Results 21 - 40 of 40
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154072 | ||
Hi there, I would agree with you that humans have "a mind, will, intellect, emotions, and moral capacity." I guess the question that is being discussed (or at least that I was trying to ask) is "how much, if any, of those attributes can be found in the other animals that God created?" or to put it another way, "Are any of those attributes unique to humans?". I am proposing that, among the earthly creations, we have a unique moral capacity because we have been uniquely created with a volitional capacity and that this ability to exercise will is the one thing that separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. Lionstrong has proposed, if I understand him correctly, that humans are the only earthly creature with an ability to think or understand (or learn? or reason?) and that this intellectual ability alone is what separates humanity from all other creatures (earthly or otherwise?) and is the one thing that makes us to be in the image of God. How have you come to understand this? Would you suggest that any or all of those attributes are unique to humans? A second comment in response to your post, if I may. You wrote: "God breathed the 'breath of life' into man. No other creation is described this way, and that 'breath of life' is the spiritual component that man alone possesses." You are correct to say that "No other creation is described this way," but I would suggest that you are assuming too much if you conclude from this verse that this _must_ be unique to humanity. I believe that this would be called an "argument from silence" and it is a very weak position to hold. The creation of man is the only creative work of God described in any detail. Should we also assume then that none of the rest of the creatures that God made are created from "the dust of the ground?" I think you would agree that this would be assuming too much. As I see it, _all_ living things on earth (plant, animal, or otherwise (ie. even bacteria and viruses)) are made from the same basic building blocks ("the dust of the ground"). As well, they _all_ break back down into those same basic building blocks ("return to dust") when they cease to be alive. God is the Giver of life. He has not given that uniquely to humanity. We are, I believe, unique among God's earthly creatures, but I would suggest that it is not because we are "living beings" (Ge. 2.7). Looking forward to your response. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
22 | Different languages already in place? | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132807 | ||
Hey there, Someone identified as "Restored" just asked a question very similar to yours which has seemingly gone unanswered for more than 3 years. I have offered a possible explanation (message ID 132804) and would appreciate your thoughts. |
||||||
23 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16606 | ||
Dear kalos, Please accept my humble apologies!! I read this post when you first posted it just over a week ago. I fully intended to reply to it, but never did. I also noticed that you have posted this same message in a few other threads related to this same basic question, but (just going by memory here) I don't recall anyone responding to it significantly in any of those places either. There is very little in what you wrote and quoted here that I would seriously question or take exception with. The problem is that it doesn't seem to answer my question, or, at least, if it does I have failed to see how. I am quite convinced that 1) God is in fact good and that 2) all that He created was good in its original creation. If I may, I'll leave you with two questions that will hopefully clarify what it is that I am asking, both in this particular thread and in the thread which spawned this one (Gal. 2:17). 1. Isaiah 45:6-7 is indeed a fairly easy text to deal with. But how do you understand the passage to which this thread is attached, and (just as importantly) why do you understand it that way? 2. You wrote: "God is certainly sovereign over evil. There's a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree." I am not exactly certain of what you are intending by the use of the words "sovereign" and "decree," but if, as the strongly Calvanist position seems to take, you mean that God has predetermined (ordained, predestined) every detail of history before any of it came to be, than how can He not also be properly called the author (source) of sin? I suppose it would be best if you are going to respond to the second question, that you do so in the thread attached to Gal. 2:17, since that is the question that is asked there and it would be at least somewhat outside of the scope of this particular thread. Again, please accept my apologies. It was not my intent to ignore what you had written. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
24 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16460 | ||
Hi Charis, You write that you "have been through this one before." Did you come to some answers? How do you understand these two verses here? I did not raise this question for the sake of trying to stir up dissention or any other kind of trouble. I too am convinced that God is good. It is precisely because of this that I am really perplexed by this passage (and a couple of others that I have now encountered) and desire to understand. Simply ignoring passages of Scripture that I do not understand - and especially those that seem to contradict what I think I do understand already - is not an acceptable option for me. I'm sorry if my question has offended you, but I think it is a good question that desires consideration, even if I may not ever have a compete answer this side of heaven. If you have some insight into this that may be helpful to me (or others who are also reading this), it would be much appreciated. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
