Results 21 - 40 of 46
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Can God really be tempted? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131672 | ||
Can God in fact be tempted? If translated correctly by modern English Bibles, this verse would say that it is impossible for God to be tempted. But then we have passages like Mt 4.1 ff. (temptations in wilderness) and Heb. 4.15 that tell us that Jesus was in fact tempted. If Jesus is God in the flesh (and yes, I am convinced of the deity of Jesus), how are we to understand this verse? Do the modern English versions (which all seem to basically agree on the reading of the text) translate this verse well? I have had someone recently suggest that the verse would be better translated as "God ought not to be tempted." I do not know Greek well enough to deal with the translation issues, so if anyone can shed some light on that, I would appreciate it. Also, I think I have an answer for how these verses can all be reconciled using the modern English readings, but I would very much like to hear from others on how they understand this verse first. So if anyone would be willing to share how you interpret (understand) this verse, especially in comparison to Mt 4.1 and Heb. 4.15, I would greatly appreciate it! | ||||||
22 | 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 |
||||||
23 | 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? |
||||||
24 | 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? | ||||||
25 | 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? |
||||||
26 | All of God's decree is not predestined? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13966 | ||
Good day Joe, As always, its good to hear from you again. You're making me have to work at this, and that is a good thing. One thing though... you wrote, "we are heading into some pretty deep philosophical waters..." Man! If we are only heading into deep waters now, then I am in *serious* trouble because I have been treading water for a long time now!! In fact, I have been treading water since I jumped into this with the initial question. ;) More seriously, you wrote: "I don't consider "decree" and "predestination" to be synonymous." OK... I guess we need to talk a little more here about the use and meaning of what seem to be very technical terms for you because I have certainly understood them to have essentially the same meaning. You wrote: "Biblically, the term [predestination] is used to describe the eternal destiny of those whom He regenerates..." I think you are correct. The primary use of this word *is* in connection with the eternal destiny of believers. But, by pointing that out in this context, are you suggesting that the *only* thing God has predestined is the glorification of believers? Surely not. What real difference(s) is(are) there between the concept of "God's sovereign will" which He has decreed and the concept of predestination? Or, using the definition that we accepted, what real difference(s) is(are) there between the concept of "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan" which He decreed and the concept of predestination? In essence, they are the same thing. At most, or so it seems to me, the biggest difference between the action of God decreeing and the action of God predestinating is that decreeing is God actually *stating* or *declaring* that which He has predestined (predetermined, decided ahead of time). Am I missing something here? One other point: you spent a fair bit of time and effort in your post "examine[ing] the notion that God limits our freedom without excusing us from the blame for our sin..." I have no problem the notion of "limited freedom" as long as there is still at least some measure of *real* freedom (meaning both the ability and the opportunity to make a choice or exercise will). Humans have never had *complete* freedom, and, in fact, not even God has truly *complete* freedom in His choices as He is limited by His character. For example, God's freedom is limited in that He does not have the choice to lie about something, or do anything else that would contravene His character. Those choices are not available to Him. The point that I was trying to make in my previous post, though, is that if every detail of history (ie. everything that comes to pass in time) is predetermined (decreed, ordained, predestined, decided) by God before any of them actually happened, then 1) that doesn't leave *any* room for freedom to choose on the part of the creatures (as the ability and/or opportunity to choose have not only been limited, but removed) and that 2) this makes God the author (cause, source, originator, predestinator) of every sin that ever has or ever will be committed. Hmmm...I guess that is *2* points, isn't it? And I didn't state the first one very clearly in my previous post. Sorry about that. Thank you again for the time and effort that you are putting into discussing this with me. Again, I am eagerly looking forward to your reply. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
27 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13862 | ||
Good day Joe, I'm sorry; I thought that we had achieved a common understanding of just what the words "decree" (as used by Spurgeon) and "ordain" (as used in the Westminster Confession of Faith) were actually intending. But it seems I have not understood you clearly. Initially, you wrote (Mon 08/20/01, 6:30am): "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. It is more than the case of him allowing sin; you are correct. He actually decreed that sin would exist on the earth...." I had taken that to mean that you agreed that the concept of decreeing something and allowing something were, in fact, substantially different things; that the words really speak of different things. I need to sort out some of these terms here that seem to a some what technical meaning for you from the way you have used them. Maybe this will help me to understand your view better. Certainly it will help us to communicate better! In this post, you use the phrase "God's sovereign will" a couple of times. By this, do you mean "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan which includes everything that comes to pass in time?" I ask that question because that is what I think you are meaning by the use of that phrase, and yet you explain it by saying that it (and I quote): "includes everything that He either actively engages in or actively permits to occur. Both fall under the category of 'decree,' and both were ordained from eternity past" How does the concept of God "actively permitting" something fit into the concept of God "absolutely predetermining" every detail of history before any of it began? As I understand it, the concept of God "actively permitting" something must mean that there was *real* choice available (ie. that there really was both the *ability* to choose and the *opportunity* to choose), and that, although God would certainly have known what the choice(s) would be, He did not pre-destinate what those choices would be. I hope I am making this clear. What I don't understand is how you can speak of God's action of predestination to include God allowing or permitting. As I understand those two things, they are mutually exclusive; that is, they cannot both be true regarding a particular decision made by one of His creatures. It must be one *or* the other. If God predestinates that a certain creature will make a particular decision (or choice) at particular point in history, then there is no permitting or allowing involved; there is not *really* the ability or the opportunity for that creature to choose anthing other than what God predestined them to choose. For who can resist the will of God? (There is Rom. 9:19 again.) The answer can only be "no one!" What am I missing here? How is it that you seem to be able to put those two things together (that one is even actually a part or subset of the other!) and not find that difficult (or even impossible!)? Help me understand this! I am fully convinced that God has the ability to predestinate anything and everything He wants to. It is within His power to have predestinated every detail of history. But if He did, and if there is sin in the world, then God is also the author (source, cause, designer, the predestinator) of every sin that has ever been committed or ever will be. I must say that I find that to be a *most* disturbing thought! As I have for each of the last several days, I am eagerly looking forward to your reply. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
28 | Part 2 of 2: How can both be true? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13776 | ||
continued from part 1: Later you write: "So while God did not MAKE Satan rebel or Adam sin (Chapter III of WCF states "nor was violence offered to the will of the creatures")...." I know that is what the Westminster Confession of Faith says (and, again, I think that even those in the Arminian camp would agree with that phrase). What I don't understand is how the authors of that document (and nearly 400 years worth of their adherants... and those who came before them and held the same view) can put those two statements together and not see them as self-contradictory. How can God unchangeably predetermine (predestinate) every detail of history (including sin) before any of it began, and still not be the author (source, cause, designer) of sin? I must say, I am quite confused by one thing that you wrote: "Every move that we make by our own free will..." Was this reference to free will a deliberate choice of words on your part or was it not meant in a literal way (ie. with a technical, theological meaning)? I had understood, and maybe wrongly so, that the strongly Reformed view says that we do not have any such thing, and that the closest thing that humans have had to a free will was in Adam and Eve prior to the Fall (although, as is already clear, I am quite unsure how the idea of free will even before the Fall fits side by side with the strongly Reformed view of predestination). In closing, you wrote: "I see nothing in your comments that presents a more particular problem for Calvinists than it does for Arminians who must also explain that God created sinners, and is not the author of sin." There is no doubt that this issue does need to be explained. If God is who He says He is (namely, in the context of our discussion, that He is Holy), then there must be some explanation for the fact that there is sin in the world. I do not pretend to have all the answers to this (or even most of them... maybe not even a few of them!). And certainly I have some questions that I would like to ask of those holding to a strongly Arminian point of view as well. But those will undoubtedly come up in another thread. What I am hoping to determine, at least tentatively, by starting this particular discussion is whether or not this really is a contradiction within the strongly Reformed view, or if I perceive it that way because of some lack of understanding on my part. If it is the latter, I am afraid that the lack of understanding is still there. I am *thoroughly* enjoying our discussion! Please don't give up on me because I keep bringing our discussion back to what seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Have a very good day. Bob |
||||||
29 | 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." |
||||||
30 | 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 |
||||||
31 | 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 |
||||||
32 | 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 |
||||||
33 | "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 |
||||||
34 | 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 |
||||||
35 | Thank you - and where should I look | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13488 | ||
Thank you sir! As I said in my original post, I wondered if my question my start a subject that did not fit with the verse to which it was attached, and that really was not my intent. But I did not expect such a flurry of respenses as it has generated either. Being rather unfamiliar with the vast majority of threads of discussion in this forum and the tools for finding my way around in here, and no doubt there are (and will be!) many more people in my position, perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to some of those discussions. Are there perhaps a couple of general questions that have discussed this or are they mostly linked to particular verses? Thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Bob |
||||||
36 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13444 | ||
This question could start a totally different subject that has nothing to do with this verse, and that is not really my intent. But I need to ask you just the same. When you wrote, "Additionally, God judged in Christ all the sins of his elect people," are you really intending to imply that Jesus died _only_ for the elect? I understand that's not quite what you said, but it sounds as though that may be what you are thinking. If so, I would have some further questions for you. |
||||||
37 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13440 | ||
I would certainly like to know your thoughts on this. Please see my question "But what does it mean?" in response to the same message that you were replying to here. | ||||||
38 | But what does it mean? | 1 Tim 2:15 | RWC | 13438 | ||
Please explain. You wrote: "The false teaching seems to have had something to do with the relationship between husbands and wives." How does their misunderstanding of this relationship (however misguided that may have been) culminate into women being saved or healed (NASB: preserved?) (Gk: from the word sozo) through or by (Gk: dia) bearing children? What is Paul meaning here? Surely he is not saying that the bearing of children plays any part in spiritual salvation for women, is he??!! Certainly I don't think that many believers (if any) would suggest that. But what is this verse talking about?? |
||||||
39 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5755 | ||
I first read this message several days ago and I started to write a response offline. Now I see that someone has already responded to you and said basically what I wanted to say, and in FAR fewer words! But please consider my comments below. The repeated stand of the trintarian point of view, if I understand it all, is that there is one (and only one!) God who exists in three persons, and who has done so for all of eternity. Without question, the emphatic point of Is. 44.6-8 (and many other verses like it) is that there is only one living and true God, maker of Heaven and Earth, and that there is none (absolutely none!) besides Him. You have two statements in your posting that seem to somehow miss that. The first is your statement, "If language means anything then by Myself" and alone mean that there was no other person present." You are making a jump from the statement "there is one God" (which is what that verse and the others like it actually says) to "therefore there can only be one Person." Secondly, your last question, ("If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would... he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead?") makes the same mistake of jumping from "one God" to "one person." These statements imply (or at least it seems to me that they imply) that the trinitarian view point must believe in a multiplicity of gods because it holds to a multiplicity of persons within the one true and living God. And that of course, does not represent the trinitarian point of view at all. Trinitarians hold to Is. 44.6-8 (and all of the other verses that claim monotheism!) just as strongly as you do. And trinitarians are just as strongly opposed to theologies and ideologies that teach polytheism as you are. In defending or explaining your "oneness" point of view, don't allow yourself to "set up a straw man" or otherwise miss the real issue. We agree, I think, that there is only one God. We agree, I think, that Jesus was and is both fully God and fully human at the same time. The crux of the issue, if I understand it, is the question: are there three separate individual persons or only one person who takes on three forms or roles? It occurs to me that this discussion is headed down a significantly different path than the current subject. If you would be kind enough to cross-post your note to which this message is responding (and then let me know), I will do the same. Perhaps post it as a note or a question attached to Is. 44.6 or some other verse of your choosing. Just put a line at the top of the new message explaining that it is a cross-posted message and where it had originally come from. If you will do that, save your response to my message until we have these both cross-posted, and then we can keep the discussion on the subject and attached to the verse (or principle) that we are actually discussing. |
||||||
40 | "desirable though wrong" and Jesus? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5244 | ||
I just wanted to follow up this posting with you here under the discussion on temptation. You defined temptation as being "exposed to that which you find desirable though wrong." James describes our temptation as being "dragged away and enticed by our own evil desire." But I do not think that this could be said for Jesus. He had no evil desires whatsoever. Now, I don't think that this is what you meant, but I thought I should just ask you to clarify what you think about how Jesus was tempted. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |