The BIG one

So you'll hopefully understand the following: About 10 years ago, I submitted several pages showing the errors in Bob Enyart's book "The Plot of the Bible." For example, Enyart espouses putting everything in context; but then teaches a method of leaving out certain parts of a verse to get to the "meat" of the verse. I then submitted other inputs showing why certain of his writings were in error. In at least one case, one of those writings was completely removed. Sorry, it was ten years ago; I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which one it was.

This is not meant to be bragging. This is meant to give you something to think about. I believe I correctly identified your purpose when you originally posted your messages up in the General Baptist section, which was to get people to question certain things, and lay a foundation for further topics (specifically, open theism).

Just as you attempted to get people to question their current beliefs, I offer you my history with "enyartism" to get you to ask yourself a question: I ain't the brightest bulb in the socket, so if someone like me can get Bob Enyart to remove one of his personal writings from a web site, then you must consider the possibility that there may be other errors with the "theology" he's created such a following for. That possibly, just possibly, Enyart, who started out as a computer programmer, is placing logic above faith. Oh, he attempts to reconcile the two; but look at the emphasis he places on logic, rather than faith.

Just asking you to do what you've asked some others to do: question your current beliefs.

-----

Edited to add: Let me ask this - in all the "battle royales" on that website, did you ever see any of the losers concede or even acknowledge that the winner was correct? Granted, I haven't visited in several years, but I never saw that. In which case, you must ask yourself: What purpose did the "Battle Royale" serve?

Do you recall anyone disagreeing with Enyart or any of the open theists, ever win? In fact, weren't the "battles" always "officiated" by one of the supporters of the website? Which begs the question, will anyone who disagrees with open theism ever win an actual debate on that website?

Give it some thought.

 

That is not the definition given. An omnipotent being has unlimited or universal power, force and authority.

"....."adj. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."

It does NOT say "NO limits" to anything! Such as sin for example.

So just in the definition alone your theory fails. God, who's very word is eternal, who created ALL things, even the limits to your understanding of Him, is omnipotent.

He did. He is omnipotent God and created as He seen perfect love.

God Bless! :thumbs:



God Bless! :thumbs:

 

If I have unlimited horse power at my feet and I choose to only apply a measurable 200 of it at the time does this then mean I am limited now to 200 horse power? Do you now say I have limits to horse power? Of course not. You have misconstrued the definition of "omnipotent".

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

I'll just go by what you have said the passages claim they say. Here is what you claim:

Does God ever change his mind? The answer is no. God is immutable. He never changes. It is an " anthropomorphism," a characteristic of man that God uses to help man understand what God is like. God Himself never changes, never repents, never changes his mind. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows exactly what is going to happen. His mind is not going to be changed, per se. To us on earth it will seem to be changed. But then how can a finite mind understand an infinite God. It can't. God gives us a way to understand Him. He gives us characteristics of man, and speaks in human terms that we might know more about his character. Almost all the expressive phrases that you quoted are just that: anthropomorphisms--ways that God can better relate his character to man.

God said that he would "uphold us with the "right hand of his righteousness."
But God is spirit (John 4:24). Spirits don't have right hands.

God said that he would hide us under his wing.
God is not a bird. He doesn't have wings.

He is the rock of our salvation.
I am sure that he is not inanimate, and doesn't look like a rock.

Christ is called the "Rose of Sharon" Does he really look like a flower to you?

He is also referred to as the "Lily of the Valley."

How about the "Bright and Morning Star?" But He is not an actual star, is He?

So then tell me: Does God learn, make decisions, discover, search, etc. Of course not. Those are blasphemous accusations which show a misunderstanding of who God is. If you know who God is, then it is blasphemous. If you don't know who God is, it shows ignorance. You choose between the two. Either way, all that you have described is quite anthropomorphic.

 

Must we learn English before we can debate an issue?

"Unlimited" is an "adjective". Adjectives are used to "describe" nouns.

Now what is being described as "unlimited" in the definition?

"....."adj. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful."

This would be the universal power, the authority or force.

It says nothing more and nothing less.

Just because God's own word limits Him to perfect love without sin nor unrighteousness does not negate His omnipotence.

Your theory fails by definition alone.

He didn't? What say you?

You will do just fine. I don't have time to cross every t.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Matt 23 -- the end of chapter "How I WANTED to gather your children... but YOU would not"

1. He emptied Himself and became a human Phil 2.
2. God did not "want" Adam to fall... did not "want to be tortured" did not "want to suffer separation between Father and Son on the cross" did not "want to have his own disciples deny him"... It is not a case of "want".

But He DID "want" a free-will universe and to get that He chose to endure some things He "did not want".

Yep and that would instantly make "void" the LAW of the universe -- God did not "want" to abolish LAW because in the Realm of the Universe - God is "JUST" as is also "Merciful" not one without the other.

It was "the only way" to preserve the LAW of God AND still provide atonement. But if God "wanted" to abolish His Law -- then many options existed.

Clearly God "sovereignly chose" not only Free will - but also a JUST system of government where "we ESTABLISH THE LAW OF GOD" Rom 3:31 by our faith "instead of abolishing it".

Not quite true.

The Arminian position says that man -- fallen into sin is depraved - has a sinful nature and can not of his own "choose" the right. He is supernaturally "enabled" by God's drawing to CHOOSE and in John 12:32 God says He "DRAWS ALL".

The Arminian solution is pretty direct and to the point.

How so? ALL enabled -- ALL have choice.

God is ABLE to manipulate man to commit every sin and every act of obedience as a mindless muppet and is ALSO ABLE to program man to ONLY do good as a mindless robot -- God "sovereignly chooses" to do neither one.

Lesson: It is "hard to BE God".

Hmm "COULD" he create a universe of FREE-WILL beings that COULD sin but most certainly WOULD NOT sin?

"It is hard to BE God" as it turns out.

Who "but God" CAN answer that?

OR have you just asked the question "CAN God make a rock soooo big HE can not move it"??

In the end - you are going down the path "IT is hard to BE God".

I prefer to stick with scripture that SHOWS

1. The depravity of Man
2. That God DRAWS ALL, knows all, sees all, forsees all, and is all powerful
3. That WHOSOEVER WILL may come
4. That God CHOSE to "so LOVE the WORLD" that HE gave
5. That God did not WANT Israel to rebel or His disciples to deny him
6. That God chose to SUFFER on the cross rather than leave mankind to the 2nd death lake of fire
7. That the "Atonement solution" preserves BOTH Justice AND Mercy.

That man's ways are not God's ways and man's thoughts are not God's thoughts -- as the heavens are higher than earth so are God's thoughts higher than man's.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Common sense tells one to discern between figures of speech and idioms, and when to take such language literally or figurative.
For example my children at the age of five knew that a person didn't park on a parkway or drive on a driveway. They knew that when one was "in a jam" was not to be covered with the substance. They knew that a traffic jam was not composed of fruit and sugar.
--Yet you use such common phrases of the Bible to infer that God needs to learn and make decisions, and repent, etc. This is quite amazing and ridiculous, showing how absurd you treat the English language just to attack the sovereignty of the Creator who made you.

 

I have given you plenty of examples but you refuse to listen. You interpret the Bible allegorically, making it say anything you want it to say. Anyone can do that. The Bible says "There is no God." You can look it up in Psalms 14:1. This is the way that you destroy the Word of God.
You completely context and figures of speech. You take no regard for them. You fail to rightly divide the word of truth.

Tell me: What does, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God" mean?
What does the phrase: "a camel going through the eye of a needle mean?" especially since they didn't have any stainless steel needles in that day and age?

 

This is a completely false if not heretical statement. For the Bible says:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God does all things according to His foreknowledge.
He is omniscient.

 

You say this but where does the Bible say this? This is simply your interpretation which you are welcome to but a different interpretation is NOT blasphemy. Here's how a finite being can understand an infinite God, by reading the Bible especially focusing on that being incarnate in a finite form, the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Where does the Bible say this?
Ask more specifically. But for starters, here is one place:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

I was referring specifically to this statement you made.

God gives us a way to understand Him. He gives us characteristics of man, and speaks in human terms that we might know more about his character. Almost all the expressive phrases that you quoted are just that: anthropomorphisms--ways that God can better relate his character to man.

 

My statement was in answer to Darren's, who was taking idioms out of context and using them to deny the sovereignty of God. I gave examples in the light of the statement I made.

Does God have wings? I will cover you with my wings.
Does God have a right hand. I will uphold you with my right hand.

Hosea 5:12 Therefore will I be unto Ephraim as a moth,
--Is God a moth??

If we don't have the common sense to recognize idioms, figures of speech, anthropormorphisms, etc., then where will our hermeneutics take us in our approach to studying the Bible?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (1919–1995), complained that the Bible was one of the most dangerous books in the world because it advocated plucking out oine's eye and cutting off one's hand. Do you agree with her?
Do you think that we should take the atheistic approach to the Bible?
Or is their a Biblical hermeutical approach that one can take when studying the Bible?