25 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16455 | ||
Good day, I am not sure how this passage could reasonably be understood as an anthropormorphism. It is, seemingly at least, a direct statement of what God was going to do. When God is said to repent or change His mind, it is, I think, always in response to a change in the way that humans are responding to Him. And I'm not sure that I would call that an anthropormorphism either. Anthropormorphism is, I believe, a figure of speech (ie. not to be taken litterally) where a human characteristic is figuratively applied to God in order to make a particular point. I don't see how that could be true of these two verses. If I am missing something here, please show me what it is. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
26 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16454 | ||
Hello Joe, You're right. I haven't read a response here that really seems to answer my question. And, I'm afraid, I must include yours in that statement. You come close to *asking* my question when you wrote: "Q: So how can God decree sin (along with all other things) without being the author of it?" Depending on just what you mean by your use of the word "decree," it maybe that you are asking here the same question as I am. (I refer you back to our discussion under Gal. 2:17 and again ask that we get some of these words we are using well defined so that we can clearly understand each other.) But, it seems to me, that your answers to this question miss the mark. The first part of your answer to this question was: "...by bringing sinful people into EXISTENCE..." I am not sure how this answers the question. Yes, God brings sinful people into the world (and/or allows sinful people to be brought into the world). As I understand it, He loves each of them, cares for each of them, and does not tempt any of them or cause any of them to sin. And yet, it would seem that this passage is saying something very different. It says that *God* caused this sin. What I want to know is if this is a figure of speech of some sort, or a misunderstanding based on cultural difference, or if it really means exactly what it says and therefore I misunderstand something about God! The second part of your answer to this question was: "...by providing the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to sin." Again, I am not sure how this answers the question. As I said in our discussions on Gal. 2:17, real choice must include both the real ability to choose and the real opportunity to choose. It seems to me that, if this is correct, then we can only be held responsible (guilty) to the degree that we had real choice. My point in that discussion (Gal. 2:17) was to ask, "how can God hold us accountable for things in which we have no real choice?" In other words, if God has predestined every detail of history, including every sin, what *real* choice does anyone have? It was at that point, if my memory serves me correctly, that you referred me to this passage that we are now discussing seemingly as a proof (or evidence) that God really does predetermine (decree, predestine) even the sins that we commit. But my question (from Gal. 2:17) still stands: how can God do that and not be the author of sin? That seems to be a blatent contradiction. In the passage we are discussing here, how can we say that God is not the cause (author) of this sin? The third part of your answer to this question was: "...by limiting the EXTENT of the expression of the sinful act." Again, as I think I said in our discussion attached to Gal. 2:17, I have no problem with the idea of limited freedom. But there is a vast difference between limited freedom and absolute predestination wherein there is no freedom - and therefore there can be no responsibility. But in particular reference to the passage that we discussing at the moment, it gives no indication of God simply limiting the available choices. It quite specifically says that God Himself *would do* this thing. I am finding that to be a very uncomfortable thing. You began your message by writing: "Your post does bring me to something I had wanted to fit in earlier: whether using the words "author," "cause," and "source" synonymously is correct here." Are they not essentially synonomous? I do not see in the remainder of your message an explaination of why they are not. Then, immediately following that statement, you wrote: "Here is my understanding: Q: Where does sin originate? A: The sinful hearts of human beings." I do believe that sin originates in the hearts and minds of God's created beings (angels and humans), and that we are sinful by nature. We sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. But the strongly Calvanistic point of view, if I understand it at all, says more than that. It says that sin originates from God before the foundation of the world in that God decreed (predetermined, predestined) every detail of history! Am I mistaken in this? Anyway, that question more properly belongs back in our discussion on Gal. 2:17. The question I would like answered here (2Sa. 12:11-12) is "how can God say and/or do this without it compromising His holiness?" If it is wrong for people to perform these actions, then must it not also be wrong for God to *cause* them to do this? Have a very good day. As always, I am looking forward to your reply. Bob |
||||||
27 | All of God's decree is not predestined? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 15394 | ||
Hi Joe, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. Things are VERY busy and will be for a while now, it seems. I have been doing some thinking and a little reading in reference to 2Sa 12:11-12, and I am finding these verses to be most uncomfortable. And I have not found any satisfactory answers, at least as yet. Even your explanation here is quite unsatisfactory to me. This passage is not just God declaring what will happen. It actually says that God Himself will cause this evil to happen. Three times in these two verses God says, "I will...." I have posted a question to this effect attached to 2Sa. 12:11. If you could respond to that question and clarify just exactly how you understand this passage so that God's holiness is not compromised, I would appreciate it. And there are still some questions here in this thread for which I would very much like to hear your answers (ie. "Isn't all of God's decree predestined?" and "Is that fair representation?" and a couple of others where it seemed like you didn't really answer the question directly). The first thing we need to do, though, is nail down some of these definitions ("Isn't all of God's decree predestined?"). Thanks again your time! Bob |
||||||
28 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13968 | ||
Just an addendum to my previous note: you could see my post "Part 2 of 2: How can both be true?" | ||||||
29 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13967 | ||
Hi Norrie, Your description here is more or less how I have come to understand this. The one thing I would want to be made very clear, though, is that God is never surprised by the decisions that we make. He does know the beginning from the end. I just don't think that He can have predetermined (predestined) *all* of those decisions for us. Any decisions that are predestined are not, in fact, *our* decisions; they are God's decisions. What I am trying to understand in all of this is how the Calvinist view can suggest that everything that does happen (including sin) can possibly be *both* "God's predetermined, unchangeable plan" *and* the real exercise of choice on the part of His creatures. As I understand it, any particular decision or choice made by one of God's creatures can be only one or the other, but not both. Suggesting that a decision can be both seems to me to be contradictory, and thus my initial question about this being "a Calvinistic contradiction" (see my post " But aren't they mutually exclusive?" and the follow up post "All of God's decree is not predestined?"). Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
30 | But aren't they mutually exclusive? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13923 | ||
Hi Norrie, There is a lot to read here. I guess a big part of what I am trying to figure out is whether or not those who hold to a Reformed (strongly Calvinist) interpretation of Scripture believe that there really is such a thing as God truly *permitting* anything, or if absolutely everything has been unchangeably predetermined by God before any of it actually happened. Although I may not be understanding him correctly, it seems to me that Joe is suggesting that *both* of those options are true, while I am contendeing that only one or the other can be true, but not both. Any thoughts? Bob |
||||||
31 | Part 2 of 2: How can both be true? | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13863 | ||
Hi Joe, Just to let you know, I have read this. But I think that I need to get your reply to my post ("But aren't they mutually exclusive? Thu 08/23/01, 10:42am) before I can effectively reply to this. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
32 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13697 | ||
Good day Ray, Your thoughts expressed here have crossed my mind on several occassions as well. We are sinners from conception, and we are treading in some very deep water. I suspect that if God were to directly interject His thinking into our discussion here, that all of us might be rebuked as Job was (Job 38:1-41:34) and that all of us would be forced to conclude as Job did (42:2-3): I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." And yet, I think that, as long as we are honestly seeking to understand each other and the Scriptures (and ultimately God Himself!) better, then there is value in this discussion and that God is both pleased and honored by it. I do not think for even a second that this discussion will end the Calvanist-Arminian debate which has gone on for centuries. But that is not my purpose in asking these questions. I am just trying to understand one point of view better than I do now. You concluded by quoting Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." You are quite correct to be more concerned about this. I can only reply with a hearty "Amen." We must never lose sight of this. And you have my permission (not that you need it!) to remind me of this any time that you think I may be losing that focus. Thank you for a timely reminder. Bob |
||||||
33 | But isn't that a contradiction | Gal 2:17 | RWC | 13692 | ||
Hello Justin, I believe that the 66-book canon of the Christian Scriptures were inspired in their original writing. And, since God is perfect in all He is and does, there were no errors or contradictions in those writings. And you are quite correct: context is critical to correct understanding. I am not suggesting that there is a contradiction in Scripture. It seems to me that there is a contradiction within a strongly Calvanistic understanding of the Scriptures. In other words, it seems to me (and it might be my own misunderstanding of their point of view!) that Calvin (and indeed, many before him and after him) have carefully read the Scriptures and yet came to at least 2 conclusions (interpretations? understandings?) that contradict each other. What I do not as yet understand is how those conclusions (ie. that 1. God has predestined everything that comes to pass and 2. God is not the author of sin) can both be true at the same time. They seem, to me at least, to be glaring contradictions (ie. they cannot both be true). If you can help me to understand this point of view, it would be greatly appreciated! Bob |
||||||
