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

[Butch5]

Ummm so you do not believe in original sin??

"On the other hand, we are affected by Adam’s sin. This is how. Before the fall, Adam was sinless, perfect, and good (Gen. 1:31). He had a ‘good’ nature. But, after the fall, he became a sinner. His nature was changed from ‘good’ to ‘bad.’ Since we are his children, we inherit his sinful nature (Rom. 5:12)." https://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/are-we-punished-adams-sin

The fall corrupted nature and mankind..

Gen 5 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

1 When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

No, I don't believe in original sin. You didn't answer my questions though. I asked, where does Scripture say that Adam's nature changed after he sinned? Where does Scripture say that everything an unsaved man does is sin?

It seems you've given me your opinion which seems to be drawn from inferences rather than clear statements in Scripture. I don't see anything that teaches original sin. Actually I see Scripture opposing the idea.

16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16 KJV)

I also didn't see anything in Scripture called "The Fall"

 

[Marvin Knox]

John 1:13 is referring to Jesus not those who believed on His name. Jesus is the one who was born of the will of God. Humans are born of the will of the flesh and the will of man, Jesus was not.

This concept is so wrong it doesn't even appear to be from the same Bible.

I guess we could say that this drastically wrong interpretation is the reason that you have gone wrong in so many other areas.

On the other hand - it could be that your having gone wrong in so many other areas is exactly the reason you have found it necessary to force this meaning into the passage to bolster your theology.

Wow! That interpretation of yours was absolutely off the charts.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It's interesting that bring up logic as I see a few leaps. You mentioned the Hypo-static union. That idea is logically impossible. It violates the Law of Non Contradiction. A person cannot be "fully" two different things. If Jesus is fully man then He can't be anything else. If He is then He is not fully man. However, we read in Scripture that He was made in all ways like His brethren.

Wow.

You're really coming out of the bent theology closet tonight aren't you?

Hypostatic means personal in the Greek. The personal union of Jesus’ two natures is called the hypostatic union.

He had a fully human and a fully divine nature. These two natures were united in one person – the God-man, Jesus.

He was and is one person not two persons.

And yes - like the doctrine of the Trinity - it defies logic.

Additionally, if He could not sin then He wasn't tempted in all ways as we are. We find these words from Paul.

15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 NKJ)

Paul says He was tempted. If one cannot sin then they cannot be tempted to sin.

I don't have a firm position on the impeccability of Jesus.

But whichever side of the fence you hold to on that doctrine - your lack of good logic here is astounding in a couple of areas in just this brief statement.

7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (Jn. 1:7-9 NKJ)

John wrote that Christ gives light to every person coming into the world. Note too, that the purpose of this understanding is so that they might believe.

I have never said otherwise.

All men are without excuse.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Sorry, Marvin, but this is total nonsense. I clearly said that I don't see omniscience the way you do. That is hardly an admission that I don't believe that God is omniscient. I strongly disagree with your view of it. That's all.

We are talking about omnipresence not omniscience.

And yes - we do disagree profoundly in both areas.

To exist everwhere doesn't mean to exist within everything. I believe your view is very confused.

Of course it does. it means exactly what it says "everywhere". There is no place where He is not found in His entirely.

I'm just glad I wasn't indoctrinated at that college.

Yes, He is present at all times. That does NOT mean He exists within atoms. LOL

The omnipresence and the immensity of God are common doctrines.

It's sad that you find the infinite nature of God a laughing matter.

But it does explain a few things from my standpoint.

“In Him we live and move and have our being.” “All things were created by Him and for Him and in Him all things consist.”

The Word of God not only created the universe but He sustains it now. Without Him the universe would fall apart.

The very existence of each of us, to say nothing of our salvation, depends on Him.

The Word of God fills all in all. I believe it.

You and I (and apparently many others in this forum) see our creator from completely different paradigms concerning His very nature and the extent of His providential control of His creation.

We can never come to an understanding as long as our understandings of God are so much different.

 

[Marvin Knox]

staff edit

<STAFF EDIT>

I am reproducing the article link that you yourself supplied for us just to make things easy here and since people tend to not follow things up for themselves.

"
Question: "What is pantheism?"

Answer: Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism is similar to polytheism (the belief in many gods), but goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. A tree is God, a rock is God, an animal is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. Pantheism is the supposition behind many cults and false religions (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent, the various unity and unification cults, and “mother nature” worshipers).

