- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I'd like to know where you think I reject Scripture. I see no basis for this accusation.I don’t know why I am bothering to reply anymore, but here is one last shot.
“Your theology” is being looked at negatively for a variety of reasons. Here are just a few I see:
1. It isn’t scriptural. You have repeatedly admitted in this thread a complete willingness to reject scripture when it conflicts with your personal belief and narrative, which it does....often.
If you have a precommitment to gibberish you'll keep insisting on foreknowledge, or if you prefer a theodicy that doesn't cast God in the best possible light. If God foreknew the fall of Adam, Eve, and Lucifer, why not just create Bob, Sue, and Vincent instead? Is God a complete jerk in your view?2. It denies God’s foreknowledge. There is a plethora of scripture confirming this aspect of God’s character. You reject all of it for the sake of keeping your elaborate philosophical web intact.
Many years ago I knew a pastor who was part of a prominent denomination and well respected in the community. I was a member of his congregation for three years. He once confided to me, "Much as I try to love God with all my heart, I have one beef with him that I can't seem to get past. WHY did He elect Saul as the leader of Israel, foreknowing the disaster?"
I never told him MY views on the matter because most Christians are unwilling to consider anything non-traditional.
Anyway the point is, please desist with the silly attitude of 'We mainstream people can't be wrong about anything" - all I'm interested in is your REASONS in this debate (both exegetical-based and common-sense based).
Since I have no such commitment to gibberish, I look for an APPROPRIATE interpretation of those passages. The simple explanation is that God's supposed foreknowledge alleged of those passages really boils down to:
(1) Events of divine ordination. If He has DECIDED there will be an earthquake tomorrow, it WILL happen.
(2) Events that combine divine ordination with inexorable realities. For example Peter could not mature overnight (without an outpouring). Evaluating the CURRENT state of his heart, the Father KNEW that he would not survive a three-fold temptation to deny Christ. Hence He arranged those scenarios so that Peter could see for himself the state of his own heart.
Open theists have argued much against foreknowledge. Not sure that I need to repeat all that material here, given that you haven't even refuted MY arguments against it.
(Sigh). See post #41. If you can't respect the hermeneutical principles outlined in post #41, you DEFINITELY are committed to gibberish and contradictions, at the expense of a legitimate eschatology of hope.3. Your “theology” judges God’s motivations on the basis of your own, as though God were a mere human.
Finite beings INEVITABLY have needs/limits. So the real question is, Is God finite? Fact is, I don't see any clear scriptural evidence for the claim that God is infinite.4. You blame and accuse God of evil or injustice unless He created man out of a non-Biblical need to create.
The Bible teaches that God MERITS praise. Merit is a status achieved over finite time. That's an argument based on Scripture. C'mon guys. Do I really need to make a list of 100 verses regarding divine merit before you admit that my position is based on scripture? I have spared both you and me that tedium. So grow up, theologically speaking, and handle this thread with some maturity.
By the way, see what I'm doing? I'm not making random negative generalizations like you do of my theology. Instead I'm giving you SCRIPTURE and ARGUMENTS.
The Immune System was a functionality-based NICKNAME that I coined for the purpose of conveying a clear analogy to our own Immune System - specifically on His sanctifying functionality.5. You have manufactured your own characteristics of God wholly apart from any scriptural evidence whatsoever. God’s immune system? God’s near insanity? There are others, but I think you get my point.
So every verse that bespeaks of the Third Person's sanctifying role is a biblical basis for the NICKNAME. Again, do I need to make a list of 100 verses? Grow up, theologically speaking.
My CLAIM about the Immune System is that the Third Person applies sanctification to the Gohead Himelf, if or when needed. Do you deny this possibility? If so, Got a question for you. When Christ was on earth, did the Holy Breath function as His sanctification?
So we have a pretty solid biblical argument:
Christ is God.
The Third Person sanctified Christ.
Conclusion: The Third Person sanctified GOD.
Corollary: The Third Person functions for God as an Immune System by sanctifying the Godhead if or when needed.
If anyone's ignoring or flat-out denying Scripture in this debate, it MOST CERTAINLY is not I.
Like how the church has taught immaterialism for 2,000 years that FLIES IN THE FACE OF ALL THE BIBLICAL DATA? That sort of thing?6. You have effectively made God in your own image. The God you want, not the God that the Bible tells us exists.
Like the traditional doctrines of immaterialism (from Plato) and infinitude (from heaven knows where)? That sort of thing?Honestly, I wouldn’t call your views theological at all, but rather, philosophical...
I'll comment more on the biblical basis for materialism shortly.
Upvote
0