Results 161 - 180 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62857 | ||
What about the rest ................................................. Dear John, I’m still curious about your thoughts on my overall point that God could allow choice within a framework while still being in control of the final outcome. What did you think of the NIM game example? What did you think of my interpretation that John Calvin was actually agreeing with me in the quote that you shared? |
||||||
162 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62854 | ||
You make a good point ................................................. Dear John, Part of any truly good discussion is not only sharing what you think, and listening to what the other person thinks, but also being willing to admit when you are wrong. In your last post, you pointed out an error that I had made. I had said that everyone agrees that all humans have to choose to love God or reject Him. That statement was wrong. It is an oversimplification of the situation. You are correct that there are some exceptions to the general rule (ie. babies that die before birth, tribes that never hear the gospel, the people who lived and died before Christ’s sacrifice for us). You are also correct that there are different beliefs about these abnormal situations. I was wrong on that point. ................................................. That being said, rather than getting side tracked on these unusual situations (which are talked about in other threads on this forum), I would request that we focus our discussion to talk about the vast majority of people in the world today, who have been born, have reached an age that they can make rational decisions, and have been exposed to Christianity to at least some degree. I would like to talk about people like you, me, and anyone else who would read this thread. Would it be possible for God to allow us to have the ABILITY and the FREEDOM to choose to love or reject Him, yet still remain sovereign? |
||||||
163 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62837 | ||
Don’t give up so soon ................................................. Dear John, We’ve had such a good discussion so far on these issues, I was dissapointed to read your last post. I couldn’t find any response to any of my clarifications as to why the Tom and Jerry analogy was an accurate representation of the Calvinist viewpoint. I also couldn’t find that you had answered whether or not Tom or Jerry’s choice was truly FREE. Basically, I couldn’t find anything relating to our thread at all. ................................................. Instead, I found statements that “God created all things” (OK), Adam and Eve “had the liberty (FREEDOM) to do good but also posessed the ABILITY as well” (OK), “God was not taken aback” by the fall of mankind (OK), and God was not forced to “go to Plan B” (OK). These are all fine statements, but both Calvinists and Arminians agree on them. So I don’t see how they relate to why Calvinists think that the Arminian viewpoint negates God’s sovereignity. ................................................. Then I found the statement, “You and I are way out of our depth. I for one am very leary of bringing God Almighty before the Court Of Human Reason. We must rely on that which has been revealed in Scripture and shun mere conjecture. “ You then went on to say that if it was in the Bible then you would believe it, but it’s not, so you don’t. That sounds great, but I believe it to be a “cop out” in this case. The Bible says that we should “reason together” (Isa 1:18), and it is not bringing God before the court of reason for two believers to discuss together how to make sense of some ideas in scripture which are widely recognized as being a bit tricky to understand :) And as for whether it’s in the Bible or not, both perspectives seem to be in the Bible. That is why there have been so many Christians throughout the centuries who have interpreted it both ways. ................................................. Please don’t take this post as an insult. In fact, the reason that I was dissapointed by your last post, is because I have come to expect good things out of you. Your other posts have been excellent for staying on topic, and making consistent progress as we explore these issues together. I hope to encourage you to keep up the good work of the former posts, and avoid posts in the future that just “push the mystery button” and say, well we can’t fully understand God, so why try? |
||||||
164 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62833 | ||
A Different View ......................................... Dear John, Thanks for clarifying your statement about why you believe that “allowing humans to have any impact in the universe contrary to the will of God would inevitably cause an imperfect final outcome”. I will try to do justice to your very thorough rationale. ......................................... You said that, “Perfection can be acheived only if all things involved are under the perfect control of the one who desires to reach that goal: Perfect in conception, design execution and fulfillment. The introduction of random, unpredictable or uncontrolable elements would result in a slight imperfection at best and at worst, chaos.” However, this is not logically correct. Have you ever played a game called NIM? It is a simple game played with 11 toothpicks. Each player alternates turns, taking away either 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks (whatever they choose). The player who takes away the last toothpick loses the game. Therefore the “perfect goal” is to not get stuck with the last toothpick. Now imagine you and I are playing a game of NIM, and I get to take the first turn. I take away 2 toothpicks, therfore 9 are left. Now you are completely FREE and ABLE to choose to remove 1, 2, or 3 toothpicks each turn until the end of the game, but the “perfect goal” is assured. Even though I am not in “perfect