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

[EmSw]

Doesn't seem that you take your own advice.


I knew this woman, she was free of grace also. And she would make these same kinds of arguments. Circular. And without receiving the education that others provided her in the group she attended. She just asked and asked the same thing and denied and denied what was taught by the professors of the class. Largely because she was on scholarship and was not at all interested in learning anything so as to achieve her degree. She just liked the free ride and enjoyed taking up space.

Why not comment on Ezekiel 28?

 

[nobdysfool]

More like everyone else. All mankind don't care to bother to investigate in choosing the spiritual things of God cause they are born sinners. God picked us out according to His pleasure and not how dare we tell Him he isn't fair. If He picked out only one person then He is the greatest savior of the universe. Shame on you for telling God you deserved to be treated better. Shame

You might want to look back a little further in the thread to see what led up to this remark by a Calvinist. Shame on you for jumping to a wrong conclusion...

 

[Marvin Knox]

The Bible does not indicate that God has taken up residence withIN His creation. Simple as that. I keep requesting verses that indicate that God resides withIN things and none have been provided. What has been provided do not tell us that God resides withIN created things.

The one exception would be the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers since Christ died on the cross.

The view of Marvin would have God residing in unbelievers. Where is that supported by Scripture? I offer 1 Cor 2:14.

How about in a cloud or a pillar of fire or a bush or a dove?
That would really be freaky.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Then please provide any verse that teaches that God exists withIN created things. I do know that the Holy Spirit indwells believers since Christ's death on the cross. Does God exist in any unbeliever? Provide a verse if He does.

Once more, this verse doesn't even come close to suggesting that God exists withIN created things.

God being everywhere (omnipresent) does NOT mean that He exists withIN every created thing. No one has yet proven the claim that He does.

None of these verses says what is being claimed; that God exists withIN created things.

What these verses say is that He exists everywhere, in withIN everything.

You're getting silly now and everyone is watching.

God is omnipresent.

To say otherwise is unorthodox to say the least.

 

[nobdysfool]

This does not support the notion that God is the first cause, just because He created humans (and angels) that sinned. One can just as easily claim that God created man's intellect with which to choose either good or evil.

Sorry, but you're just disagreeing to disagree. What I stated, on its face, is a self-evident truth. Quit assuming more than what was said.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Then please provide any verse that teaches that God exists withIN created things. I do know that the Holy Spirit indwells believers since Christ's death on the cross. Does God exist in any unbeliever? Provide a verse if He does.

Once more, this verse doesn't even come close to suggesting that God exists withIN created things.

God being everywhere (omnipresent) does NOT mean that He exists withIN every created thing. No one has yet proven the claim that He does.

None of these verses says what is being claimed; that God exists withIN created things.

What these verses say is that He exists everywhere, in withIN everything.

Do you believe that God was operating by remote control when He knit you together in your mother's womb?

When God saw your unformed substance was He using some kind of celestial sonogram?

"He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks upon the wings of the wind" Psalm 104:3

Do you think that the passage means that He actually plays a visit to our world on occasion and saddles up a cloud for a ride?

Does He visit our world on occasion and take a stroll on some moving currents of nitrogen and oxygen just to get a little exercise?

Most people think that it means that He is actively present in every element of nature. I'm in that group.

God is omnipresent.

We don't have to wonder what the meaning of "is" is.

And we don't have to wonder what the meaning of "omnipresent" is.

Everyone knows what the meaning is.

God is everywhere.

Accept the doctrine of omnipresence like a mature Christian - or don't accept it.

But please don't play childish word games.

 

[Butch5]

I can accept that. And Jesus was born of a human birth.

And the text says, "...who was born, not of blood(s)..."

Yeah, Tertullian addressed that in his argument against Valentinus. I posted it earlier in this thread.

 

[Butch5]

Sorry Butch, I haven't seen you state which text (MS) states the singular form of the Greek. Would you do that, please?


I think I already did that here..........post 135
The position, stated below, is not the Reformed position. Do you have an objection or see something that I am missing?

Hi Hank,

The Latin Codex Veronensis.

 

[Butch5]

Indeed I know the giver


And then the question.. .why do some choose to and others not.. are they smarter ? more holy? more clever?

They want to!

 

[Butch5]

Seeing that his offspring were no longer in Gods image but his demonstrates the change in Adam

Where do you find that in Scripture? It seems God still thinks man was in His image after Adam sinned.


KJV Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

 

[tulipbee]

You might want to look back a little further in the thread to see what led up to this remark by a Calvinist. Shame on you for jumping to a wrong conclusion...

Opps

 

[Butch5]

You seem to feel that you have been given a gift and or insights that has been sorely lacking in the church since at least the dark ages.

If you really feel that the Lord has given you expertise in these matter beyond what the vast majority of translators have had for the last thousand years or so - you should be using your insight in professional translation of the scripture IMO.

Perhaps then we could have a translation that is accurate rather than the hundreds that you feel are inaccurate in at least this area.

Seriously - I only say these thing partially tongue in cheek. If you have these talents and insights into the original Greek manuscripts and such that are lacking in the church - why are you spending so much time pecking away on the internet when you could be using your God given translation skills and insights for the benefit of the Church as a whole?

I don't feel like it's any special gift. It's just using logic and common sense. God created the laws of logic. We read in Scripture that God cannot deny Himself. Thus He cannot contradict Himself. So the Law of Non Contradiction is based on God Himself. The Law of Non Contradiction says two opposing statement cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. God told the Israelites to come and let us reason together. So, when doctrines don't make sense or worse contradict the Scriptures they should be rejected.

I agree that the scriptures do not teach opposing doctrines. But they definitely do teach paradoxical doctrines.

If you start with believing that one side of the paradox must be wrong - you are in that way missing the point of the way God has chosen to give us truth IMO.


I believe that these paradoxes or seeming contradictions are a test of sorts that the Lord is using. I believe that He wants to show forth those who would divide the church into factions by simply choosing a side.

"for there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you." 1 Corinthians 11:19

"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:12

I believe that the truth is found by accepting the two legs of the paradox and then praying and trying hard to see how they do not contradict each other.

See, I don't see the paradox. I believe the apparent paradoxes exist because of a misunderstanding of the text. People are taught what the Bible means before they ever read it. So they come to the Text with preconceptions, these preconceptions color their view of the Scriptures

If you simply throw out the side you think is weakest - you may not be given the insights that you would have been given had you not acted so rashly.


"For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him." Matthew 13:12

Not at all. I reject what is proven wrong or not Biblical. You see, I don't hold any doctrine so tightly that I can't let go of it. If anyone can show me, through sound exegesis and logic, that my doctrine is wrong I'll change it in a heartbeat. I'm all about getting at the truth. I don't care what doctrine might have to go, it's all about the truth for me.

I believe that the Reformed theologians generally have proceeded from this method and therefore are closer to the truth than the other side - who tends to not incorporate certain truths into their deliberations.

An example concerns predestination. Predestination and free will are not in conflict. But the non Reformed insist that they cannot both coexist. That is an error in thinking and the result is a big hole in their theology.

The Reformed generally see them as compatible and build on that premise. The result is a strong theology and not a weak sloppy theology as is often found on the other side.

Since I was Calvinist and am not now I obviously don't think Reformed Theologians are nearer to the truth. However, I don't think Arminians are either. I think both sides are confused on the subject of Predestination. I have no difficulty at all reconciling Predestination and Free Will. I think in the argument between the Calvinist and Arminan over Predestination both are wrong. It's like watching an argument where two people are arguing whether 5+5 equals 8 or 9. The problem I find is that neither side seems willing to listen to anything other than what they believe. I've discussed Predestination with quite a few Calvinists and they always seem to just disappear.

Also - as I see things - if you expect to find all correct doctrine to be "expressly stated in Scripture" you're going to miss a whole lot of truth in the Bible. In fact you may even end up in error from not comparing scripture with scripture in your search for truth.

How so? If it's by way of inference then the Bible isn't teaching it. It's been by way of inference that we have gotten so much error in the Church to begin with. One example is the idea of spiritual death. God told Adam that in the day he ate from the tree of knowledge he would die. Christians read that, think Adam didn't die within 24 hours, he must have died some other way. Ah, he died spiritually. There is whole theology built on this "Inference". I would submit that it is wrong. Adam didn't die spiritually. But, you see, people believe this and then they build another doctrine on that. They conclude that since Adam is spiritually dead he must be made spiritually alive. And it goes on and on. All based off of an inference that is incorrect. That's why I use clear statements of Scripture to form my doctrines and not inferences.

I mean if we were to break it down I think you would be astonished at how much is wrong in Christianity today. I would submit that comparing what was taught by Jesus and the apostles with what is taught in Churches today is almost two different religions

 

[Marvin Knox]

How so? If it's by way of inference then the Bible isn't teaching it. It's been by way of inference that we have gotten so much error in the Church to begin with. One example is the idea of spiritual death. God told Adam that in the day he ate from the tree of knowledge he would die. Christians read that, think Adam didn't die within 24 hours, he must have died some other way. Ah, he died spiritually. There is whole theology build on this "Inference". I would submit that it is wrong. Adam didn't die spiritually. But, you see, people believe this and then they build another doctrine on that. They conclude that since Adam is spiritually dead he must be made spiritually alive. And it goes on and on. All based off of an inference that is incorrect.

Jesus chided Nicodemus for not understanding something that really should have been a basic doctrine for him.

What do you think that doctrine was if not the fact that fallen men have been spiritually dead since that first sin and all men are now in need of receiving spiritual life and being born again?

 

[FreeGrace2]

How about in a cloud or a pillar of fire or a bush or a dove?
That would really be freaky.

How about my wooden desk, or your car? I mean withIN and between the molecules and atoms. You've still not supported your claim.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You're getting silly now and everyone is watching.

Yeah, we're all watching for some evidence to support your claim, which has not been presented yet.

God is omnipresent.

Yes, He is.

To say otherwise is unorthodox to say the least.

Would you like a repeat of the definition of omnipresent from several sources? None of them indicate what is being claimed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"This does not support the notion that God is the first cause, just because He created humans (and angels) that sinned. One can just as easily claim that God created man's intellect with which to choose either good or evil."

Sorry, but you're just disagreeing to disagree.

No, what you posted does not support the notion that God is the first cause.

What I stated, on its face, is a self-evident truth. Quit assuming more than what was said.

Anyone can make any claim they want and say that it "is a self-evident truth".

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do you believe that God was operating by remote control when He knit you together in your mother's womb?

Wow, now this is really getting silly! Let's begin by examining Gen 1:1. How did He create the heavens and earth of out nothing? By the word of His mouth. " By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host." Psa 33:6

Why would one who knows Scripture think that God had to actually be IN my mother's uterus in order to "knit" me together?

Do you think that the passage means that He actually plays a visit to our world on occasion and saddles up a cloud for a ride?

Does He visit our world on occasion and take a stroll on some moving currents of nitrogen and oxygen just to get a little exercise?

This is getting to be way beyond silly.

Most people think that it means that He is actively present in every element of nature. I'm in that group.

Please show me some evidence that He exists withIN all things.

God is omnipresent.

Yes, He is.

And we don't have to wonder what the meaning of "omnipresent" is.

No, because I provided the definition from a number of sources, and none of them supported your claim.

Everyone knows what the meaning is.

Obviously not true.

God is everywhere.

That is omnipresence.

Accept the doctrine of omnipresence like a mature Christian - or don't accept it.

But please don't play childish word games.

Show me any verse that teaches that God exists withIN all things. He did create all things, and by the word of His mouth. iow, He SPOKE them into existence. He didn't have to be withIN what He created in order to create them.

And what does your view of God existing withIN cars, desks, pens, computers, animals, bugs, etc have to do with being a "mature Christian"?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Wow, now this is really getting silly! Let's begin by examining Gen 1:1. How did He create the heavens and earth of out nothing? By the word of His mouth. " By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host." Psa 33:6

The Word of the LORD will not return to the LORD until He has accomplished everything that He has been sent forth to do.

The Word of God is a person and He is everywhere.

In Him all things consist.

This will probably be my last post on this particular subject.

Merriam-Webster
omni- all : in all ways, places, etc. : without limits

My original claim and my purpose in broaching this subject was to refute your statement earlier in this thread that you have never denied the omnipresence of God.

You not only denied it in the past as I have shown. You have denied it here as well.

You – by your own admission – do not believe that God is omnipresent.

That point has been established for all to see.

 

[rnmomof7]

They want to!

WHY

 

[faroukfarouk]

WHY

I'm not fully following the ideas in the thread...

I'm sure there is a lot of good in the Westminster Confession I'm not a formal subscriber to it in a church sense.