God's sovereignty and the responsibility of mankind. A reformed question.

[Clare73]

If an object can have two conflicting natures - the second one contradicting, excluding, ruling out the other - then there is no such thing in reality known as the truth of the matter. There is no truth. For example God could be evil in nature, and holy in nature, at the same time. All contradictions are valid.

Oops!. . .looks like God stepped on somebody's toes!

Imagine that!. . .God being beyond our understanding!. . .how dare he go outside the boundries of my understanding!. . .just who does he think he is!. . .God?. . .surely he doesn't expect me to believe Isa 55:8-9.

If this is what you believe, there is no point in my carrying on a discussion with you. Thanks for your time.

Agreed. . .thanks for having mercy on me.

I believe the NT presentation of the Trinity. . .evidently, you don't.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly. The Incarnate Christ did NOT have those omni-attributes. God CHANGED into a man, which means He was NEVER immutable.

You poor dear. . .God, the divine, didn't change his essence, nature, divinity by adding human nature to himself.

You'll never get it with just natural understanding alone (1Co 2:14).

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm not aware of any unresolved problems.

I don't see where I've strayed from the Bible. While I respect the church fathers, they are not infallible.

Well, that's rather sad since the church fathers are the persons that put together the New Testament that you're relying on.
I hope they ARE INFALLIBLE !

 

[GodsGrace101]

The translation "sinful nature" is misleading for two reasons:
...(1) It can be understood to support the (incoherent) two-natured theory.
...(2) It supports immaterialism by veiling Paul's understanding of the sinful mind as a physical substance called body/flesh (especially in Romans 7 and 8).

Yes the "body" can be considered sinful insofar as it is a composition of protoplasm and a (physical) soul.

What are the two natures?
I don't understand your second sentence.
Are we made of Body, Soul and Spirit?

 

[JAL]

You poor dear. . .God, the divine, didn't change his essence, nature, divinity by adding human nature to himself.

You'll never get it with just natural understanding alone (1Co 2:14).

An infinitely knowledgeable God became ignorant without changing Himself? You poor dear.

 

[Clare73]

An infinitely knowledgeable God became ignorant without changing Himself? You poor dear.

God is ignorant now?

The NT revelation of the three separate divine persons in the one being, God, cannot be adequately understood, it can only be believed.

The NT revelation of two natures, divine and human, in the one person, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:1, 14), cannot be adequately understood, it can only be believed.

 

[Lost Witness]

An infinitely knowledgeable God became ignorant without changing Himself? You poor dear.

 

[GodsGrace101]

An infinitely knowledgeable God became ignorant without changing Himself? You poor dear.

Hi JAL,
Is it your understanding that God Father changed to become God Son?

 

[JAL]

Oops!. . .looks like God stepped on somebody's toes!

Imagine that!. . .God being beyond our understanding!. . .how dare he go outside the boundries of my understanding!. . .just who does he think he is!. . .God?. . .surely he doesn't expect me to believe Isa 55:8-9.

If Isa 55:8-9 means that God is incomprehensible, both the Bible and theology at large are useless. How can we have hope if we can't comprehend Him? What if His version of "love" involves cruelty? How does that deliver hope?

Why not opt for a reasonable understanding of the passage? Let's have a look:

7Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The contrast is between the wicked and cruel versus the kind Lord who pardons. This verse says nothing about accepting incoherent, incomprehensible theology full of insoluble contradictions. And even if you think you can find such a verse, you're sadly mistaken.

I believe the NT presentation of the Trinity. . .evidently, you don't.

Oops!...looks like I stepped on your toes, by rejecting YOUR incoherent version of the Trinity. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[JAL]

@J Mick,

Your post wasn't helpful. What is it you want me to repent from?

 

[Clare73]

If Isa 55:8-9 means that God is incomprehensible, both the Bible and theology at large are useless. How can we have hope if we can't comprehend Him? What if His version of "love" involves cruelty? How does that deliver hope?

Why not opt for a reasonable understanding of the passage? Let's have a look:

7Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The contrast is between the wicked and cruel versus the kind Lord who pardons. This verse says nothing about accepting incoherent, incomprehensible theology full of insoluble contradictions. And even if you think you can find such a verse, you're sadly mistaken.


Oops!...looks like I stepped on your toes, by rejecting YOUR incoherent version of the Trinity. Sorry for the inconvenience

Where did you ever get the absurd idea that you can completely understand God?

The Bible may be useless to you (which reveals a lot), but it is the power of God to me.

 

[JAL]

Where did you ever get the absurd idea that you can completely understand God?

Theology concerns our eternal well-being. If God is incomprehensible with respect to any area involving our eternal well-being, we have no surety of hope. I think I was clear enough on this point.

Secondly, incomprehensible theology - gibberish - has precious little value for anyone.

Historically the church has compromised on these two points, but they've been doing it for so long that all Christians have bought into it.

The problem with compromising on those two points is that such defines many cults - everyone walking around making incoherent, incomprehensible statements while pretending that all is copacetic.

 

[Clare73]

Theology concerns our eternal well-being. If God is incomprehensible with respect to any area involving our eternal well-being, we have no surety of hope.

Who made that silly rule?

It's certainly not in the word of God.

I think I was clear enough on this point.

Secondly, incomprehensible theology - gibberish - has precious little value for anyone.

I don't find it to be gibberish at all.

Your inability to understand it reveals a lot.

Historically the church has compromised on these two points, but they've been doing it for so long that all Christians have bought into it.

There is no compromise on what the NT reveals regarding the incarnation of God (Jn 1:1, 14) and
the name (singular, not "names") of God stated by Jesus: "in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
(Mt 28:19)

You simply don't believe the NT.

 

[JAL]

Where did you ever get the absurd idea that you can completely understand God?

You might be interested to know that I believe ONLY in ordinary claims - things we DO completely understand - specifically: all I believe in are sentient material entities. That's it. I don't believe in anything supernatural/magical. For example divine healing is simply a physical God performing surgery with His own physical hands. Nothing magical about it.

The Bible may be useless to you (which reveals a lot)...

It's hardly appropriate to make dishonest allegations about me.

...but it is the power of God to me.

No, that's a serious theological error on your part, albeit off-topic. Imagine a professor holding up a history book on World War II. The students immediately flee from the classroom screaming in terror, "It's a bomb!" Stupid, right? Yes. The history book is NOT the bombs exploded in the war, it is merely a written description of that explosive power.

The Bible is a history book - admittedly inspiration makes it an accurate description of God's power. Clearly it's not the power of God.

 

[JAL]

Who made that silly rule?

Don't just assert your point, argue it.

I gave you a clear example. If God's love is something I can't comprehend, if it fails to be the human definition of love (i.e. kindness), I have no hope.

See what I did? I argued my point.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Which means that God declares everything that comes to pass and there is nothing that has happened or ever will happen that wasn't foreordained by God (Ps 139:16, Is 46:10-13).

I don’t see how you get absolute sovereignty from those two passages, they seem quite ambiguous to support such a radical doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

You might be interested to know that I believe ONLY in ordinary claims - things we DO completely understand - specifically: all I believe in are sentient material entities. That's it. I don't believe in anything supernatural/magical. For example divine healing is simply a physical God performing surgery with His own physical hands. Nothing magical about it.
It's hardly appropriate to make dishonest allegations about me.
No, that's a serious theological error on your part, albeit off-topic. Imagine a professor holding up a history book on World War II. The students immediately flee from the classroom screaming in terror, "It's a bomb!" Stupid, right? Yes. The history book is NOT the bombs exploded in the war, it is merely a written description of that explosive power.

The Bible is a history book - admittedly inspiration makes it an accurate description of God's power. Clearly it's not the power of God.

AU CONTRAIRE. . .clearly you speak of what you do not know. . .

 

[Clare73]

Don't just assert your point, argue it.

I gave you a clear example. If God's love is something I can't comprehend, if it fails to be the human definition of love (i.e. kindness), I have no hope.

See what I did? I argued my point.

In total ignorance of the operation of the Holy Spirit. . .some things man can't fix.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because, nobody can do anything outside of God's will. I know Paul answered this very question with a "shut up. You don't understand who you are and who God is and we have no right to tell God how to be." But, I would like an answer beyond "Shut up".

I suspect this is coming from a misunderstanding of Romans 9. The key to understanding Romans 9 is verse 22

“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭22‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Some people claim that this is just a hypothetical statement but it’s not because the scriptures do specifically state that God is both patient and kind towards the ungodly and unrepentant.

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Some claim that this is only in reference to the brethren and not to the unrepentant except Peter specifically states that God wants all to come to repentance. The brethren have already come to repentance, it’s the ungodly who have not come to repentance.

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to these passages God is patient and kind towards the ungodly and unrepentant giving them time to repent.

So the vessels of wrath are vessels of wrath by their own doing not because God created them for destruction but because God created them with free will and they chose the path of destruction. Sure God knew they would refuse to repent and God knew what He had planned for them but the determining factor was their own disobedience not God predestining them to destruction.

 

[JAL]

AU CONTRAIRE. . .clearly you speak of what you do not know. . .

Your usual sheer assertions. (Yawn).