Results 1 - 20 of 46
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: RWC Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 153948 | ||
Although this discussion is now quite old, with only a couple of additional repsonses in the last several years, I would like to propose a different point of view for your response. I do not think that this concept is "mine" (unique to my way of thinking), but I did not see it in this discussion and I think it would be worthy of consideration. I do believe that angelic beings and human beings are to be considered as distinct from the rest of the animated beings that God has created. Angelic beings and human beings do have at least one characteristic that makes them different than the animals, but it is not their "rationality." I think it is their "will" (the ability to make choices of right and wrong). It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels morally accountable and which keeps the rest of the animal kingdom outside of that accountability. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels fall into the category of "persons" and which disqualifies the rest of the animal kingdom from being thought of this way. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans (and angels?) to be uniquely created "in the image of God." Does this point of view not fit better with both the larger picture presented in Scripture and with the reality of the world in which we live? |
||||||
2 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154021 | ||
Thank you for your prompt reply. First a comment for clarification, and then I have two questions, if I may. You wrote: "The uniqueness of men and angels is not their volition, their ability to choose; and the image of God in man is not the will." and... "So, the image of God is not the will, but rationality." First, for clarification, I did not mean to suggest that the image of God is _simply_ our volition. Rather, I was suggesting that our volition is what makes us distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom that God created. As I understand it, there are three basic attributes that God built into humans and angels that makes us "persons". Those attributes would be intellect, emotion, and will (volition). It is, as I understand it, the combination of these same attributes that makes us "in the image of God;" that is, that we are "persons" and the rest of the animal kingdom is not. It seems to me that all animals, to one degree or another, have God-given intellectual and emotional ability. But humans (and angels) are the only created beings that possess volitional ability, and are, therefore, the only beings that are morally accountable before God. First question: You wrote: "As the above quoted passages demonstrate, knowledge, not will, is the basis of responsibility." In all three of the passages that you quote as support for this conclusion (Ro. 1, Lk. 12, and Jms 4), the main point (the problem, the issue) is centered on volition not knowledge. The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge. Would these verses not rather be supportive of the view that volition is basis of our accountability before the Living God, not our knowledge (or lack of)? Second question: I am wondering if we have the same basic definitions for "understanding," "knowledge," "intelligence," and "rationality." I know that you were asked about your definitions once or twice in this discussion 4 years ago, but I am still not clear as to how you have conceptualized these things. Can you please explain to me how (why) the intellect that you seem to admit that animals have is different in "kind" (and not just "degree") from the intellect that humans (and angels) have? I do ackowledge differences of _degree_ in God-given intellectual abilities between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and sometimes those differences are obviously vast. But it goes too far, it seems to me, to say (as I think you did in one of your previous posts) that humans have the ability to "think" and that no other animals can do that. If, however, you were to make that statement about volition rather than intellect, then I think it would be true. Does that not seem so to you? [yes, that is a third question... sorry] Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
3 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15352 | ||
Does this mean, then, that God is in fact the author of sin? This verse was cited to me in another discussion (Gal 2:17) about this same subject (see the message "Bob: What did you think of my view th... Reformer Joe Fri 08/24/01, 8:57pm"). I have done some preliminary reading from my rather limited library, and have come to no satisfactory answers. What this verse (and verse 12) say litterally, or so it would seem to me, is that God Himself would directly cause sin to take place. Granted, it was in judgement of previous sin. But if two wrongs don't make a right for humans, it certainly wouldn't for a holy God either! How can God do this and still be called holy? |
||||||
4 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15391 | ||
Thanks for your response, Debbie. I would agree with that God is holy and righteous. But I don't know how to understand this passage. It does not say that God would *allow* this sin to take place. I would have no problem with that. But what it says is that God would *cause* it. God is speaking and He says, "I will..." three different times in these two verses. How are we to understand this? | ||||||
5 | Can it really be translated otherwise? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 15395 | ||
I'm no Hebrew scholar by any means, but from what I can determine from my interlinear and every translation that I have, God is speaking in the first person as the subject and is stating that He would perform the action, not just that the action would happen. Are there any Hebrew scholars out there (maybe even you Kelkat?) that can shed some definitive light on this? |
||||||
6 | If God causes all, how can He be holy | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16457 | ||