Does the Bible teach pantheism? No, it does not. What many people confuse as pantheism is the doctrine of God's omnipresence. Psalm 139:7-8 declares, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.” God's omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no place in the universe where God is not present. This is not the same thing as pantheism. God is everywhere, but He is not everything. Yes, God is “present” inside a tree and inside a person, but that does not make that tree or person God. Pantheism is not at all a biblical belief.

The clearest biblical arguments against pantheism are the countless commands against idolatry. The Bible forbids the worship of idols, angels, celestial objects, items in nature, etc. If pantheism were true, it would not be wrong to worship such an object, because that object would, in fact, be God. If pantheism were true, worshiping a rock or an animal would have just as much validity as worshiping God as an invisible and spiritual being. The Bible’s clear and consistent denunciation of idolatry is a conclusive argument against pantheism. "

<STAFF EDIT>

Thanks.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'll just lay this out one more time for good measure.

The Word of God not only created the world. He holds it together with His presence at all times.

This rather vague idea that people have that God sort of "allows things to happen" is absolutely preposterous.

God doesn't live "up there" somewhere looking on and observing our choices and actions. He doesn't just step into the world occasionally to tweak things a bit.

The Word of God has not left that kind of absentee God open as an option for us to believe in.

If the Word isn't "saying it" it isn't existing and it isn't happening.

In Him we live and move and have our being.

The idea that His creation can do things with the the almighty, omnipresent God that He did not preordain and even now constantly approve of is so far removed from good Biblical understanding that it doesn't even seem to be the same God being worshiped.

I doubt that we can ever come to understanding as long as people here insist on this weak, sloppy, ill informed notion of God's nature and His providential control of all that He has created.

 

[Butch5]

This concept is so wrong it doesn't even appear to be from the same Bible.

I guess we could say that this drastically wrong interpretation is the reason that you have gone wrong in so many other areas.

On the other hand - it could be that your having gone wrong in so many other areas is exactly the reason you have found it necessary to force this meaning into the passage to bolster your theology.

Wow! That interpretation of yours was absolutely off the charts.

This concept is so wrong it doesn't even appear to be from the same Bible.

I guess we could say that this drastically wrong interpretation is the reason that you have gone wrong in so many other areas.

On the other hand - it could be that your having gone wrong in so many other areas is exactly the reason you have found it necessary to force this meaning into the passage to bolster your theology.

Wow! That interpretation of yours was absolutely off the charts.

Ah, the old stand by, the ad hominem. Your statement is also arbitrary. You didn't address the evidence I gave. What believer is there who wasn't born of the will of man or of the flesh, The passage expressly reads,

KJV John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(Jn. 1:13 KJV)

I'm not aware of any person who was not born of the will of the flesh and man. However, there is further evidence, historical evidence, to support what I said.

Chapter XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born7200 not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?”7201 I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural)7202 “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves.7203 But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men,7204 because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition7205 into the coagulum of the woman’s blood.

Valentinus was a Gnostic who Tertullian was refuting. Notice that this idea of a special elect and spiritual people existed long before Calvin's idea of it. However, Tertullian is refuting it. This evidence precedes the earliest copies we have of the NT. This give support to the logical argument that the passages is referring to Christ and not to "those who believed on His name."

 

[Butch5]

Wow.

You're really coming out of the bent theology closet tonight aren't you?

Hypostatic means personal in the Greek. The personal union of Jesus’ two natures is called the hypostatic union.

He had a fully human and a fully divine nature. These two natures were united in one person – the God-man, Jesus.

He was and is one person not two persons.

Bent theology? It's not my theology that is defying logic. If we defy logic we can claim whatever we want.

I never suggested He was two persons. I said a person cannot be fully two things. One cannot be fully human and something else. It defies the Law of Non Contradiction. We find in Scripture that God cannot deny Himself therefore the Law of Non Contradiction is of God's essence.

And yes - like the doctrine of the Trinity - it defies logic.

No, it doesn't. The modern idea that is called the Trinity defies logic. The Biblical and original teaching of the Trinity doesn't. The view from the Anthanasian Creed, the view that there are three co-equal, co-eternal, that are one is what defies logic. However, what was taught in the beginning doesn't. Paul said,

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:6 KJV)

I don't have a firm position on the impeccability of Jesus.

But whichever side of the fence you hold to on that doctrine - your lack of good logic here is astounding in a couple of areas in just this brief statement.

And since you didn't point it out I'll have to assume that this is just another Ad Honimen.

I have never said otherwise.

All men are without excuse.

It makes moot the Calvinist's argument. The Calvinist argues God must act towards man before man can act towards God. Well God has acted towards every person who is born .

 

[FreeGrace2]

They did not act against "their nature" ....They were created innocent ... They had the ability to sin or not to sin ...The sin nature came about BECAUSE OF THEIR SIN …

Correct.

After the fall everything the natural man does is sin before God ... he is unable to do God pleasing acts (Romans 8:8...Romans 14:23 ....Hebrews 11:6)

Not correct. Per Heb 11:6, God is pleased by faith. There are no verses that support the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity in which man is unable to believe before regeneration. Unregenerate man CAN believe the gospel. In fact, Eph 2:5 and 8 show that regeneration, or being "quickened" occurs through faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where did you get this? Where does Scripture say that Adam's nature changed after he sinned? Where does Scripture say that everything an unsaved man does is sin?

Adam's nature didn't change; it became corrupt through sin.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And indeed He does.. But who will believe in His name ?
1 Corth 2:14
“The natural man (the soulish man – one who only uses the five senses) receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned.”

Context always clarifies any verse. So, let's check the context of ch 2. v.6 - "Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away" This is a reference to spiritual maturity and the "wisdom" refers to Biblical truth that leads to maturity. This is not about the gospel, but advanced doctrines.

v.10 - "but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God." Here, the "deep things of God" is a reference to advanced doctrines, which lead to spiritual maturity.

So, v.14 is about those things that lead to spiritual maturity, something not even available to the unbeliever, who doesn't have the indwelling Holy Spirit. So v.14 is saying that advanced doctrines cannot be understood by the unbeliever.

There are many unbeliever who clearly do understand the gospel all the while rejecting it.

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This isn't inability to believe the gospel, but rather it is God who regenerates man. Man does not choose to birth himself.

You do not seem to like the verse that follows yours

Rather, it seems my comments have been totally misunderstood.

Scripture is saying clearly that one is not "born saved " , ( especially significant to the jews that saw themselves as having an exclusive relationship with God ) nor by us willing someone to be saved , nor saved by our own will ... but by only the will God

Of course no one is born saved. We are all born unsaved, or as Paul said, "dead in our trespasses" in Eph 2:1.

Without the work of God the natural man will never hear or understand the gospel call

And God has already done His work. All that's left is for man to either accept or reject the gospel offer.

1 Corth 2:14
“The natural man receives NOT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because Spiritual things are Spiritually discerned.”

See above for explanation.

The natural man will never "forsake " his ways ..He loves his sin..

Tit 3:3
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
Tit 3:4
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit 3:6
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit 3:7
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Your lead statement is unbiblical. 2 Cor 3:14-16 - 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

Please note the order in v.16: one first turns to the Lord, and THEN the veil is taken away. Just the opposite of your claim.

Believing that one can save oneself by "
an act of self righteousness " ...being smarter, more clever, holier, seeing what most of the world misses... that they will go to hell if they do not choose right ..is pure arrogance , Believing he can "forsake his sin" without an act of God grace first ... is the sin of Pride

Why keep harping on "one saving oneself"?? No one can save themself. Only God saves.

Wow that "wicked calvinism " that renders to God the glory due to Him...that kneels before their sovereign God in thanksgiving for His grace... that evil calvinism ???

Yes, the Calvinism that makes claims that are not found in Scripture, such as:
Christ died only for the elect
God determines/chooses/elects who will believe. Yes, that Calvinism.

The scriptures are clear that God chooses those that are His..

Uh, if they are His, of course He chose them.

Abraham did not choose God.. God choose him

Noah did not choose God ..God chose him

Moses did not choose God ..God chose Him

Israel did not choose God... God chose them

Mary did not choose God ...God chose Her

The apostles did not choose Christ He chose them

Do you understand the purpose of election? And are you aware that Jesus also chose Judas, who betrayed Him. Jn 6:70

From Genesis onward ..we see the sovereign work of God to bring forth His plan of salvation .. choosing the line of David over others to brig forth the Savior..

Salvation is ALL of God ..100 % and not a bit of man

That's correct. What's your point?