control” of your decisions, I will win this game no matter what you choose. ......................................... Now as for the “flaws” you found in the dollar store analogy. You said that for the analogy to work, we must assume that the parent, the child, and the clerk all desire the same end result. Thus causing problems if the child did not want to choose anything. First of all, I’ve never met a child who when given the option of having any one thing in a dollar store (loaded with toys), would decide they wanted nothing. However, this question is moot to begin with. The child has to pick something or they are not allowed to leave the store. Both Calvinists and Arminians would agree that God has set up the universe so that every person HAS to choose either to love God or reject Him. Not choosing is not an option in either viewpoint. ......................................... Then you say that the child would only be able to pick something bad like a machine gun. However, that point is also moot. Calvinist would agree, Arminians would disagree, but whether the child was only able to choose a machine gun or not, the point remains that when he checks out, it will still cost a dollar, and the parent’s final outcome will happen. ......................................... Finally, you end with a long quote from John Calvin. It seems in this quote that he is saying that God takes the decisions made by people who are enemies of God, and uses them to accomplish God’s own good purpose. Much like the verse where Joseph says to his brothers that though “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20). I don’t have a problem with that, and in fact, it even supports the point that I am trying to make. It shows that God could allow humans to have the ABILITY and FREEDOM to choose either way on an issue, and yet still control circumstances regardless of their choice to bring about God’s own final outcome. Thus God remains sovereign. |
||||||
165 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62824 | ||
Can we table this? .......................................... Dear John, This is an interesting question, and opens up yet another can of worms into this whole thought process. How about if we wait until we have some sort of conclusion to our current questions before we delve into this new one? .......................................... P.S. Thank you for your thorough response to my second point. I will try to post my thoughts a little later today. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for your response to my most recent clarification of my first point (post #62622). Also, I am still waiting for your response to my third point, made many days ago (post #62529). |
||||||
166 | what does this mean to us? | 1 Cor 11:32 | Sir Pent | 62676 | ||
Clarification ............................................. Good afternoon to you Meredith, I am not saying that God will always make people who treat the Lord’s Supper (Communion, Eucharist, etc.) irreverantly, sick. However, it appears that Paul does attribute the specific sickness that the people were experiencing, in the passage you asked about, to the judgement of God. ............................................. As for what we could learn from this passage, I think it shows that we should take seriously both the sacrifice that Jesus made for us and also our witness to the world around us. |
||||||
167 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62633 | ||
Personal Note ............................................. Dear John, I hope you had fun at grandparent’s day. It is a great blessing to have both kids and grandkids. I hope that someday, I’ll be able to join you in that club. I also see our conversation as an attempt for both of us (and potentially many others who read this) to gain understanding. Hopefully, out of it will come not only a clearer picture of what each of us believe differently, but more importantly what things we can both believe in agreement regardless of our respective viewpoints. I also agree with you in my hope that God will help us both to remain open to learn from this conversation. God bless! |
||||||
168 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62622 | ||
Continued Clarification ........................................... Dear John, You said that it was implied (although not stated) in my analogy that the children were innocent. Feel free to change the first sentance of the analogy to: “Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry, who were consistently disobedient.” I did not intend for the children to be seen as perfect and apologise for any confusion on that point. ........................................... You said that neither child wants legs or ice cream. However, in the Calvinist perspective, the reason for this lack of desire is due to the way that God set up the universe. After all, you agreed that God created “a universe that WOULD be full of people who were unable to choose to love God (unless God changed their hearts)." That once again fits with the analogy that the parent genetically engineered Tom and Jerry’s condition. ........................................... You complained that the parent’s decision to make them without legs was arbitrary, when it was Adam’s fall that caused it. However, according to Calvinist perspective God’s choosing to create the universe in the way that He did (which led to Adam’s fall, and Tom and Jerry’s leglessness) WAS arbitrary. There are many posts on this forum where people defending Calvinism, state that God’s actions are arbitrary (defined: depending on individual descretion) and completely independent from any exterior influence. You, yourself have previously stated that God’s actions were just “founded on His good pleasure”. I think this part of the analogy very accurately describes the Calvinist perspective. ........................................... OK, so once again I have pointed out why the analogy is an accurate reflection of the Calvinist