When we bring that which transcends human consciousness down to earth we call it God.

Religion is bringing that which is transcendent into the field of earthly time and human consciousness. And that necessarily creates duality.
Good/bad
Righteous/Evil
Dark/Light
And all the rest
God, that which transcends duality, is eternally positive. Good. Righteous. The light.

When we believe our limited consciousness comprehends the transcendent we're actually trying to give a face to the innate particles of be-ing that we are due to transcendent power giving us part of itself and making us human. That chord inside that seeks to be reunited with the whole eternal symphony is what calls our particular vibration that is divine and alive inside us as that holy spirit to seek the way home.

It is why, as someone said here, maybe not the words on the page but the thought of Yeshua, the thought of God, feels so compelling as to make us reach for that faith that brings the transcendent into our grasp. It's what makes it all feel like home once we've found our way to that which calls us to understand through parable, idioms, metaphor, myths, fable, the truth of God in the anointing of return.
It's why the Baptism is part of the process. We were born from water into the flesh that separates us from that which transcends earth and time. And when we find our way home we are laid back into the water, the womb that carries that living solvent that is the pure environment in which we were formed and sustained in the darkness. And then later born into the light. Duality. Dark/Light.

When we are baptized we are laid into that womb of living water, solvent that washes away in the symbolic act of return, all that the world deposited on us in that illusion of separation between our transcendent source and our temporal awareness.
That's why we become a new creation. Awakening that awareness, that re-connect, that innate particle sourced to us from the transcendent that we call God.
That's why there is no such thing as atheist. "No God".
God isn't the illusion. Thinking we can say God isn't real and with conviction it's true is.

“It may be a species of impudence to think that the way you understand God is the way God is." Joseph Campbell.

The WCF isn't a decree of absolutism that tells us what God is. Rather, it is a statement that declares what we need to believe in order to see for ourselves what God looks like according to the scriptures that tell of God, and those being what we believe in first.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[nobdysfool]

I don't think they were given all knowledge. I just thing they were given understanding of the OT prophesies concerning Christ.



I agree with you here, I'm just not sure this makes it into practice. My main concern is that the Catholic church had, for the most part, sole possession of the Scriptures (at least as authority is concerned) in the west for about a thousand years. During that time corruptions entered into the faith. The Reformers got rid of some of those corruptions, but not all of them. I believe these corruptions do influence the translators as the translate the text. If this is the case then even looking at several translations may not yield much benefit since all of the translators are pretty much coming from the same place. Let me give you an example. Think of the word spirit, what comes to mind? Now think of the word breath? What comes to mind? I'd bet you had two different mental pictures, correct? The readers of the original language saw the same word both times so they would have the same mental image both times. Take Jesus' words.

63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (Jn. 6:63 NKJ)

The translators see the first use of spirit as the Holy Spirit. There are Christians who believe that this passage is talking about spiritual life being given by the Holy Spirit. There are those who see the spirit as the "real" man and that is what his real life is.

However, let me suggest another interpretation with a few details added. Jesus was Jewish and was address Jewish people who knew their Old Testament. The OT at that time was the Septuagint. So, when Jesus said the word pneuma, His hearers heard the same word that they read in their OT in this passage.

17 "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. (Gen. 6:17 NKJ)

The word "breath" is the Greek word "pneuma". I believe there would have been a connection made in hearers (and those later reading the Gospel) mind between Jesus saying it's the breath (spirit) that gives life and the OT speaking about the breath of life.

However, I believe that by choosing the word spirit instead of breath in John 6:63 the translators actually inserted their theology into the text. I'm not saying this was malicious, they would translate it the way they understood it. The only point I'm trying to make is that things like this do happen and I believe it can have big effect on how we see the Scriptures.

One thing to consider: the Septuagint is a translation itself. If you want to be as accurate as possible, you'd have to go to the original Hebrew. It matters also what set of manuscripts are being used in the translation to English. There are some inferior ones out there. It's not an easy subject, and a lot is at stake. You bring up some good points, and I'm glad we stepped aside from the conversation to talk together.

 

[Marvin Knox]

At least that's how I see it.

Almost everyone in his forum claims to be Christian. A little debate sometimes shows that it is not necessarily so in every case.

If you can provide a person with some space by broaching a controversial subject and asking for a response - it really brings their beliefs to the surface.

That's actually a part of the purpose of starting a thread like this.

Thank you for sharing.