Just as our spiritually dead bodies need the resuscitation with the grace of God

Quite wrong. First, it's not our living bodies that are "dead". It's our human spirit that we're born with that is dead. And it is the human spirit that is regenerated when one believes. Our bodies have nothing to do with regeneration. Your view is full of confusion.

Second, our human spirits need regeneration, NOT resuscitation.

Lets try this then shall we ?

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

syzōopoieō
Pronunciation
sü-zō-o-poi-e'-ō σύν (G4862) and ζῳοποιέω (G2227)
Dictionary Aids

Vine's Expository Dictionary: quicken together with (1x), quicken together (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to make one alive together
   1. of Christians, with Christ

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. to make one alive together
   1. of Christians, with Christ

1. 1. What is the point of all this?

Ummm so you would consider yourself what ??? LOL

Neither Arminian nor Calvinist, as both contain false doctrines. My theology aligns with free grace theology, hence my handle.

 

[FreeGrace2]

We are talking about omnipresence not omniscience.

And yes - we do disagree profoundly in both areas.

My bad. Yes, God is everywhere, but that doesn't mean He exists IN everything.

Of course it does. it means exactly what it says "everywhere". There is no place where He is not found in His entirely.

I reject pantheistic ideas totally.

The omnipresence and the immensity of God are common doctrines.

It's sad that you find the infinite nature of God a laughing matter.

It's sad that you think I find anything of God's nature a laughing matter. What gave you that nutty idea? I've not laughed at anything about His nature. Only about your ideas of His nature. That's a big difference.

“In Him we live and move and have our being.” “All things were created by Him and for Him and in Him all things consist.”

This doesn't say that He is IN all things. Seems you're reading INTO the Scripture.

The Word of God not only created the universe but He sustains it now. Without Him the universe would fall apart.

I totally agree.

The very existence of each of us, to say nothing of our salvation, depends on Him.

Again, total agreement.

The Word of God fills all in all. I believe it.

So do I. But I don't believe that the statement means or even suggests that God exists WITHIN all things. And no verse says so.

You and I (and apparently many others in this forum) see our creator from completely different paradigms concerning His very nature and the extent of His providential control of His creation.

That's why there are these forums.

We can never come to an understanding as long as our understandings of God are so much different.

True.

However, when truth is presented, and one has an open mind and listening to the Holy Spirit, God does "open our hearts" to hear the truth.

The problem lies when one is more interested in defending what they believe that truly being open.

I've weighed everything you've posted, and we are in agreement in a lot of areas. But until I find verses that support the things you believe that I've disagreed with, there is no reason to believe them.

If you can provide a verse that tells me that God exists WITHIN things, I will believe it. But from how you've presented your view, it seems more like pantheism.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ah, the old stand by, the ad hominem. Your statement is also arbitrary. You didn't address the evidence I gave. What believer is there who wasn't born of the will of man or of the flesh, The passage expressly reads,

KJV John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(Jn. 1:13 KJV)

Breaking this down, your take on this is the exact opposite of what it says.

the point is, they were born of God, NOT of blood (lineage), NOT of the will of the flesh, NOT of the will of man. Those 3 things are excluded as the reason of their birth. who is being referred to here? Those who have believed, and have been given authority to be Children of God, the ones believing in His Name.

I'm not aware of any person who was not born of the will of the flesh and man. However, there is further evidence, historical evidence, to support what I said.

Chapter XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.

What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born7200 not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God?”7201 I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural)7202 “Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves.7203 But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men,7204 because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition7205 into the coagulum of the woman’s blood.

Valentinus was a Gnostic who Tertullian was refuting. Notice that this idea of a special elect and spiritual people existed long before Calvin's idea of it. However, Tertullian is refuting it. This evidence precedes the earliest copies we have of the NT. This give support to the logical argument that the passages is referring to Christ and not to "those who believed on His name."

Sorry, but if this is Tertullian, he missed the point entirely.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Ah, the old stand by, the ad hominem. Your statement is also arbitrary. You didn't address the evidence I gave. What believer is there who wasn't born of the will of man or of the flesh, The passage expressly reads,

KJV John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(Jn. 1:13 KJV)

I'm not aware of any person who was not born of the will of the flesh and man....................

You said earlier,

John 1:13 is referring to Jesus not those who believed on His name. Jesus is the one who was born of the will of God. Humans are born of the will of the flesh and the will of man, Jesus was not.

To which I replied,

This concept is so wrong it doesn't even appear to be from the same Bible.