Hello Tim, If Hebrew culture "viewed everything as ultimately caused by God" (which I assume must include sin), how did they understand God to be holy, righteous, and good (which certainly they did)? Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
7 | Is this about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:1 | RWC | 231537 | ||
Is this song really so much about David, or at least _just_ about him? I wonder if it isn't as much or more about Jesus than it is about David. For example, how could David say (about himself!) the words found in verses 21-25? It would be incredibly arrogant for any human besides Jesus to utter these words about themself, would it not? | ||||||
8 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:8 | RWC | 231538 | ||
When did this happen in David's life? Could this be more a predictive prophecy of the earthquake that occurred at the death of Jesus? | ||||||
9 | God riding on an angel? | 2 Sam 22:11 | RWC | 231540 | ||
Why is God pictured here as riding on a cherub (an angel)? I can't think of anywhere else in the Scripture where this kind of language (description) is used. What is the significance of this (if any)? | ||||||
10 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:12 | RWC | 231541 | ||
When did David experience this? Could this more legitimately be interpreted as a prediction of the darkness that occurred during the last three hours of the crucifixion? | ||||||
11 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:16 | RWC | 231544 | ||
Further to my questions about this song being more about David or about Jesus, when did David see or experience anything like this? Would this not perhaps be better understood as having application (fulfillment) at the end of time (as we know it)? | ||||||
12 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:23 | RWC | 231545 | ||
Again, to my question about whether this song is more about David or about Jesus, how could David possibly say this about himself? The same question could be asked about the next verse (v. 24). Surely David would never suggest that he was sinless (that he had never departed from God's statutes)! Would this passage (and large portions of this whole song) not be better understood as being about Jesus rather than about David? | ||||||
13 | What are these spiritual gifts? | 1 Cor 12:8 | RWC | 842 | ||
What are the spiritual gifts of "word of wisdom" and "word of knowledge?" How do they differ? And how are they to be used or practised within the church? | ||||||
14 | What is the spiritual gift of faith? | 1 Cor 12:9 | RWC | 843 | ||
What is the spiritual gift of faith, which is only given to some believers, as opposed to the gift of faith that is given to all believers when they are born again? | ||||||
15 | Spurgeon's calvanistic contradiction? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13553 | ||
I know this subject has been raised already, (see the thread started with the question "Is God responsible for evil? 02/27/01), but it seems to me that it was not sufficiently answered by those holding to a strong calvanistic point of view. So, if I may, I would like to raise the question again in slightly different form. C.H. Spurgeon wrote in his "Sum of Saving Knowledge," at least as I have had it quoted to me, "In eternity past, God did most wisely decree, for his own glory, whatever comes to pass in time: and in a most holy and infallible manner executes all his decrees, without being author of the sin of any creature." How can both of his assertions be true? How could God predetermine (that is, "in eternity past... decree")that "whatever comes to pass in time" (which must therefore included sin, since sin has come to pass in time), "without being author of the sin?" If God decreed that it must exist before before it existed, that would, by definition, make him the author of sin, would it not? Bob |
||||||
16 | "Decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13558 | ||
Thank you for such a detailed answer! But I must ask you to clarify something that you wrote. Please be patient with me if I am asking things here that, by the sounds of things elsewhere, might already have been hashed over to the point where some people were getting somewhat emotional. That is not what I want. I just want to try and sort out some of my understanding (and no doubt some mis-understanding) about predestination (and at some point a little later on, about limited atonement), and to do so in as rational a way as possible ("rational" here meaning both logical and free of emotion). You see, I don't seem to fit very well into either the Arminian or Calvanist camps (and that might not be a bad thing!), and I want to know if that is because I don't understand one or both of them well enough. So, with your permission, a question from your response: You wrote: "The understanding of it hinges on grasping the meaning of the word 'decree.' To decree something is to simply declare that that thing shall happen. In the case of God's sovereign decree, the decreed event can either come from God causing it directly, or by God allowing it to happen." How does God's action of decreeing that something will and must take place equate to God simply allowing something to take place, especially if He would really rather that the thing not happen in first place? To my way of thinking, (and I have certainly been wrong before and will be again) fore-telling or predicting that something would happen is a very different thing than decreeing that it will and must happen. Is there something that I'm missing here? And I could ask this same basic question of you from several of your paragraphs. For example: "From eternity past, God knew that His creation would rebel against Him." To me, that speaks of God's fore-knowledge. That is different than predestining something, isn't it? or... "God, by creating the agents involved and allowing them to sin on their own, decreed what would come to pass." To me, "allowing them to sin on their own" seems to speak of something other than what Spurgeon was talking about when he said "In eternity past, God did most wisely decree...and [did] in a most holy and infallible manner execute all his decrees, without being author of the sin of any creature." There are a few other places that I could I quote for you, but fearing that