Results 1 - 18 of 18
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102517 | ||
Dear Tim, You have made a good point. Nevertheless, the fact of the immutability is inextricably bound with His omniscience and His omnipotence. He never recieves new information nor does He ever face a difficulty. His planned pupose is eternal and it never changes. It merely appears to us as if God is re-acting to change. In reality everything that occurs does so because it was so ordained by the Creator to occur. Is 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; But thats a new topic. I still maintain that the verses that speak of God' apparent change of mind, are God's way of helping us to understand. I confess that His ways are Higher than mine, and, I am at a loss as how to understand how an omniscient Being can change His mind about anything. But am content knowing that His will, will be done. John |
||||||
2 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 102526 | ||
John The verses you quote say the outcome was ordained not the path or every step of the way. By making God control or ordain every miniscule thing you transform Him from a loving Father God into a controlling taskmaster God. Look at the life of Joseph. God ordained that he would use Joseph to open the door of Egypt to the Children of Israel. Do you think God forced Joseph instead of being humble to bragged to his brothers so they would get jealous? Do you credit God with the jealously of each of Joseph’s brothers? Do you credit God with the lie they told their father to cover up what they did to Joseph? Do you charge God with the ruthlessness of the Ishmaelites that would take Joseph slave? Do you credit Potiphar’s wife’s adulterous desires to God? Do you credit the lack of integrity of the cupbear to God? Saying God controlled this step by step is also saying he had to author the acts. Or could this be a lesson in God’s sovereignty? God ordained as I said that Joseph would one day open the door of Egypt to the Children of Israel. Everyone’s action from there on is nothing more than their free will being exercised and God dealing with each as they occurred accomplishing His goal. None of these actions on the part of any the various people involved surprised God. However I do think in many cases God was sadden because they weren’t God’s highest and best but again they weren’t surprises. Did God have this all worked about before hand? I don’t think so since saying before hand implies time is a factor to God and it isn’t. Does this say God has many options and he chooses which to use per situation? I don’t think so that would contribute some degree of lack of knowledge to God since He had to have options. Does that say God directed them? No that would imply God was manipulating or controlling rather than loving and just. WELL THEN WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT REPRESENT? To me it represents another side of God we can not conceive of. A God that is able to put a plan in place, have people that obey or disobey at their will partake in the plan and be able to make the plan accomplish exactly what God desired the plan to accomplish with no surprises, hesitations, or complications. You can couch that in all kinds of theories, terminology, philosophy whatever you want but the fact is you can’t explain it, understand it or label it. You have to accept it as a child would and trust God for the rest. EdB |
||||||
3 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102571 | ||
The following is from John Piper: Now the question is: Does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions in the sense that I have described above (which does not imply that He is ignorant of their future consequences), or does the Bible teach that God laments some of his decisions because he did not see what was coming? The answer is given later in 1 Samuel 15. After God says in verse 11, "I repent that I have made Saul king," Samuel says in verse 29, as if to clarify, "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (KJV). The point of this verse seems to be that, even though there is a sense in which God does repent (verse 11), there is another sense in which he does not repent (verse 29). The difference would naturally be that God's repentance happens in spite of perfect foreknowledge, while most human repentance happens because we lack foreknowledge. God's way of "repenting" is unique to God: "God is not a man that he should repent" (the way a man repents in his ignorance of the future). For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over." God is able to feel sorrow for an act in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do it for wise reasons. And so later, when he looks back on the act, he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience. Hence we have our precious fighter verse in Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" I say it is precious, because here God's commitment to his promises hangs on his not repenting like a man. In other words, God's promises are not in jeopardy, because God can foresee all circumstances, he knows that nothing will occur that will cause him to take them back. John |
||||||
4 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 102638 | ||
John On John Pipers word I should tear out the pages of the Bible where scripture states clearly God halted his action because of the prayers of righteous men? Why do you keep coming to this forum with the doctrine of men. God was going to kill very Child of Israel in the desert when Moses pleaded with Him to turn back His wrath and scriptutre says clearly that because of this intervention God relented. God was in the process of killing the residents of Jerusalem when David pleaded with him to stay the punishment. Once again scripture clearly states God stopped because of David's action. I really don't care what John Piper or anyone else says scripture clear shows God halted various things at various times because of prayer. Your focused on "foreordained" when in fact you need to be focused on the cross. Your dogmatic about something that simply is not totally explained or clarified in the scriptures. Instead focusing on what is important you take bits and pieces of scripture knit them together into a theory that you then relentlessly stand upon. To what end? EdB |
||||||
5 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102662 | ||
To what end?" To know God and the power of His might. John |
||||||
6 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 102727 | ||
John You actually know nothing of God's power you only know what YOU have described or prescribed His power to be. I have learned many times when we try to explain God to human reasoning we sadly miss the mark. John you build yourself one box after another trying to define God. It is like the old and convoluted reasoning. God can do anything, therefore can God create a rock so big He can't lift it? We all understand that to be nonsense and it is just as nonsensical to try to put human understanding to how God foreordained His plan. The very first failure we have in understanding this process, is we are limited by time. One second ago is past and for us can never be repeated. Also for us one second in future is not known to us and we can not know what lies ahead in it. Yet God is not confined by those two restrictions, time does not limit God, one second ago is just as current and just as real as one second in the future. And they both exist with the present with God. Right now God can see creation past, our present and the final tick of this old earth. He doesn't move back in time nor does He move ahead, God in fact is alive in our past and our future as He is in our present. How do we understand this and the many ramifications that concept contains? I have no idea! However you and a few others in an effort to explain God sovereignty seem to want to keep trying to explain it and I contend you nor anyone has any idea in this world how it really works. EdB |
||||||
7 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102738 | ||
The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring. (from a sermon by C.H. Surgeon) | ||||||
8 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 102747 | ||
C.H. Surgeon The point here is even Surgeon couldn't explain or define what was taking place. He sees two points of view that God choose to reveal however he does not offer an explaination of how they coincide. However I'm curious in this statement. "Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism;" Why would he feel that way? I certainly don't. He certainly refutes what you have so dogmatically proclaimed by saying, "and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism." This is exactly where I see your argument. Therefore John I'm not sure why you used this example other than confirm what I'm saying man simply can not explain God. EdB |
||||||
9 | Is God subject to change? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102780 | ||
Dear Ed, The two lines are 'The soveriegty of God" and "The responsibility of man". Both exist simultaneously. How this can be...only God can tell. His ways are not our ways. Who has known the mind of God? His thoughts are infinitely higher than our own. If I have gone too far one way, it is in reaction to what I see as others going too far the other way. It is not a bad thing that we wrestle with one another over these great doctrines, for it forces us to prove our doctrines by diligent study of Holy Writ and prayer. The way I see it is that God has for-ordaned to occur allthings which do occur. I also believe that man is responsible for his words deeds and actions. I can (without twisting Scripture) prove that the Bible holds both of these positions simultaneously. They are both true...I just can't say how they can be true. No creature can. God bless, John |
||||||
10 | Why do you say, "No creature can"? | Bible general Archive 2 | Aixen7z4 | 102785 | ||
Amen to most of that that. The two (the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man) exist simultaneously and only God can tell how. But God has told. Without rereading this entire thread I will offer an answer to the original question based on Amos 7:6. God has sovereignly determined that sin will be punished. God has sovereignly determined that he will withdraw the punishment when a man repents and asks for mercy. God has decided that he will repent of the punishment planned when man repents of his sin. Why can't we accept that? Perhaps it's more fun to keep on "wrestling with one another over these great doctrines". |
||||||
11 | Why do you say, "No creature can"? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102793 | ||
Dear Ed, You said "God has decided that he will repent of the punishment planned when man repents of his sin. Why can't we accept that?" I appeciate your answer but, it seems, we still have the same problem of the two lines. For it is God who must GRANT the repentance that leads to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 2:25...That brings us back to square one. John |
||||||
12 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | Aixen7z4 | 102795 | ||
God must GRANT the repentance that leads to the knowledge of the truth. Amen. He does (Acts 11:18). So what's the problem? Please note that I am not trying to restart a Calvinism/Armenian debate. I am suggesting that there is nothing to debate. Let us accept all of God's word. Let us accept God's sovereignty and the privilege of repentance. It may be that square one is where we should stay. |
||||||
13 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102796 | ||
Dear Noble, Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." I must confess to enjoying our debates with one anotheron the forum. However, I don't know as if I'd define as fun :-) But they do serve to challenge our pre-suppositions. For instance, it seems that you pre-suppose that Acts 11:18 indicates repentance for "all" Gentiles. In return I would ask, why then does it not lead them to the knowledge of the truth? There is also the problem that not all gentiles are repentant. Do you see what I mean? John |
||||||
14 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | Aixen7z4 | 102799 | ||
I see that it is hard for you to stop doing something you enjoy. I want to encourage you by saying, "You can do it". You're almost there. Because I have no presupposition, refusing to be indoctrinated, refraining from reading all those extra-Biblical books, I understand that Acts 11:18 says the privilege of repentance has been granted to the Gentiles, period, just like it says. I assume, while reading there, that privilege had been given to the Jews before that, and indeed I find that the history of their relationship with God is replete with his pleas to them to turn, and his offer that he would help them to turn, and that he would receive them. Now that the Gentiles are included, everyone's included? “Why does (his opening up the opportunity) not lead them to the truth?”, you ask. I reply that it has. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. They are without excuse. They knew God, (but) they glorified him not as God. They are without excuse. Not all Gentiles are repentant. Not all Jews are repentant. That’s where their responsibility comes in. I think it was John Reformed who recently said, ‘The two lines are 'The soveriegty of God" and "The responsibility of man". Both exist simultaneously.’ The possibility and the privilege of repentance has been opened to Jews and Gentiles. Now they should act responsibly and take advantage of it. Let us encourage them to do that. I think we can leave it there. You have confessed to finding enjoyment in debating. If I may, I’d like to suggest that you repent of it. There is pleasure in sin, but sin can be forsaken anyway. (Take Moses as an example. See Hebrews 11:25). If you have doubts as to whether debating is a sin, then see Paul’s instruction to Timothy (2:24) “The servant of the Lord must not strive”. You know that. You recently quoted the verse that follows. Though I have undertaken to answer your question, let this not be taken as part of the great debate. I think there is nothing to defend here, except it be something that a sect has said. Sectarianism, as you know, is wrong (1 Corinthians 1:10). Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. |
||||||
15 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | Hank | 102803 | ||
Aixen - I appreciate what you have said about debates. From the perspective of having spent well over two years as an active Forum member, I can say without reservation that the only measurable fruits that have come from endless debates are bad fruits -- divisiveness, ill will, confusion, and even name-calling. None of these bad fruits do anything at all to edify Christian believers or to attract non-believers into the fold. In spite of dire warnings and notices that this activity will not be tolerated on this StudyBibleForum, there remain a few die hards who just will not, or cannot, let debates go. --Hank | ||||||
16 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102804 | ||
Dear Hank, It is possible for us to debate without rancour. We have been doing so quite succesfully on the topic of God's immutability. Nary a harsh word has been spoken (Praise God!). There is no reason why two christians cannot disagree without becoming disagreeable. In fact it's a good witness. And who knows, we each may come to know God better than we had. John John |
||||||
17 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102806 | ||
I've just been informed that my membership has been revoked. While saddened by this I accept it as God's will. Good bye my friends, I pray God will lead you and bless you all. John Reformed |
||||||
18 | Then it's all settled? | Bible general Archive 2 | John Reformed | 102810 | ||
. | ||||||