I guess we could say that this drastically wrong interpretation is the reason that you have gone wrong in so many other areas.

On the other hand - it could be that your having gone wrong in so many other areas is exactly the reason you have found it necessary to force this meaning into the passage to bolster your theology.

Wow! That interpretation of yours was absolutely off the charts.

Here is the passage you explained so wrongly.
John 1:9-13 "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

I doubt that everyone will have the time to follow this our dialog from start to finish.

But, if they do, they will notice your dishonest post first listed here.

You clearly said that the passage was pointing to the fact that Jesus was born of God and not to the fact than saved men were born of God.

The reason for your trying to twist things that way is to stay away from the idea that regeneration is from God and not from anything men have done.

I called you on it. Your response is now to take the conversation in a different direction.

I'm pointing this out for anyone interested to see.

I don't intend to dialog with you any more on this thread because you are not discussing theology in a straight forward manner.

I will not cast my pearls before swine. This is what the Lord Jesus warned all of us to be careful about doing.

staff edit

 

[Marvin Knox]

My bad. Yes, God is everywhere, but that doesn't mean He exists IN everything.

I’ll just repeat what I said earlier. “Of course it does. it means exactly what it says "everywhere". There is no place where He is not found in His entirely.”

I reject pantheistic ideas totally.

I do as well.

Show me something that I have said that teaches pantheism.

It's sad that you think I find anything of God's nature a laughing matter. What gave you that nutty idea? I've not laughed at anything about His nature. Only about your ideas of His nature. That's a big difference.

My ideas about His omnipresent nature are spot on.

The reason they seem so strange to non-Reformed people here is because they have been allowed to spout their pabulum for so long without being called on it by anyone pointing out the fact that God is omnipresent. IMO the implications of admitting to total omnipresence are devastating to their theology.

But I don't believe that the statement means or even suggests that God exists WITHIN all things.

I do.

He is omnipresent. That gives people who teach that God merely allows things to happen and that He is not intimately involved in everything that happens fits.- so much so that they will deny omnipresence rather than face it’s consequences.

However, when truth is presented, and one has an open mind and listening to the Holy Spirit, God does "open our hearts" to hear the truth.

That’s why we keep trying.

It is only when people play games as I alluded to in the post to another person (#116) – just preceding this one - that I break things off and give up on trying to convince.

Pearls before swine and all that.

You and I have tremendous differences as we can see clearly. But there are some here who are preaching another gospel as I see it. There is a big difference.

By the way – I have addressed the pantheism charge in my post to James (#107).

It’s not pantheism. It’s omnipresence and it has profound implications in so far as God’s constant, sovereign, providential control of His creation.

It's amazing to me by the way that people who believe the same book can have such divergent views concerning what it teaches.

As you say, "That's why there are these forums. "

 

[1213]

Non Reformed Christians here in the forum would say that the confession got it all wrong in saying that. They say this because sin exists in the world and God cannot in any way be said to be the cause of sin.

The reasoning goes that God's in any way causing sin would be an act of evil.
...
What say you and why?

I think it would be good to understand first what sin means. Basically it is same as rejecting God of living without God. So the existence of God and free will makes sin possible. When people have opportunity to reject God, they have opportunity for sin. So, God “caused” sin by giving free will. Obviously the sin is not from God, but it is possible because of God. If God would sin, it would be same as rejecting himself and that is not very logical and reasonable idea.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I think it would be good to understand first what sin means. Basically it is same as rejecting God of living without God. So the existence of God and free will makes sin possible. When people have opportunity to reject God, they have opportunity for sin. So, God “caused” sin by giving free will. Obviously the sin is not from God, but it is possible because of God. If God would sin, it would be same as rejecting himself and that is not very logical and reasonable idea.

This is exactly what I have said many times in this thread.

The "first cause" (to use the controversial words of the Westminster Confession) was God, and specifically His giving of free will to His creatures while knowing before hand in minute detail every consequence that would occur because of that decision to give free will.

The "second" or direct cause of evil is the decision of those creatures who possess that free will to act against God.

I believe that we will eventually see that these things are a good thing overall. His decisions are always good even if He uses the incorrect decisions of others to bring them to pass.

Many here on the thread (especially early on) have concentrated on the unfortunate word "cause" and missed the entire point of the doctrine. That doctrine being that God is ultimately the one who is at work with a detailed plan that will be shown to be good when all is said and done.

That plan is purposefully using every example one could give of evil in this world to bring the ultimate end game to pass.

It's a difficult doctrine. It's a teaching from scripture that we must accept by faith is not a contradiction concerning God's nature and what He does.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I’ll just repeat what I said earlier. “Of course it does. it means exactly what it says "everywhere". There is no place where He is not found in His entirely.”

And I'll just repeat the obvious: being everywhere doesn't mean IN everything.

Show me something that I have said that teaches pantheism.

Your understanding of God's omnipresence being IN everything.

My ideas about His omnipresent nature are spot on.

No, more like pantheism than Scriptural.

The reason they seem so strange to non-Reformed people here is because they have been allowed to spout their pabulum for so long without being called on it by anyone pointing out the fact that God is omnipresent.

What evangelical theology today denies that God is everywhere?

IMO the implications of admitting to total omnipresence are devastating to their theology.

Please explain how total omnipresence is "devastating" to my theology of free grace.

He is omnipresent. That gives people who teach that God merely allows things to happen and that He is not intimately involved in everything that happens fits.- so much so that they will deny omnipresence rather than face it’s consequences.

I strongly reject the idea that God only "merely allows things to happen". While He most certainly does allow things to happen, He also causes many things to happen. But believing in Christ isn't one of them.

It is only when people play games as I alluded to in the post to another person (#116) – just preceding this one - that I break things off and give up on trying to convince.

I do not even try to convince anyone since it is the Holy Spirit who convinces an convicts. I present truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Pearls before swine and all that.

I don't consider humans to be swine.

You and I have tremendous differences as we can see clearly. But there are some here who are preaching another gospel as I see it. There is a big difference.

Absolutely.

By the way – I have addressed the pantheism charge in my post to James (#107).

It’s not pantheism. It’s omnipresence and it has profound implications in so far as God’s constant, sovereign, providential control of His creation.

Well, both James and I see it as pantheistic; that God exists within things. Being everywhere doesn't mean being IN everything.

Man is not omnipresent. He exists in only one place. That said, does man exist IN the things that exist in that same place? No.

It's amazing to me by the way that people who believe the same book can have such divergent views concerning what it teaches.

Yes, it is.

 

[Butch5]

Breaking this down, your take on this is the exact opposite of what it says.

the point is, they were born of God, NOT of blood (lineage), NOT of the will of the flesh, NOT of the will of man. Those 3 things are excluded as the reason of their birth. who is being referred to here? Those who have believed, and have been given authority to be Children of God, the ones believing in His Name.

And which of those were not born of the will of the flesh, man, or blood. None! Everyone that believed on His name was born of the will of the flesh, of man, and of blood. The passage on the other hand says not born of the will of man, blood, or flesh. thus the passage excludes those who believed on His name.

Sorry, but if this is Tertullian, he missed the point entirely.

That's convenient. His comments show that verse was tampered with by the Gnostics to fit their theology.

 

[Marvin Knox]

And I'll just repeat the obvious: being everywhere doesn't mean IN everything.

You claim to believe in omnipresence when you clearly do not.

You admit it in a very selective presence, when it suits your purpose. You will not admit it where it does not.

I won’t play any games with words.

If words mean anything you do not believe in omnipresence.

Everyone can see that.

Maybe presence in a great many placed - but not omnipresence.

No, more like pantheism than Scriptural.

Look up pantheism.

You obviously don’t know what pantheism is.

The article supplied by James would be a good place for you to start.

What evangelical theology today denies that God is everywhere?

Yours does - as you have clearly shown several times.

Well, both James and I see it as pantheistic; that God exists within things. Being everywhere doesn't mean being IN everything.

James, according to the article he provided, does not see it as pantheism.

Or at least I doubt that he does now – assuming he’s had time to read his own supplied article.

I'm still waiting for an apology from him.

Pantheism says that the thing being inhabited IS God. Omnipresence simply says that God inhabits that thing. That’s a pertinent distinction. They aren’t even close to being the same concept.

Man is not omnipresent. He exists in only one place. That said, does man exist IN the things that exist in that same place? No.

Yes he does.

If man and the things mentioned only existed in the same proximity - that would be one thing.

But since we are talking about the exact same space - it would be as I say and not as you say.

Please explain how total omnipresence is "devastating" to my theology of free grace.

The implications of believing (correctly) in the concurrent actions of God and His creation is that God ordains everything that takes place in His creation.