Stylized God

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Van, Jun 30, 2013.

  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    God has revealed Him in Scripture, warts and all, which of course are not flaws, because God is flawless. If we reject God’s revelation because it conflicts with our view of God, have we not stylized God? Thus to say this scripture does not actually mean what it says, because that is inconsistent with my stylized view of God’s attributes and attitudes, is to say we cannot trust God’s revelation, and we must nullify whatever is inconsistent with my stylized view of God.

    So how can we nullify the clear teaching of scripture to create our stylized view of God? First we must conflate the various revelations concerning God, and create generalized encapsulations, i.e. God is all knowing according to at least four scriptures, so lets not refer to them, lets say our stylized God is “omniscient.” All the verses that teach God is all-powerful are lumped together, and God is “omnipotent.” Similarly, all the verses that teach God is everywhere are distilled into God is “omnipresent.”

    Now we can nullify a passage of revelation saying it does not actually mean what it says, it is poetry, or a parable, or anthropomorphic and on and on because it is inconsistent with our stylized view of God. If we have a holier than thou mindset, we can even say it demeans God to claim scripture means what it says.

    Lets take a look at some of these stylings.

    We know that God is spirit, i.e. non-physical, and therefore has no actual eyes, face, arms or hands. Verses which refer to “the hand of God” and such are anthropomorphic, thus not teaching God has physical hands, but teaching God does touch and alter people and circumstances in the physical realm. He is not like an idol, fixed implacably in stone. If you throw out what is being revealed about God, dismissing the whole revelation on the basis it was illustrated anthropomorphically, you are stylizing God.

    Was eternity, i.e. before God created physical time, without spiritual time, i.e. everything happens at once so everything has happen. Or is there an attribute of God, i.e. spiritual time, which provides for sequence and occurrence and decision and decree? Did God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world, or because of God’s omniscience, were those chosen always chosen? Can we make revelation to no effect by the traditions of stylization?

    The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) teaches God did not decree some of what He foreknew. Thus a branch of Calvinism, at least back near 1600, believed the future was not fixed, and therefore taught open theism. Can we deny this and say the future is fixed because of a stylized view of God, or must we stick with what scripture actually says. Is God the God of confusion, or is confusion the result of the autonomous thoughts of men? Is God the author of sin, tempting us through the lusts of our flesh such that our sinful choices were predetermined? Do some thoughts enter God’s mind, or can we deny inspired revelation because it is inconsistent with our stylized view of God.

    Food for thought.
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328
    More tripe from you Van.

    When you say that the W.C.o F. taught open theism --you are spouting absolute non sense.
     
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Open theism is the idea that the future is not fixed. Thus if God did not decree what He foreknew means the future is not fixed by God's foreknowledge, then the WCF teaches open theism. Please address the argument rather than calling it tripe.

    Perhaps you have another view?

    Open Theism 101, and now not only the view of Arminianism, i.e. the future is not entirely fixed (and non-Cals everywhere), but also the view of some Calvinists authoring the WCF, seeking to avoid God being the author of the sin He foresaw.

    Other Calvinists, A.W. Pink, take the other road and say God foreknows the future because He decreed it. Thus God becomes the author of foreknown sin. Thus Calvinism is not only nonsense, it is incoherent nonsense.
     
    #3 Van, Jul 1, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2013
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Once God has been stylized, we can make arguments nullifying scripture because of the stylized character of God. For example, God is love, now He would not do this or that because that is not loving. Here, the truth that God is love is stylized into God always treats everyone with love, the fiction of the omnibenevolent God. God actually causes calamity, things that those affected would call evil and not love. So, pointing to their stylized God, claim God does not cause calamity.

    Another example is God, because of His stylized character, would not send people to hell who never had an opportunity to obtain mercy. Thus when born, without belief in Jesus, we are not condemned already. And at the point of death, all will get a "vision" providing the opportunity of salvation. There is no limit to what can be claimed, based on "God's character" requires this and precludes that.

    Any time a generalized view conflicts with God's actual inspired revelation, to toss out the revelation is to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
     
    #4 Van, Jul 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2013
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,416
    Likes Received:
    328

    Name any Calvinist who would agree with the above stylizations.
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52

    God has aready predestined/determined all that will ever happen, so there are no historical events that haooen that He is caught not aware of, did not Authorize to happen either directly/indirectly!

    No WAY th writers of the confessions would see themselves being Open Theists!
     
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    How about those who baptize babies, rather than believers?

    Here we have no reference to scripture, but rather an appeal to the stylized will of God.

    Here is the link to the above quote:
    http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html
     
  8. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Your assertion relies not on scripture but on a stylized view of God, note you provided no direct reference to scripture.

    No one said God is unaware or is surprised, what was said is the WCF seems to teach the future is not fixed because God did not decree what He foreknew.

    No one again said the WCF writers saw themselves in light of the modern day mistaken doctrine, but they did apparently argue that the future is not fixed by foreknowledge if God did not decree it. QED
     
    #8 Van, Jul 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2013
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    God knows alwaus all things, so how can He foreknow any thing, its already done!
     
  10. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Shuck and jive, again with absolutely no specific reference to support your assertions, hence you are arguing from the viewpoint of a generalized or stylized view of God. Scripture says God foreknows things, people and circumstances. Not even Calvinism misses that truth, but it seems to have escaped the grasp of one prolific poster.

    Notice how the issue of does the WCF advocate that the future is not entirely fixed, is not addressed, but instead a completely absurd assertion, God does not foreknow anything, is made. Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.
     
    #10 Van, Jul 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 3, 2013
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Is this assertion an effort to stylize God?

    Does God doing what He pleases preclude God creating people for His glory? No. So to claim God did not create people for His glory because God does not "need" or "desire" glory seems an effort at stylization.

    Isaiah 43:7 teaches God created man for His glory, so to create a stylization and then cite the stylization as evidence for nullification of scripture is unsound.
    ______________________
    Footnote for the Plagiarism Police: The quote was copy and pasted from an article found here:

    http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...7-658_JETS.pdf
     
    #11 Van, Jul 6, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 6, 2013

Share This Page

Loading...