34 | Did Jesus die _only_ for the elect | 1 Tim 3:1 | RWC | 13548 | ||
It was I that asked the question of you. Please forgive me. Being quite unfamiliar with this forum, or even how to find my way around in it, I did not know that this was such a sore point for you and several others. I knew that my question was off the topic of the verse to which this thread is attached, but I did not know that it would raise such an immediate flurry of responses. I think I have found where I can "catch up" on some the discussion that has already gone on and perhaps even ask another question or two. Again, please accept my apologies. I certainly did not intend for all of this. Bob |
||||||
35 | Must one God mean one Person? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 5979 | ||
Please forgive me if I wasn't very clear. Or perhaps you didn't read my note thoroughly. Or maybe both are true. First of all, my understanding of the Scripture is very much Trinitarian. I was only trying to clarify exactly what the point of difference is between the Trinitarian view and the "oneness" view. If you have not already done so, please read the message to which I was responding. That might help to clear up some of the misunderstanding. Secondly, even though I agree with you in our view on the Trinity, I am not at all sure that I would consider a creedal statement to be an authoritative proof providing "a simple answer." There is certainly some value in knowing how the people of history have understood the Scriptures. But that is not the same thing as the Scripture itself. A "simple answer," in my estimation, would be a few quotes from Scripture (taken in their context, of course!) |
||||||
36 | What does "emptied Himself" really mean | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 4979 | ||
Yes, thank you for making the point about Jesus' humanity being like Adam's (and Eve's!) prior to their initial sin. That is how I have come to understand this as well, but I didn't make that clear (at least in that posting). Jesus did not and does not have a sin nature. And His fellowship with God must have been very similar indeed to that experienced by Adam and Eve prior to sin entering the human race. | ||||||
37 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4907 | ||
Just brief reply. I have posted a question under the verse that we now seem to be discussing (Phil. 2.7). It might be good if you could copy your note above and make it a response to the question on that verse. I think that this is a pretty good explanation. I do not believe that Jesus' divinity was in any way reduced by His becoming a human being. I am just wondering if (and even of the opinion that) Jesus had set aside the use of the power that is His because of Who He is. (See my question on Phil. 2.7 for a little further expanation.) |
||||||
38 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4767 | ||
I agree with you completely that Jesus had no inward desire or inclination to sin. I am not so sure that the reason He did not sin when He was tempted is because of the fact that He was (and is) God. To avoid repetition, please see the note from Reformer Joe ("I hold that the reason for his temptation...") and my reply ("Hmmm... When God created humans, He made...") Your comments would be appreciated. | ||||||
39 | Is incomplete temptation real temptation | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4766 | ||
Hmmm.... When God created humans, He made us significantly different from the rest of the animal world: He gave us the ability to make choices (the ability to exercise will). Whether that will is free or not or to what degree it might be free we will leave for another discussion! That ability to exercise will is the primary ingredient in what God wants most from us: love (agape love!). In order to love with God's kind of love (agape), we need to have BOTH the ability AND the opportunity. If either of those two things are removed, then we cannot love with God's love. And, as you said in part at least, that is precisely what God did in the Garden: He gave Adam and Eve both the ability to choose and the opportunity to choose. This brings me back to this discussion, and to the issue with which I wrestle. There is no doubt that Jesus had the opportunity to sin. He was tempted (externally) in every way that we are. But did He have the ability to do anything other than obey? If not, how does that qualify as an act of obedience or real temptation? The only explanation that I have been able to come up, thus far at least, is that when Jesus became a human being, He set aside all of His divine nature (not character, but power and abilities - see Php. 2.6-8 where we are told that Christ "emptied Himself" in order to prove His obedience) and became totally dependant upon the Holy Spirit, just as we are. In so doing, I wonder if Jesus was just as capable of disobeying as Adam had been. And yet, suggesting that this might be true sounds like it might be blasphemous! Thus my struggle! |
||||||
40 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | RWC | 4761 | ||
I think I can buy that. As you (and others in this discussion) have suggested, there seems to be two different kinds of temptation: internal (coming from within us) and external (originating in our circumstances or surroundings). As I understand it, Jesus was never dragged away and enticed by His own evil desires (as it says in James): He had none. His temptations were always external and never internal. I also believe that this was true for Adam and Eve, at least up until they had disobeyed the first time. I suppose that it should also be said that this does not mean that Jesus' temptations were any easier to deal with (humanly speaking), since He bore the full weight of _all_ His temptations by resisting them completely, even to the point of death. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |