Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, that's rich!As I see it, you and I have no direct access to Scripture - only to our fallible translations and interpretations. Some interpretations are more plausible than others.
First of all, the Bible is a divinely-inspired, divinely-authored history book - which makes it reliable. It is not the divine Word of God described in John 1.Oh, that's rich!
Disqualifying the word of God written to settle the matter.
Exegesis IS my authority in these debates. And you know that very well, having debated with me before. So please stop taking unwarranted potshots.If Scripture is not your authority, then we have no basis for discussion.
Do we know which unbelievers will be damned so that we need not pray for their salvation?By all accounts, Paul's epistles express God's will for the church, and thus for believers. So when Paul says he wants men to intercede for everyone, we can safely presume he wants - and God wants - all believers to pray.
Apparently your argument is, "As for the unbelievers prayed for, God secretly wants them to remain unsaved."
Pure conjecture. . .and you criticize my explanation of plain text?Let me start with this. God's standards often require a LOT of intercessory prayer to get one man saved. And the harder the heart, the more prayer needed. In my opinion, God knew that much prayer was never going to happen for Pharoah in his lifetime.
We are all born unbelievers. . .so God wants us all to remain in our sin?Pharoah was a lost cause. You cannot reliably use Pharoah, then, to conclude that secretly God wants all unbelievers to remain in their sin.
Nor can you truthfully say that I argue such.Accordingly, God didn't express optimism in this regard. God didn't say, "Pharoah will release Israel with such softness of heart that they will never have to face him again."
Whereas 1 Tim 2 IS INDEED an explicit expression of optimism. It clearly implies that virtually anyone (with the exception of lost causes like Pharoah) CAN be saved. It's asking us to pray with optimism. You cannot convincingly argue that "secretly" God renders all these prayers futile by ignoring them.
And it's all futile in Calvinism, because I have no ability to alter the final outcome of double-predestination. This renders the text meaningless. Christ said, "Apart me from you can accomplish nothing." In the Calvinistic system it should read, "You can accomplish nothing. Period. It's all foreordained."Do we know which unbelievers will be damned so that we need not pray for their salvation?
Therefore, we pray for all, not knowing which are the elect.
Correct. . .It's not "Word of God" in Jn 1:1, it's "the Word was God."First of all, the Bible is a divinely-inspired, divinely-authored history book - which makes it reliable. It is not the divine Word of God described in John 1.
And you know this, how?Secondly, it wasn't written "to settle the matter."
Oh, wow. . ."we have no direct access to Scripture," yet you are foolish enough to claim infallible understanding of Scripture.God isn't foolish enough to imagine that fallible scholars can "settle the matter" exegetically. They will always have major points of disagreement.
Wisely, God's plan to "settle the matter" is inspiration - we all need to seek the same gift that Paul, the apostles, and the prophets attained (1Cor 14:1). Only then will we all experience infallible understanding of the Scriptures.
Until we have that inspiration, we are forced to rely on exegesis as a crutch.
I have no idea what you are talking about.Exegesis IS my authority in these debates. And you know that very well, having debated with me before. So please stop taking unwarranted potshots.
That ambivalence isn't the Calvinist view of absolutely sovereignty dictating and micro-managing every detail.
Incorrect. There is only one plausible standard of righteousness, and it doesn't even mention God. I call it the rule of conscience:
If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B.
There are no possible exceptions to this rule. Even God Himself is subject to it.
I have defined depravity in a Calvinistic sense. Please do not call my view robotic if you are unwilling to apply the same term to Calvinism.
Let me understand you better: Does God play by any (internal) rule book? Or does He make up His own rules as He goes along? Meaning, does He see Himself as licensed to do whatever He wants with impunity? For example, if He chose to take the shape of a man and then rape innocent human children, would you be fine with that?
You clearly vacillate, when it suits you. Makes it incredibly easy to "defend" your position that way, doesn't it?Oh but I do hold that God is absolutely sovereign and predestined everything before Creation:
You found no specific exceptions to the rule of conscience. As usual, I rest my case.Sorry, but this is incoherent: morality is subjective based on what one feels? Two thousand years of Judeo-Christian civilization begs to differ.
Then God DOES play by some rules. In this case, I don't see the justification for Calvinism's double-standard. Seems like sheer inconsistency.Hmm... if God became flesh and started sinning up a storm? Well, I'd certainly have to blow the whistle and cry foul that he's violating the Biblical tenets of God not sinning.
See post #1,705 where I am explicit.When will you understand to be explicit in your reasoning. As is frequently the case I am left guessing as to the connection you are making as you frequently post scripture without explanation. I don't see any connection here: In Exodus 4:21-22, the text shows that God is not desiring that Pharoah willing let God's people go. On the other hand, in 1 Timothy 2:4 God desires that all men be saved. 2 Corinthians 4:4 says that the god of this world works to blind men to the Gospel.
Your issue seems to be Calvin. . .take it up with him.And it's all futile in Calvinism, because I have no ability to alter the final outcome of double-predestination. This renders the text meaningless. Christ said, "Apart me from you can accomplish nothing." In the Calvinistic system it should read, "You can accomplish nothing. Period. It's all foreordained."
Well, I guess you got me JAL... especially since you've rested your case.You clearly vacillate, when it suits you. Makes it incredibly easy to "defend" your position that way, doesn't it?
You found no specific exceptions to the rule of conscience. As usual, I rest my case.
Then God DOES play by some rules. In this case, I don't see the justification for Calvinism's double-standard. Seems like sheer inconsistency.
The title "Word" belongs to God, not to a book. Applying it to a book seems to be nonsense because, as demonstrated before, the book is neither God nor the power of God.Correct. . .It's not "Word of God" in Jn 1:1, it's "the Word was God."
Nowhere is Jesus called the "Word of God" in the NT.
How can fallible scholars "settle the matter"? Do you understand the term fallible?And you know this, how?
More potshots? Where did I claim to have infallible knowledge of Scripture? I'm not a prophet.Oh, wow. . ."we have no direct access to Scripture," yet you are foolish enough to claim infallible understanding of Scripture.
I rest my case.
I'm a material monist. My thinking is that the devil took the shape of a material snake in the Garden. God allowed him to do this. At one point in my life I wondered whether all this stands in contradiction to James:Just so that I understand your position, and since I've been answering your questions, tell me, how did the serpent get in the Garden?
Thanks.I'm a material monist. My thinking is that the devil took the shape of a material snake in the Garden. God allowed him to do this. At one point in my life I wondered whether all this stands in contradiction to James:
13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
But I think James is talking about an efficacious degree of temptation. God facilitates only a lesser degree of temptation, such that we have enough freedom to escape from it. Well I go one step further. Suppose I keep saying Yes to cocaine. Originally I had freedom to escape, but I speculate there comes a point of no return where, quite possibly, I can no longer resist. Here I conjecture that God is perhaps within His rights to continue allowing, possibly even facilitating, my temptation because I've placed myself in that predicament. It's a bit of a gray area at that point.
Does that answer your question?
You're asking me why God allowed, even facilitated, temptation? Acceleration, I suppose. God wanted Adam and Eve to experience temptation, and the devil loves to hasten that process. Naturally it would likely have occurred without the devil, but it would tend to take longer, and probably at lower intensity initially.Thanks.
Why did God put Satan in the Garden?
Could God have chosen not to?
The Scriptures are God-breathed writings (2 Ti 3:16).The title "Word" belongs to God, not to a book. Applying it to a book seems to be nonsense because, as demonstrated before, the book is neither God nor the power of God.
That's good to know. . .How can fallible scholars "settle the matter"? Do you understand the term fallible?
I'm just drawing a reasonable conclusion concerning fallibility. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong - feel free to demonstrate that fallible scholars can attain to an infallible comprehension of Scripture.
More potshots? Where did I claim to have infallible knowledge of Scripture? I'm not a prophet.
Is this pure sarcasm? The rule of conscience is logically defensible. Also, existentially, the mind cannot posit any plausible exceptions to it. Finally, it has at least a modicum of scriptural grounding.Well, I guess you got me JAL... especially since you've rested your case.
Thanks for answering. Did you respond to post 1648? I don't recall your response on that one.And since I've been answering your questions...
So does God ever step in to violate free will? Are we ever directly guided by his hand?You're asking me why God allowed, even facilitated, temptation? Acceleration, I suppose. God wanted Adam and Eve to experience temptation, and the devil loves to hasten that process. Naturally it would likely have occurred without the devil, but it would tend to take longer, and probably at lower intensity initially.
God wanted maximum free will in Adam and Eve. I think it takes a significant degree of temptation to maximize free will. It's a fine balance. Too much temptation would actually eliminate freedom.
Yes, they are God-inspired. No quarrel there.The Scriptures are God-breathed writings (2 Ti 3:16).
Jesus likewise referred to Scripture as the Word of God (Jn 10:35, Mt 15:6).
Proponent of Paul? Get out of fantasy land. Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved. In Post 1703, you oppose what Paul wrote and offer a seemingly unrelated OT passage (Exodus 4:21-22) without commentary as something we all should undertand as cancelling what Paul said.Your issue seems to be Calvin. . .take it up with him.
I am a proponent of Paul.
I don't know for sure. I suspect He did so with Pharoah, as mentioned before. If God does so, He cannot blame Pharoah for any resulting behavior. He might APPEAR to be blaming Pharoah for it, but it really must be for sins committed by Pharoah in Adam and thereafter.So does God ever step in to violate free will? Are we ever directly guided by his hand?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?