view of scripture. in fact, you have even admited that it is “accurate in a technical sense”. Then you complain that it makes God appear to be different from what we both know that He is: “JUST, MERCIFULL, HOLY, ALL KNOWING, ALLPOWERFUL ,LOVE PERSONIFIED and PERFECT IN ALL HIS WAYS”. You say that it makes him “come across as a monster.” I agree that this would be the first conclusion that someone would come to when examining the Calvinist perspective. However, in fairness to what you believe, let’s just assume that there is some explanation for why this first conclusion is wrong. I am fine with that. Once again, I don’t have a problem with you believing that the perspective is right. I am just asking with this analogy if the choices that Tom and Jerry make are REALLY MADE FREELY. Do they REALLY have the ABILITY to CHOOSE? ........................................... Finally, I just wanted to remind you that there are two other points that I made a yesturday, that I am still looking forward to reading your thoughts on. After all, my original question was not about whether Calvinist perspective really believes in free choice, but rather, whether Arminian perspective really believes in a sovereign God. As far as I’m concerned, this free choice part of the thread is more of a side issue. ........................................... Also, I noticed that the Lockman Foundation is discouraging divisive posts based on denominational differences. I want to thank you for your continued participation in this thread which I still think has the potential to eventually lead to at least some consensus on one of these issues, and bring unity instead of divisiveness. I find that very exciting, and am glad to be able to discuss this with another person who can very rationally look at the issue from as much of an objective viewpoint as possible. Keep up the good work. |
||||||
169 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62547 | ||
Clarification ....................................... Dear John, I guess I missed your discussion with EdB about my analogy (although I saw your discussion of his analogy). I’d like to read what you wrote there; could you give me a post number to go to. Anyway, on to what you wrote here. It seems that you feel like my analogy is an inaccurate representation of the Calvinist perspective. Feel free to give more reasons why (my feelings won’t be hurt in the slightest), but I disagree with the reasons you gave. ....................................... You said that “Tom and Jerry (unregenerate man) are wicked rebels and not innocent children.” However, I never said in the analogy that Tom and Jerry were innocent children. All I said was that they were born with a condition (missing legs) that they could not change themselves. This goes right along with the definition you and I already agreed to, of the Calvinist viewpoint. That definition began, “God unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass.” ....................................... Your second reason was that “God is not their father in the sense of having a familial relationship with Him. The father that Tom and Jerry serve is Satan.” However, the analogy does not go into whether the interpersonal relationships between the parent and Tom and Jerry are familial or not. All I said was that the parent created Tom and Jerry a certain way (without any legs). This is true according to Calvinist perspective. As you said in an earlier post, God created everything. ....................................... Your also said that “It was not their legs but their hearts that have been corrupted.” Obviously the problem is with not with the legs, the heart, or any other specific part of the body, but rather with the attitude which one has towards God. Let’s not quibble over body parts :) ....................................... Your third reason was that “It was the sin of Adam that brought the curse of moral deformity upon our 2 rebels. Nevertheless, The Father is blameless.” However, once again going to our definition of Calvinism that we both agreed to: “God unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass.” And in a previous post we also agreed that God is omniscient. Therefore, according to the Calvinist viewpoint, God knew before He created Adam that if He created him the way He intended, then Adam WOULD sin. Thus, when God chose to create Adam that way anyway, He was in effect creating a universe that WOULD be full of people who were unable to choose to love God (unless God changed their hearts). This is accurately represented in the analogy by the parent who knows ahead of time that the genetic engineering they do WILL cause children in the future to be born without legs or the ability to walk (unless the parent gives them artificial ones). ....................................... I have tried to clarify why I still believe this analogy is an accurate one. Please let me know if you have any other reasons why you believe it is not. Otherwise, I’d like to know what your answers to the questions at the end of the analogy are. I also look forward to hearing your responses to my other posts (Different View 2 and 3). |
||||||
170 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62529 | ||
A Different View Point 3 ........................................... Now let’s look at your second point. You said, “God's Creation is the work of an omniscient Being. Therefore, His Plan was known unto Him from all eternity. In order for it to be perfect it must by necissity be entirely His work alone.” ........................................... I am also unclear on your logic here. You seem to be saying that God knows everything, and for the universe to be perfect it must consist of only God’s work. I agree with your premise; God is omniscient. However, how do you reach your conclusion based on that? I don’t see the logical connection there. Perhaps if you explained this thought more, I’d understand it better. ........................................... P.S. Personal note: I have noticed that your posts here on the forum have been more gentle and kind, and I hope that others here will see that as well. Keep up the good work. |