I might be laboring my point, please permit me one more. You said "The simple fact is that God is in control of every infinitessimal detail of His creation. Nothing happens unless He ultimately allows it...." As your statement reads, I don't think that there are many believers from either camp who would disagree with it in the slighest. But if by the phrase "in control of" you actually mean that all these details are absolutely predestined, that they are that way precisely because God decreed that they would be, and that God has not left any room for them to be any other way (which is what it seems to me that Spurgeon was saying, and which is what I have understood the Calvanistic view of predestination to say), then that must mean that God would be the author of sin (which, I presume we both agree, cannot be). I don't know any other way around that conclusion. Please show me how you have avoided this. This is a long post. Thank you for your time and consideration. It is appreciated. Bob |
||||||
17 | So God is the cause of sin then | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13593 | ||
Hello Joe, Thank you again for your willingness to discuss this with me logically! It really is appreciated! I have a couple of questions from this posting; one that is primary and one that would be supplemental. In your opening paragraph, you write: "It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct." Ok. I'm glad we have that squared away. In that same opening paragraph, you wrote: "I guess the hardest part about the Reformed view to accept from our finite perspective is the idea that God pre-determined that sin would (temporarily) be a part of His grand design. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth by virtue of His creation of Lucifer and a human couple he knew would succumb to Satan's treachery." My primary question then is this: are you actually saying here that you believe God is the author, the source, the cause of sin? Forgive me if I am not understanding you correctly, but that is what this sounds like. And if I am not understanding you correctly, please help me to see whatever it is that I am missing! That, then brings me to my supplemental question. At several points in your post, you mention the responsibility, blame, and guilt of the sinner. My supplemental question, which assumes that I have understood you correctly above, is this: If God has pre-determined every infitessimal detail of history, which must obviously include sin, then how can those individuals who commit those predetermined sins be held responsible for them? Responsibility, if I understand it correctly, implies the ability to exercise at least some measure will. Will, again if I understand it correctly, requires two things: the *ability* to make a choice and the *opportunity* to make a choice. If either of those two things are removed in any given situation, then the exercise of will is also removed. Would that not also mean that responsibility and guilt have also been removed? If you are meaning that God is the cause of sin, then you are quite right in saying that this would be the hardest thing to accept in the reformed point of view. For me, I think it would be impossible to accept, and I say that for two reasons that I can think of immediately, and both of them have to do with what I understand of the character of God. The first reason is that it seems to fly in the face of God's holiness. If God is holy (and I am quite sure that we are both completely conviced that He is!), then it seems completely contradictory (not just paradoxical!) to suggest that He is also the author (cause, source) of sin. The second reason is that it seems to fly in the face of God's justice. If God is just (and, again, I am quite sure that we are both completely conviced that He is!), then it seems completely contradictory (again, not just paradoxical!) to suggest that He would hold sinners responsible for things over which they neither the ability nor the opportunity to change. How have you intellectually worked your way through or around these issues? Thank you again for your patience with me in this, Joe. I have found our dialogue to be stimulating and pleasant. And I do need to get some of this stuff sorted out in my own mind. Thanks! Bob |
||||||
18 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13641 | ||
Good day, Joe! It seems to me that we have come back to our starting point, and I have somehow missed the answer to my question. Your initial quote from the Westminster Confession ("the first section of Chapter III, entitled 'Of God's Eternal Decree'") is, I presume, the basis for Spurgeon's quote which I used to start this discussion. And then you wrote: "So we see two important things right away: 1. ALL things are ordained by God. 2. God is NOT the author of sin." This is precisely the thing that appears to me to be a contradiction (not just a paradox). How can both of these things be true? If God has, as the confession states, "unchangeably ordain[ed] whatsoever comes to pass," how can He be anything other than the author (source, cause) of sin? How does a strong Calvanistic theology logically avoid that conclusion? You also stated these same two principles (that seem like such a glaring contradiction to me) in another way in your next paragraph: "the Reformed theologian will state emphatically that God weaves the rebellion of man in the tapestry of His overall plan. However, man is the CAUSE of man's sin, not God." According to the reformed view, if I am understanding it correctly, the rebellion of man is not just woven into God's plan, it *is* the plan; it is a critical and foundational part of that plan; it was a deliberately, willfully, and unchangeably predetermined part of that plan. From that perspective, how does that make God something other than the author of sin? Please be patient with me here. I am not trying to be antangonistic, and I have worked hard at doing my best not to come across that way. I really want to understand "how you got there from here." A couple more brief points. First, I contemplated quoting Rom. 9:19-21 myself because, if that passage is in fact talking about God's predetermination *to salvation*, then indeed, it asks (and does not answer!) the same question that I am. Does that mean that, from a reformed point of view, this is a taboo question; one that we are not permitted to honestly ask and seek answers for? Personally, I think that Cranfield has come up with the best explaination of those 3 chapters, at least that I have encountered thus far. I would like to ask him a few questions as well, though! Second, you wrote: "Just out of curiosity, how would you work the verses here and in my other posts into another framework. Where do you stand on the reconciliation of God's sovereignty and man's sin?" That is a fair question, but with your permission (and I mean that!), I would like to refrain from sharing what I think for now. I don't have any secrets or special insights or anything like that. So no worries there. I would just like to avoid this turning into a debate comparing and contrasting two points of view, at least certainly for the time being. What I am looking to accomplish in our discussion, as I said in a previous post, is gain a clearer understanding of the strong Calvanistic point of view. And, I hope that our discussion will be of some value to you as well, and perhaps to others who might be reading this. I know, it is much easier for me to "sit in the shadows" so to speak and poke questions at you and what you have come to understand than it is for you to "be on the hot seat" and try and answer them all. So again, please be patient with me. I hope and pray that my questions do not seem antagonistic in any way. Believe me, that is not my intent! And besides all of that, in sharing what I think, I have a lot more questions than answers anyway! As I said in a previous post, I don't fit very well into either camp in the Arminian-Calvanist debate. Have a very good day! Bob |
||||||
19 | Again, "decree" can mean "allow?" | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13766 | ||
Hi Joe, Please permit me to ask this of you again. You write: "He did know from eternity past what their choice, would be," This speaks of God's foreknowledge, and that is a very different thing than predestinating Adam's choice to sin. Do we agree on this? And then you continue: "and He decreed that the sin would take place (i.e. he would allow it I thought that we had agreed in previous post that, from the Reformed point of view, God's action of decreeing (at least certainly as Spurgeon intended the use of that word) is not the same thing as God simply allowing something to happen. So again I ask, can "decree" really mean "allow?" And then you write: "it did, however, originate in the hearts of our first parents" But if that particular sin (and indeed every other sin that has ever been committed or ever will be committed) was truely *predestinated* by God from before the foundation of the world, then that must make God the originator (source, cause, author) of that sin. How can it be any other way? If you can explain this to me, that will explain this thing that seems, to me at least, to be a complete contradiction within the Reformed point of view (meaning strongly Calvanist). Bob |
||||||
20 | Part 1 of 2: Is that fair representation | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13774 | ||
Good day Joe, I guess I am too "wordy" as the system keeps telling me that I have exceeded the maximum allowable length for a posting, even after I have tried to "edit it down." I shall break it into two parts. My apologies. First of all, you wrote: "Don't worry about coming across as anagonistic. Healthy discussion and debate is like dessert to me! :) " Thank you for your grace and patience! And this discussion is healthy! Thank you for that too. I read this post from you last night and have given it some thought. Please carefully consider the following points and/or questions and, if I am misunderstanding the Reformed view somehow, please show me what it is that I am missing. You write: "I find you framing Chapter III of the Westminster Confession as a contradiction a little difficult to work with," Good; it's not just me then!!! My problem (or at least one of my two main problems) with the strongly Reformed (Calvanist) point of view is that I do not know how to "frame it" so that it is anything other than a contradiction. I do not know how these two things can both be true at the same time. That is what I am hoping to answer by starting this thread. You then write: "You see, all believers in the Bible have to reconcile an omipotent, omniscient God with the fact that He created beings who would rebel against Him (Satan and his angels and human beings)." That is very true! And then you wrote (and this is what I had to really think about!): "The way, I see it, there are three options in explaining why he would do such a thing: "1. He did not know they would sin against Him when he created them. "2. He did know that they would sin when He created them, but decided to "work around" that to glorify Himself anyway. "3. He did know that they would sin when He created them, and fully intended to work through their rebellion to glorify Himself." And then you conclude your following paragraph by saying: "I embrace (3) as being the biblical answer." Of the 3 options that you have given here, I would embrace (3) as being the most biblical answer just as you do. But sir, with all due respect, it seems to me that you have not fairly (or maybe I should say "completely") stated the strongly Reformed (Calvanist) position in any of your three options. You third option clearly states God's *foreknowledge* of sin (which I believe even the most staunch Arminian would agree to), but it does not declare that God did actually pre-determine (predestinate) sin in such a way that it could not have occurred any other way than *exactly* as He determined it would. If that is not a correct representation the strongly Reformed (Calvanist) position, then maybe that is the part I do not understand and why this issue seems so contradictory. But, from what I have read and heard, so far at least, I think that I do understand at least this part of the Calvanist point of view correctly. Thus my quandry (spelling?). More in "part 2." |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |