Question for meticulous sovereignty folks

[nobdysfool]

The problem here is that JAL comes in here condemning Calvinism, without having laid out a case for doing so, expects everyone to just accept what he says, and then scratches his head wondering why the Calvinists are upset, and attacking him.

JAL brought it on himself, because he doesn't understand that you cannot attack someone, and then expect them to listen to what you have to say. You cannot insult someone, and then expect them to not react. This the same tactic that several other anti-Calvinists have used, and they are no longer around.

Any hope he had of gaining a hearing has been lost. He even admits he is a heretic in the eyes of orthodox theology. Why should we bother to listen to the heretic anymore? He denies the unique nature of the Incarnation. His doctrines should be vigorously withstood. He called me a liar for taking him to task on his false doctrine of the Incarnation, and will not lay it out here, or even hit the high spots here. But in his mind, I am dishonest for pointing out that he made the claim and then did not back it up. That's not dishonesty, but rather an honest pointing out of an important error on his part.

He cannot be reasoned with, that much is clear. I suggest that he be ignored, because he has nothing of worth to add, his reason for being here is to bash, derogate and tell falsehoods about Calvinism.

Stop feeding the animals!

 

[moonbeam]

Your patently phony construct contains only A and B.

Thats because there is only A [God] and B [God's creation]....Do you know of another?

Your own construct is by definition a logical fallacy because it has MISSING COMPONENTS.

If its not God A ... and its not God's creation B ... What is it?

In this example from Job we have an interaction between God A and the creation B...it is rather interesting.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Are God's [A] dealings with the creation Satan and Job unjust?....on what [logical] legal grounds?

Does not the potter A have power over the clay B...to do with it as he pleases?

 

[moonbeam]

God is this Entity who is free to do whatever the heck He wants.

Of course...He is the only entity who possesses true autonomous free will.

Why should that be a problem to you?

In this example from Job we have an interaction between God A and the creation B...it is rather interesting.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Are God's [A] dealings with the creation Satan and Job unjust?....on what [logical] legal grounds?

Does not the potter A have power over the clay B...to do with it as he pleases?

 

[squint]

Thats because there is only A [God] and B [God's creation]....Do you know of another?

Your formula lacks many things. For example how do you term the power of death? A 'creation?' No. An ANTI-creation. How about ANTI-Christ spirits? Got a class for them? If these are opposites or againsts or opposers of Christ who is LIFE, then 'what are they?'

If its not God A ... and its not God's creation B ... What is it?

Exactly. Your formula remains at severe lack. There are powers and forces visible and invisible, many of which we may not know and not all of these can be lumped into 'creation.' Anti-creation can and does exist.

In this example from Job we have an interaction between God A and the creation B...it is rather interesting.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Are God's [A] dealings with the creation Satan and Job unjust?....on what [logical] legal grounds?

Does not the potter A have power over the clay B...to do with it as he pleases?

Calvinism's take on this subject is rather blinded.

Paul's statement in Romans 9:19-21 is about 'an individual' identified as ME...why have you made ME thus? And Paul does quite a FINE JOB in showing that in EACH LUMP of CLAY.... (ME) ... there are TWO DISTINCT VESSELS with TWO DIFFERENT FATES.

NOW use your logic and look at the thousands of examples provided in the NEW TESTATMENT Gospels and see WHO it is in the SAME LUMP as MANKIND....er, ah, that would be THE DEVIL (and his messengers.)

Jesus OPENLY DIVIDED these OTHER ENTITIES from THE BODIES of mankind did He NOT??? Then why CAN'T you see the FACT?

But no. Even though Paul himself admitted the presence of EVIL with him when he desired to do good. Called the sin indwelling him NO LONGER I twice in Romans 7:17-21. Even stated that God Himself PUT UPON PAUL a 'special messenger of SATAN' you guys STILL can't see the 'other vessel' even in AN APOSTLE! Not even when SATAN spoke through the LIPS of PETER or 'entered into' Judas. Not even when Paul states OUTRIGHT that God put a SPIRIT OF STUPOR upon unbelieving Israel can you SEE what is NOT Israel. Not even when it's PLAINLY STATED that the 'god of this world' BLINDS peoples minds so they CAN'T believe, John the Apostle implicates the DEVIL in EVERY SIN in 1 John 3:9. Yet YOU and all other Calvinists STILL can't see the 'other vessels.' All I can say about all of that is UNreal. It couldn't be any clearer if it was painted across our foreheads.

You STILL can't see the VESSELS OF DISHONOR. And you falsely proclaim yourself FREE of that working and BLAME AND ACCUSE only your fellow man. So what else is new in the dark?

enjoy!

squint

 

[JAL]

The problem here is that JAL comes in here condemning Calvinism, without having laid out a case for doing so, expects everyone to just accept what he says, and then scratches his head wondering why the Calvinists are upset, and attacking him.

JAL brought it on himself, because he doesn't understand that you cannot attack someone, and then expect them to listen to what you have to say. You cannot insult someone, and then expect them to not react. This the same tactic that several other anti-Calvinists have used, and they are no longer around.

I have no problem with people attacking my views. Where people have addressed the logic of my position, I have responded in kind. Where people have responded with a bunch of empty rhetoric (and generally that would be you), I too have generally responded in kind.

Any hope he had of gaining a hearing has been lost. He even admits he is a heretic in the eyes of orthodox theology. Why should we bother to listen to the heretic anymore?

So the church is infallible in your view?

Hey - no need to listen to me. Just produce a theology devoid of logical contradictions, and you could put all my speculations to rest. I'll pretty much keep my mouth shut after that. I have no business trying so hard to suade you if you can show me a fully cohesive, fully consistent position.

He denies the unique nature of the Incarnation.

Why such misleading language? Why such vacuous, nebulous, generalized stigmatizing which does not address the specific logic of my position? Can't you get beyond rhetoric for half a second?

His doctrines should be vigorously withstood. He called me a liar for taking him to task on his false doctrine of the Incarnation, and will not lay it out here, or even hit the high spots here. But in his mind, I am dishonest for pointing out that he made the claim and then did not back it up. That's not dishonesty, but rather an honest pointing out of an important error on his part.

Misleading. Why don't you tell it like it really happened? What does that say about your character? You insisted I did not even possess a doctrine of Incarnation, and I responded, "Stop spreading such lies about me."

You end with more rhetoric. (Why am I not surprised).

He cannot be reasoned with, that much is clear. I suggest that he be ignored, because he has nothing of worth to add, his reason for being here is to bash, derogate and tell falsehoods about Calvinism.

Stop feeding the animals!

 

[JAL]

Thats because there is only A [God] and B [God's creation]....Do you know of another?



If its not God A ... and its not God's creation B ... What is it?

In this example from Job we have an interaction between God A and the creation B...it is rather interesting.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Are God's [A] dealings with the creation Satan and Job unjust?....on what [logical] legal grounds?

Does not the potter A have power over the clay B...to do with it as he pleases?

It is not logically consistent for you to use Scripture to "prove" that God is a monster. It is your responsibility to interpret the Scripture more charitably. In a sense, this is an attitude problem, meaning you are approaching Scripture - and approaching this debate - with the wrong attitude. The appropriate attitude is this, "I realize it is my responsibility to interpret this passage favorably toward God, but I just can't figure out how to do it. Can the rest of you guys help me out on this one?"

I'd be a little more inclined to help you out if you asked the question in those terms, with that kind of attitude. (Although I'll admit I don't have time to cover every passage with you).

 

[JAL]

He cannot be reasoned with, that much is clear. I suggest that he be ignored, because he has nothing of worth to add, his reason for being here is to bash, derogate and tell falsehoods about Calvinism.

Stop feeding the animals!

You are only willing to deal with people who kiss up to Calvin and pay homage to his views. Fact is, anytime some criticizes Calvinism, you call him a "Calvinist-basher." You cry foul. You play the game, "We poor Calvinists are so persecuted, everyone is bashing us." Wah, wah, wah. Cry me a river.

What's so hypocritical about all this is that, with great liberality, you go from thread to thread criticizing other people's views. You just can't take it when we do the same to Calvin.

 

[squint]

A brilliant theologian recently stated, You cannot, on the one hand, claim that God is “good” or “God is love” and then, on the other hand, read a verse such as, “God bound all men to disobedience” in a way that impugns His character.

Here's a clue for your 'brilliant' theologian. Mankind is NOT alone in either flesh or MIND. Jesus showed the existence of OTHER ENTITIES IN MANKIND on nearly every page of the New Testament Gospels.

And the very FIRST working those 'other entities' IN mankinds mind DO is to blame and accuse MANKIND and MANKIND ONLY.

It is more than reasonable to UNDERSTAND that IF this is the case, and this case should be beyond ANY doubt for anyone with half a wit to read, THEN the 'disobedience' that God BOUND all men to (as Paul clearly stated) does not have to be THE SAME AS THEM.

God without any doubt made VESSELS OF DISHONOR and USES THEM and when finished using them, will DISCARD THEM in the LAKE OF FIRE. These VESSELS of DIShonor are...drumroll...the DEVIL and his messengers.

I have no use to look at any person in the light of WORD disclosures and be required to see ONLY THEM when the evidence for MORE than them couldn't be ANY clearer, even if we CAN'T SEE THEM. Get it? This is where Calvinism and freewillism go entirely off the track because NEITHER understanding has the OTHER ENTITIES workings factored in to ANY degree, but instead ONLY BLAME MANKIND either by 'mankinds' will or by predeterminism to damnation of mankind and in BOTH presentations BOTH still eternally damn the entirety of unsaved mankind.

The best you freewillers do is provide a 'chance' for someone to 'save themselves' from the God who supposedly LOVES them. And if they can't ACTIVATE God in their behalves, then GOD is FORCED to burn them alive forever (or insert your favorite form of eternal damnation of your unsaved neighbors-annihilation/separation etc. etc.)

We can all read that we are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves, presumably even the UNsaved ones and presumably even our neighbors whom we might falsely perceive as our ENEMIES. We are not commanded to love the real opposers of God, the DEVIL and his messengers.

You have to be consistent. You want to make God a monster? Fine, but make sure you do it in all the verses, not just in the ones where it suits your fancy. Thus where the Scripture says, “God is love”, make sure to understand it as, “God is a monster.”

We can both be assured that God will be a monster to sin, evil and the workers of iniquity who are FOUND IN MANKIND that are NOT mankind.

You are not making clear statements. You say that “how you get there is irrelevant?” Imagine two men who kill their families. The one did it by accident, the other by premeditated malice. You are telling me to regard these men the same? I mean, you may have a point here, but if so, you need to make it more clear.

Very bad comparison. Both Calvinists and 'most' freewillers condemn the UNsaved for ANY reason to be burned alive forever. Yet neither Calvinist or freewiller can deny that it is the 'god of this world' who BLINDS the minds of UNbelievers and BLAME THAT WORKING. Nope. They just blame their fellow man and their fellow man ONLY. The freewiller blames their fellow man on the basis of ALLOWING that BLINDING FORCE of the DEVIL to blind them. The Calvinist says that God allows it so THAT'S IT and if God didn't want to allow it, He can remove it. I agree with Calvinists on this matter.

Perhaps you are equating “free will” with “random chance.” This would be, in essence, a denial of free will – a denial of premeditated intentionality.

Freewill 'chance' is random chance. If you were lucky enough to be born a.d. If you were lucky enough to be born in a country that actually allows The Gospel to be preached. If you were lucky enough to even hear THE CORRECT Gospel. If you were lucky enough to be in the 'right mood' to accept it...get the point?

Or maybe if you were lucky enough NOT to have reached the magic age of accountability and were then SAVED ANYWAY! Or lucky enough to be mentally impaired and were SAVED ANYWAY!

Again, I don’t see how Christian theology can survive without real free will. If you want to put in an argument for the “end of Christian theology”, fine, I can’t really disprove you.

I won't get into the "I used to be" a freewiller or a Calvinist (been both) posture.

God WILL undoubtedly extract His Exact Purposes with His Own creation. The extents and outcomes of that vary only to the degree of just how GREAT one might think their God actually IS. I afford God as much as I can possibly SEE in the scriptures and know that IF God has requested me to love my UNsaved neighbors and my enemies, then HE WILL DO NO LESS. In fact I might even presume He is not a blatant HYPOCRITE and expect Him to do FAR FAR better than what I can perceive. And HE will do so quite apart from the use of freewill. The best that I can afford mankind is A TAMPERED will. It can be TAMPERED by both God and DEVILS. And this TAMPERING does transpire PRIMARILY in believers. We know wherever the Word is sown SATAN, the WICKED ONE comes to steal. So it is IN THE CHURCHES where one primarily FINDS this working. And the 'evidence' for this FACT is nearly overwhelming, yet at the same time overwhelmingly DENIED by the very people who should KNOW it's a FACT. We all just gather everday to beat each other over our theological heads.

I've been turned to my 'real' enemies, knowing that God Promises their arousal IF I abide in Him.

But until then – if we are going to have a logically consistent Christian theology – we must acquiesce to the concept of real freedom. Something more than random chance.

Let's suppose a fact or two together and see where it goes.

Let's suppose that Paul was accurate in his depiction in Romans 9:19-21 wherein he says that in each LUMP called 'ME' there is both a VESSEL OF HONOR (that would be ALL OF MANKIND) and a VESSEL OF DISHONOR (that would be ALL of DEVILkind.) The clay Paul termed "ME." Why have you made ME thus. Well, ME just doesn't KNOW that there is MORE TO ME than JUST ME. And we would NEVER know unless someone like PAUL wrote of this DIVISION of the vessels or someone like JESUS cast them OUT (or rebuked them or told them to shut up etc.)

Paul divided himself in this way very clearly in Romans 7:17-21 calling the sin that indwelt his own flesh NO LONGER I twice! Paul also stated that when he wanted to do good that EVIL was present with him. I have ZERO use in seeing EVIL PAUL. Zero. John the Apostle IMPLICATES the DEVIL in EVERY SIN in 1 John 3:9. There is simply no use ignoring the DEVIL'S ROLE in these matters. None. And to simply heap blame upon our fellow man and each other is just more WORTHLESS DRIVEL when all the facts are NOT on the table.

This is a very firm repudiation of free will. This is the old argument that all acts must have a cause, and since God was the first cause, Adam wasn’t really free. I do agree that all physical acts must have a cause, but a free act is one where my own free choice causes my behavior. As I said, to deny this possibility spells the end of Christian theology.

Whether we 'accept' certain TRUTHFUL FACTS will not change the facts. There are very certain TRUTHFUL FACTS contained in scripture about the construction of mankind and THAT being also with the workings of DARKNESS that is of the DEVIL. None of us are 'free' from that working but we CAN discern the 'difference' between ourselves as VESSELS OF HONOR and THEY as VESSELS OF DISHONOR and find at least a portion of our HOPE there. But this is a pretty big pill of TRUTH for the OPPOSITION party to allow 'you' as the VESSEL OF HONOR to swallow. They exist to FIGHT this disclosure and fight they will and fight they DO.

And all this time you thought every thought in your own head was JUST YOU. I will tell you that ALL the freewill in the world WILL NOT STOP the assault of the DEVIL in the minds of mankind. And applying WORD will ASSURE that working is aroused to make the fact of THEIR PRESENCE beyond denial to the VESSEL OF HONOR. No believer in his right mind dares pick up the LAW because the presence of SIN is aroused and empowered therein. Believers then are FALSELY led to conclude that IT DON'T APPLY to ME ME ME, but the fact is THE LAW does arouse LAWLESSNESS and that LAWLESSNESS is of the DEVIL in the flesh and mind, therefore BELIVERS flee the Law because they KNOW it 'condemns' them as SINNERS, and it DOES.

This action is 'supposed' to then 'lead' us to the SPIRIT OF THE LAW which is to LOVE OUR NEIGHBORS as ourselves, but LOOK what has transpired within Christianity. The very ones we are to LOVE are now OPENLY CONDEMNED to be burned alive from the pulpits on nearly every street corner, and every church is DIVIDED against the others.

Now tell me you DON'T SEE the workings of the ENEMIES??? Tell me they are just YOUR FELLOW MAN? No. Satan TRUMPETS from nearly every pulpit and MOCKS God who IS LOVE every single day and this MOCKING transpires IN MANKIND.

Here you refer to a verse which is unclear. I’m not convinced Jesus was incarnate and slain in blood before the world began.

Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

God's Plan in Christ was in place LONG before Adam came along.

Let’s be reluctant about building a whole theology on a very unclear verse.

Sorry, I don't think God dreamt up Jesus at the last minute and that His life, work, word, execution and resurrection were a set of random acts committed by an endless series of freewill agents including Jesus operating by random chance.

Courts administer imperfect injustice. The judges themselves admit it – they do the best they can. But yes, if the reason kids act inappropriately is because of bad parenting, perfect justice rightly punishes the parent.

Bravo! I think God did get just a LITTLE punishment for Himself dontchathink? What did HE SHOW you in that? HE was responsible enough to GIVE UP HIS LIFE.

However, where the parent has acted appropriately, perfect justice rightly punishes the children, assuming they have reached the age of accountability and engaged in real freedom (premeditated intentionality).

I've had this logic construct placed on me when "I was" a freewiller. It took me a few weeks to realize that it was true. IF the age of accountability is TRUE then it makes ABORTION OF CHILDREN a GUARANTEE of salvation for them, making that A JUST ACT as it INSURES their ETERNAL SALVATION.

I mean really, WHY TAKE A CHANCE in place of a GUARANTEE?

I strongly disagree. Again, you cannot, with logical consistency, impugn God’s character.

I don't. I believe God is Great Enough to USE EVIL for His Intended Purposes AND OVERCOME every single act and action of evil that WILL EVER transpire as if it NEVER EXISTED and that in DOING SO He will extract a PERFECT outcome.

Let's suppose you are God and you have CHILDREN. All of mankind were taught by Paul to be GOD'S OFFSPRING in Acts 17:23-29. Let's suppose that God wanted to DEMONstrate in REAL TIME ACTION some DIVINE CHARACTERISTICS and ATTRIBUTES to His offspring. Attributes like MERCY and FORGIVENESS and LONG SUFFERING and HOPE. What better way to do it than to form TEMPORAL ADVERSARIAL POWERS (not LIVING, but like TOOLS) and PLACE HIS OFFSPRING under those elemental powers? That is really what is going on with mankind and creation.

Also in this way HIS LOVE is 'proved out' in a REAL WORKING ENVIRONMENT and not just a bunch O' talk.

You need to reinterpret those verses is a more charitable manner, such as the ones you cite below:

I have no interest in selling soft soap. The Old Testament is FULL to the brim with God's workings of RETRIBUTIVE EVIL on this earth. That working HASN'T stopped if you haven't noticed. God is not in need of my excuses for the FACTS.

I’m not going to sit here and debate every verse in the Bible with you. It is Y OUR responsibility to interpret them without impugning God’s character, for the sake of logical consistency.

I don't expect God to deal with vessels of DIShonor in the same way that He deals with vessels of HONOR. One will receive MERCY from the experience of being BOUND with the other vessel who will be DISCARDED when He is finished using those TOOLS...

Many see incidents such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the flood as God punishing the EVIL PEOPLE. I do not. I see God RELEASING His offfspring from their bodies of CLAY wherein they were BOUND with THE EVIL VESSELS and the EVIL VESSELS got a clear WARNING SHOT of what is to come for THEM when their time is DONE. And they should perhaps not 'speed' their pending demise eh? Those 'EVIL vessels' were ALL made temporarily HOMELESS.

enjoy!

squint

 

[beloved57]

Here's a clue for your 'brilliant' theologian. Mankind is NOT alone in either flesh or MIND. Jesus showed the existence of OTHER ENTITIES IN MANKIND on nearly every page of the New Testament Gospels.

Jesus showed as it was showed in the garden in gen 3 :

15And I will[ Gods Sovereignty] put enmity[hatred] between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

By Gods Sovereignty He declares Two seeds within mankind, One belongs to satan and the other belongs to christ..Those of mankind who belong to satans spiritual descendants or seed..will suffer as satan their father eternal damnation in hell..This is why Jesus said to some of those who belonged to that seed these words..matt 23:

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Jesus as the seed of the women, hates these men and confirms their eternal destiny..

These are people who are Gods enemies..and will suffer eternal damnation, Jesus gives them no hope..prov 11:

21Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.

The seed of the righteous, the seed of the women, shall be delivered..God has decreed their salvation through Jesus christ, this is the election of grace..

Paul teaches two types of mankind, one type is vessels of wrath, these are satans seed who God created to be a demonstration of his wrath against their sins..rom 9:


18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Then God made people of the seed of the women, vessels of mercy to demonstrate His sivereign mercy and salvation rom 9:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

so the truth is , each of mankind belongs to one or the other seed, and nothing can change that..it was determined by God before the world began..

 

[JAL]

NobodysFool wants everyone to think that I have nothing relevant to say.

Here’s a post where I discuss yet another contradiction in Calvinism (called Federalism). It’s a long post, admittedly, but that’s because I also take the time to spell out my own theory of predestination and election. In other words I provide a doctrine of election and predestination that doesn’t impugn God’s justice, integrity, and goodness.

If you want to read a more complete critique of Federalism, read the opening post on that thread. However, the opening post doesn’t discuss predestination and election.

 

[moonbeam]

Your formula lacks many things. For example how do you term the power of death? A 'creation?' No. An ANTI-creation. How about ANTI-Christ spirits? Got a class for them? If these are opposites or againsts or opposers of Christ who is LIFE, then 'what are they?'

All powers and authorities in the heavens and the earth of what ever kind are all the result of the creation of God [A] ....all of those powers and authorities in the heavens and the earth of what ever kind are inclusive in the creation

Hence the logical equation can only include God [A] ... and that which God has created

There is NO other logical construct.

Exactly. Your formula remains at severe lack. There are powers and forces visible and invisible, many of which we may not know and not all of these can be lumped into 'creation.'Anti-creation can and does exist.

Anti-creation is anti-Christ...and is a constituent principle/part of the creation ...there is only one other catergory...God [A]

The formula God is [A] and all that is created is is logical...and establishes the utter transcendence of A over B.

Hence the legal code applicable to B [imposed by A] is not applicable to A.

This is why God can not sin...or be charged [successfully] with unrighteousness.

This is the foundational principle inherent in the concept of God's Holiness...it is that He is separate from us.

He is always the I AM ... we are always that which is other than "I am"


You did not address the issue of God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice as seen in the example of Job

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

 

[moonbeam]

The appropriate attitude is this, "I realize it is my responsibility to interpret this passage favorably toward God, but I just can't figure out how to do it. Can the rest of you guys help me out on this one?"

You did not address the issue of God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice as seen in the example of Job

In this example from Job we have an interaction between God A and the creation B...it is rather interesting.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Are God's [A] dealings with the creation Satan and Job unjust?....on what [logical] legal grounds?

Does not the potter A have power over the clay B...to do with it as he pleases?

(Although I'll admit I don't have time to cover every passage with you).

Perhaps you can find the time to cover that passage from Job.

 

[JAL]

This post of yours, Squint (#168), is quite long. Let’s see what I can do here.

IF the age of accountability is TRUE then it makes ABORTION OF CHILDREN a GUARANTEE of salvation for them, making that A JUST ACT as it INSURES their ETERNAL SALVATION.
I mean really, WHY TAKE A CHANCE in place of a GUARANTEE?

By “age of accountability” I do not mean to imply that babes are innocent. All babes are guilty in Adam. To see what I mean by this, please check out the link that I just provided, to my critique of Federalism.

Since all babes are guilty in Adam, you cannot presume to save them by abortion. Sorry, but I am not necessarily convinced that “all babes go to heaven.”

Freewill 'chance' is random chance. If you were lucky enough to be born a.d. If you were lucky enough to be born in a country that actually allows The Gospel to be preached. If you were lucky enough to even hear THE CORRECT Gospel. If you were lucky enough to be in the 'right mood' to accept it...get the point?

Or maybe if you were lucky enough NOT to have reached the magic age of accountability and were then SAVED ANYWAY! Or lucky enough to be mentally impaired and were SAVED ANYWAY!

Originally I though by “luck” you were implying that behavior which is not predetermined is random behavior. Now I am gleaning that by luck you refer to whether we are fortunate enough to be born into circumstances favorable to the gospel.

I think you may be getting off-topic. The main issue I raised is that Adam is pronounced a transgressor. This makes no sense if Adam had no free will. Let’s deal with that issue first, and then let’s decide if we need to discuss whether the rest of us have free will.

As most of your post is dealing with “the rest of us” rather than with Adam, I am not terribly eager to address it at this point. Romans 5 centers divine judgment on Adam. It is therefore paramount that we deal with Adam appropriately, before dealing with “the rest of us.”

Again you cite this verse, to prove that God foreordained the atonement:

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8).

I already addressed this. Your reading is unclear and problematical. If Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, then the cross, and the supposed hypostatic union, all happened twice. This kind of reading borders on absurdity. I am not going to build a whole theology on an unclear verse.

Vincent’s Word Studies suggests there may be a different rendering of the Greek, without changing the wording. In this other rendering, the text would read like this (the same words but in a different logic or order):

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written, from the foundation of the world, in the book of life of the Lamb slain.”

Similarly the commentator John Gill tranlates it as:

"and their names being written therein from the foundation of the world"

In these renderings, the verse is merely using the Lamb's Book of Life to betoken predestination and election. I’m fine with that. At least it doesn’t lead to the absurdity of a double-crucifixion, one that happened before the foundation of the world, plus one that happened in Roman times.

Sorry, I don't think God dreamt up Jesus at the last minute and that His life, work, word, execution and resurrection were a set of random acts committed by an endless series of freewill agents including Jesus operating by random chance.

But this is hyperbolizing my position. No one thinks the atonement is random chance, or dreamt up at the last minute. God prepared, before the foundation of the world, for the event of the fall, should it happen. It did happen and so He reacted accordingly. This doesn’t prove that He foreknew it, much less foreordained it.

I’m not going to address every word of your post point by point because most of it isn’t focused on Adam. Maybe I’ll take another look at it to see if I missed any relevant points.

 

[JAL]

You did not address the issue of God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice as seen in the example of Job

I don't need to address it. You are trying to use Scripture to "prove" that God is a monster. When I am convinced that you are trying to defend God rather than impugn Him, perhaps I'll discuss some of these passages with you.

 

[moonbeam]

I don't need to address it.

You can't address it...without revealing the nakedness of your theology.

You are trying to use Scripture to "prove" that God is a monster.

You are avoiding scripture ... to 'prove' you false construct of your false god and your false theology.

Enough of your evasion of the truth...gird up your loins like a man...and deal with the scripture.

It would be better for you if you dealt with the facts revealed in the text...instead of your opinions.

 

[JAL]

It would be better for you if you dealt with the facts revealed in the text...instead of your opinions.

The "facts revealed in the text"? Strictly speaking, nothing is clearly and unambiguously revealed in the text. In other words, Sola Scriptura doesn't work. Here's an example of why it doesn't work, that is, why you can't, in the apodictic sense, fully "prove" something from Scripture.

A proof is built upon assumptions which in turn need to be proven. But in trying to prove this assumptions, here too we need another proof, which in turn is built upon assumptions. This leads to an infinite regress of proving assumptions, whence nothing is ever proven. Proofs are therefore doomed to failure. (God's a bit smarter than you are. He suffers no delusions about the potentiality of Sola Scriptura).

Therefore the most we can hope for, when it comes to biblical exegesis, is to produce a logically consistent theology. For instance, if I feel compelled to translate one verse as, "God is love", I must not, in the interest of logical consistency, translate other verses in a way that impugn God's character.

You can't address it...without revealing the nakedness of your theology.

You are avoiding scripture ... to 'prove' you false construct of your false god and your false theology.

Enough of your evasion of the truth...gird up your loins like a man...and deal with the scripture.

Nope. I am pretty confident I can handle any verse you throw at me. But I am not going to do all your homework for you. It is YOUR responsibility, for the sake of logical consistency, to interpret these verses in a manner that doesn't impugn God's goodness, fairness, and integrity.

 

[moonbeam]

The "facts revealed in the text"? Strictly speaking, nothing is clearly and unambiguously revealed in the text.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

There are plenty of facts revealed in this text [as in every text]...you just refuse to accept them.

The facts in this text reveal God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice as seen in the example of Job

Your silence on the implications of this text reveal the weakness and logical inconsistencies of your theology.

 

[MamaZ]

What is God promising to us? Eternal "love"? Eternal "justice." Yes. So define those terms. What does God mean by "justice" - does it mean engaging in cruel lies, such as calling Adam "guilty" after predetermining his behavior? Does it mean condemning billions to hellfire before they even had a chance to sin? Dishonestly calling them guilty?

If God is so dishonest, you can't even trust His promises. They are worthless.

God promises us His Children eternal life. You have set yourself up to be judge over God.
Billions before they had a chance to sin? Since Adam all men are born in sin.

 

[MamaZ]

The "facts revealed in the text"? Strictly speaking, nothing is clearly and unambiguously revealed in the text. In other words, Sola Scriptura doesn't work. Here's an example of why it doesn't work, that is, why you can't, in the apodictic sense, fully "prove" something from Scripture.

A proof is built upon assumptions which in turn need to be proven. But in trying to prove this assumptions, here too we need another proof, which in turn is built upon assumptions. This leads to an infinite regress of proving assumptions, whence nothing is ever proven. Proofs are therefore doomed to failure. (God's a bit smarter than you are. He suffers no delusions about the potentiality of Sola Scriptura).

Therefore the most we can hope for, when it comes to biblical exegesis, is to produce a logically consistent theology. For instance, if I feel compelled to translate one verse as, "God is love", I must not, in the interest of logical consistency, translate other verses in a way that impugn God's character.

Nope. I am pretty confident I can handle any verse you throw at me. But I am not going to do all your homework for you. It is YOUR responsibility, for the sake of logical consistency, to interpret these verses in a manner that doesn't impugn God's goodness, fairness, and integrity.

Logical consistancy? God has taken even the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

 

[JAL]

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

There are plenty of facts revealed in this text [as in every text]...you just refuse to accept them.

The facts in this text reveal God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice as seen in the example of Job

Your silence on the implications of this text reveal the weakness and logical inconsistencies of your theology.

Sure, you can interpret it that way, if God is a monster. All I said is, be consistent. That means, where it says, "God is love", you apparently take this to mean, "God is a monster." Fine with me. I can't really disprove your position. I'm glad you're consistent, even though we happen to disagree.

I'm dealing here with those are inconsistent. I have no quarrel with you since, apparently, you are consistent.