||||||
171 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62528 | ||
A Different View Point 2 ........................................... Now let’s look at your second point. You said, “The POSSIBILITY of imperfection would exist because the final outcome would bear the mark of imperfect creatures. “ ........................................... I am not clear on your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that allowing humans to have any impact in the universe contrary to the will of God could cause the possibility of an imperfect final outcome. Please allow me to repeat another analogy that I shared previously on this forum. It is possible for a being to allow limited freedom within a system while still being in control of the final outcome. For instance, in our town their is a store where everything costs 1 dollar. Now a parent could go to that store and lay a dollar bill on the counter and then tell their kid to go pick out any on thing in the store and the money on the counter will pay for it. The kid then actually does have freedom to choose whatever they want, but the parent’s “prophecy” will still come true when they bring it up to be paid for and the dollar bill is already there. This is an example of a time when a subject can be given both the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make a choice while at the same time some future things will not change. ........................................... Once again, I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to convince you that Calvinism is wrong. My purpose is to show you that Arminianism COULD be correct without taking away the fact that God is in supreme control. So in the analogy, a Calvinist would say that the child would only choose something in the store that the parent DIDN”T like unless the parent changed the child’s heart (in which case they would only choose something in the store that the parent DID like). An Arminian would say that the child would be ABLE to choose EITHER one, but that the parent would give the child a hint that they would like the child to choose one specific thing. My point is that either one of these views COULD be correct, and the final outcome would still be the same. Regardless of what choice is made, or even if there is a real choice being made, the parents “prophecy” is perfectly correct. |
||||||
172 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62527 | ||
A Different View Point 1 ........................................... OK, I begin to see your thoughts on this. Let’s look at them one at a time. You said, “Foreordination does not entail force. It simply means that God willed it to occur and whatever He wills to occur does inevitably occur.(God never ever forces the will of man. He did not make us to be robots). “ ........................................... Please allow me repeat an analogy that I shared previously on this forum, which no one responded to (except to compliment it). I would like to understand your thoughts on this issue. Imagine a parent who has twin children, Tom and Jerry. The parent, through genetic engineering, caused both of their children to be born without any legs. Then when they were both 10 years old, the parent got a set of artificial legs for Tom so that he could walk, but they did not get any legs for Jerry. Then one day the parent decides to go for a walk to the ice cream store. The parent invites both children to walk with them, but says it is their choice. Tom can’t pass up the opportunity for ice cream, and gladly accepts. Jerry however doesn’t have any legs, and so he doesn’t have the ability to go. The question is, “Does Jerry really have a choice to walk to the store if he has been born without any legs?” For that matter, “If the ice cream is truly irresistable, then does Tom have a real choice either?” |
||||||
173 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62461 | ||
Is this going somewhere? ................................ Dear John, You quoted Gen 1:1, and said that God created the universe. I agree. You then said that if God did not “foreordain all that would occur” (I assume that you mean “force to happen everything that happens”) then His creation would be “imperfect”. Why do you believe that the universe would be imperfect if God allowed somethings to happen without His direct control? Why does God have to excersize direct control of absolutely everything to keep His “eternal plan from failing”? ................................ Then you asked me to give my interpretation of Eph 1:11. In the Amplified version, that verse is translated, “In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will,” ................................ It seems to be saying that through Christ’s sacrifice we (Christians) have been brought into the family of God, and thus will some day receive an inheritance (heaven). It also seems to say that God has a overall plan based solely on His own desires. It also seems to say that we (Christians) are integrated into that plan, and were chosen ahead ot time to play a part in it. ................................ Maybe my lack of drinking coffee has left my mind clouded, but I don’t see where all this is leading. How does this answer the question of why God can’t be sovereign if He chooses not to excercise complete control of every situation, but rather allows people to have the ability to make real choices? | ||||||
174 | Do you have a say in being adopted? | Eph 1:11 | Sir Pent | 62459 | ||
Retraction ........................................ I posted my last post to the wrong thread. Please disregard that post, and I apologize. |
||||||
175 | Do you have a say in being adopted? | Eph 1:11 | Sir Pent | 62458 | ||
Is this going somewhere? ................................ Dear John, You quoted Gen 1:1, and said that God created the universe. I agree. You then said that if God did not “foreordain all that would occur” (I assume that you mean “force to happen everything that happens”) then His creation would be “imperfect”. Why do you believe that the universe would be imperfect if God allowed somethings to happen without His direct control? Why does God have to excersize direct control of absolutely everything to keep His “eternal plan from failing”? ................................ Then you asked me to give my interpretation of Eph 1:11. In the Amplified version, that verse is translated, “In Him we also were made [God's] heritage (portion) and we obtained an inheritance; for we had been foreordained (chosen and appointed beforehand) in accordance with His purpose, Who works out everything in agreement with the counsel and design of His [own] will,” ................................ It seems to be saying that through Christ’s sacrifice we (Christians) have been brought into the family of God, and thus will some day receive an inheritance (heaven). It also seems to say that God has a overall plan based solely on His own desires. It also seems to say that we (Christians) are integrated into that plan, and were chosen ahead ot time to play a part in it. ................................ Maybe my lack of drinking coffee has left my mind clouded, but I don’t see where all this is leading. How does this answer the question of why God can’t be sovereign if He chooses not to excercise complete control of every situation, but rather allows people to have the ability to make real choices? |
||||||
176 | Christ died on a stake and not a cross? | John 19:17 | Sir Pent | 62342 | ||
Support ........................................ I completely agree with Hank here. As I have often said, this forum has so much potential to be truly meaningful to a world of people searching for answers. However, for that to happen, Hank has hit the nail on the head. We should answer their questions about the details. But our overall goal should always be to point them to God, Himself, and His overarching message of love, forgiveness, and desiring a healthy relationship with each of us. And that is only possible through Jesus, and His death on the cross. Thanks Hank, for putting things in perpective on this one :) |
||||||
177 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | Sir Pent | 62294 | ||
A Different View ......................................... Dear Hank, Kalos, and apparently large numbers of other colleagues here on the forum (and even possibly the Lockman Foundation themselves), It seems that there has been a “piling on” lately of the person named John Reformed, who relatively recently joined our Forum. As a long time participant here, I would like to say at least something in his defense. I do not believe that John Reformed should be banned from this forum at this time. I understand that many of my colleagues (who I respect greatly) are frustrated that such a large number of his posts seem to be proselytizing the Calvinist perspective of Christianity. However, is this so unusual on this forum. ......................................... If one did a search of the user name “Ray” and the word “capitalization”, you would find that an unusually high number of Ray’s posts regarding scriptures and subjects from all over the Bible are focused on this one theme of capitalization. If you looked at all the posts written by Tim Moran, you would find that he focuses a lot more on Greek and Hebrew translation than almost all other forum members. I do not say this to insult Ray (who I haven’t had much contact with but is well respected here) or Tim (who I have had significant thread sharing with, and consider to be a friend). I am merely making the point that each of us has our own particular interests that are what fire our participation here at the forum. And these interests naturally tend to color our perception of everything in scripture, and therefore all of our posts here. ......................................... Therefore, John Reformed, tendency is not that unusual on this forum. Nor is it anti-Christian. I disagree with his perspective, but it definitely falls within the category of orthodoxy, and is believed by very large numbers of our Christian brothers and sisters. This all being said, I have found my own discussion with John Reformed to be (at least up to this point) constructive. He seems to be well aware of scripture and uses it quite often. He seems to be intelligent and thinks about his posts thoroughly. He also has done an admirable job of keeping his focus on the subjects that he is discussing as opposed to insulting the person who he is discussing with. It seems to me that these are the some of the key attributes of a person who would be beneficial to have posting on this forum. ......................................... In conclusion, I would encourage you all to rethink your opposition to John Reformed, and give him the chance to hopefully, over time, share some thoughts on other issues, while not squelching the thing that seems to drive his interest. |
||||||
178 | Is God in absolut contrl over all things | Acts 4:24 | Sir Pent | 62291 | ||
Clarification.................................................. Dear John, I think that sounds fine, and am looking forward to your thoughts on why? |
||||||
179 | Physical sports contests? | Col 3:17 | Sir Pent | 62199 | ||
Personal Note .................................... Dear Cyclist, I'm glad that you liked the website. Keep putting God first. I hope your competition goes well for you. Be strong in the Lord, and be of good courage. |
||||||
180 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Sir Pent | 62187 | ||
Personal Note ................................. Dear John, It has been a while. Are you still planning on continuing our discussion about sovereignity. If so I would appreciate if you could respond to post number 61842. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [24] >> |