The Ways of God. Ridiculed or accepted?

Post #45:

"He's a grown man, let him speak for himself."

 

LOL Matt! Does this mean that God is making Luke attack those who disagree with him (Luke)? I sure was glad I had finished my coke off before I read that! :laugh:

Seriously, when in scripture are we ever told that God causes division among His own? Wouldn't that be like scattering the sheep instead of gathering them?

Why can't God know things from BOTH perspectives?

 

Why can't they be one and the same? For there to be "both" someone other than God is sovereign.

I'd suggest bowing down to whomever you hold is sovereign over God, for ultimately, that "whomever" will be more powerful than the entity we call God (or not... you roll the dice -- I won't).

 

From our perspective, there has to be two to have both. But since we believe in the Trinity (you know, that whole 3 in 1 thing we espouse) we technically have 3 and in discussions of time, we have Father and Son, therefore: both. As God says, He is both the begining and the end. Logically, He should be able to see both directions.

Bwahaha, who has more authority and therefore is more "sovereign"? I bow to Christ who in turn says He bows to the Father. It is you who envision that there might be logic/knowledge that we can't yet understand. "Through a glass darkly..." as the scripture goes.

 

Yes, Calvinists teach that God determines everything, but when man sins they say he is not to blame.

Whose fault is it when the elect sin?

 

Please do fill me in... You are seeing something that may not even be there.

Neither you nor I are Jesus...

Truly, questions are good. But do you accept answers or is your mind made up when you ask the question? If the second option, then you are begging the question and won't be convinced of anything other than what you already know. Again, I'm not saying that to be mean, but that is the way you often come off in these threads. We know that you do not have a formal theological education. We know that you do not do a ton of theological reading, and that when you do, you rely on sources of one particular persuasion. Perhaps it is time to expand your repertoire.

Just to make sure of my answer, I looked up those passages (and every time "God" spoke in the early chapters of the OT) and the answer is "YHWH" ( יהוה )with an occasional Elohim ( אלהים ) thrown in for emphasis (rarely).

In the Septuigint, the translation is universally "Theos" ( θεός )

The Scriptural record indicates that "God" was speaking.

In particular, in Genesis 3, God spoke of Christ in the third person, "He will bruise his heel..." which further adds confidence that God was the speaker in all of those instances.

If you are thinking "theophany" then, yes, I can cite several other OT passages where it seems that there was a pre-incarnate Christ at work in the world as well.

 

I may have quoted non-reformed authors in my 3600+ posts, but you could count them on one hand and have a few fingers left over.

I have quoted reformed authors several times, usually when those here deny their own doctrine. For example, I have shown that some reformed scholars teach a man can be regenerated for years before they actually trust Christ. This would be a spiritually alive, born again person who is also spiritually dead in trespasses and sins at the same time!

Who needs non reformed scholars? Your own scholars give me all the ammo I'll ever need.

 

...you also realize that kenosis is deemed a heresy in itself by many, right? Where does that passage say He "emptied Himself" or set aside His deity? You do realize what that means, right? If He gave up his divinity, it makes the atonement worthless. Man, you seriously need to reconsider your position on this!

That passage IS saying that Christ took the form of a bond servant and was made in the image of man...not that He gave up His divinity. If you believe in the doctrine of kenosis, we don't have a common ground to move on from.

 

So the answer is no, I take it.

Not really one to call him out then, huh?

 

What does "elect" have to do with sin?

Also, YOU are saying (in opposition to MULTIPLE POSTS where Calvinists have made it VERY clear) that God is deterministic. Just like you wish for we "cals" to realize that you believe that "God knows everything" you must give on this point that God is not deterministic. HE IS NOT.

Again, to be "deterministic," God would have to have made robots. He did not. The same passages in the Scripture that you use we use. Scripture is not divided against itself.

For what it is worth, if you wish to find a true expression of a deterministic deity, check out Islam. Allah is deterministic.

 

That's possible, I have said several times I could be wrong.

You are the master of the obvious.

Yes, you Cals/DoGs should try questioning your doctrine sometime.

I'm like anybody else, I like to think I am right, but I have found through experience that this isn't always the case. I trust my pastor, I know he knows more "theology" than me. I take his views very seriously. You are wrong about me following a particular persuasion though, anybody who knows me such as my teachers in school will easily tell you that I have never followed the crowd.

John 1:18 says that no man hath seen God at any time, how do you explain this?

 

OK.

This is very true. In fact, Winman, in your obsessive quest to stamp out the truths of God's Sovereign Grace you've quoted reformed authors more than a lot of Calvinists here on this board. For someone who claims not to read commentaries or the 'works of man', and all the while accusing the Calvinists of being 'mindless parrots', just who are you parroting with all these reformed quotes? I must deduce that you are a parrot Winman, and a very hypocritical one at that.

Do you still get a lot of your 'ammo' from http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/ ?

 

Why do you Primitive Baptist church goers get so upset when someone point's out the errors of hyper-Calvinism?

 

I got a reformed quote from that site, so what? I will search "does regeneration precede faith" and many sites pop up. That site had a quote from an assistant of R.C. Sproul that was documented, so I presented it. If it is the truth, what does it matter where I got it? I searched this because I already knew that some Cals/DoGs hold this view. In fact, I was using this quote to prove to some Cals/DoGS that denied you held this doctrine.

By the way, that chuch is hyper-dispensationalist which I also strongly disagree with.

 

By the way, if I really wanted to make your doctrine look foolish I could go to the Outside the Camp website. According to them, most of the Cals/DoGs here would be considered Pelagians!

There are a few here though that would be right at home. Wild stuff.

 

The problem webdog is that you took this quote completely out of context. The honorable thing to do would have been to quote the WHOLE post including that part where I clarified what I meant.

 

Quantum, I expect more of you. Quote the whole post. The context conveys a far different meaning than the snipped line webdog chose to focus on.

We have come to expect that from some- don't sink to their level, please.

 

Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of history.

Even ARMINIAN historians would not make such a claim.

This is why I said what webdog is criticizing above. Ignorance is a terrible danger in Christendom.

 

Sad- right. Sad and true that you are inflammatory.

Many others concur.

 

Luke, we should all strive (and I include myself) not to post any snips whatsoever, realizing of course, our "human nature" does at time get the best of us to retort. And I do not mean this only directed at my DoG brothers, but ALL of us.