ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
patman
Active member
A note to all S.V.
A note to all S.V.
Something for all of you who think God causes sin:
Didn't Jesus say a house divided against itself will fall?
Luke 11:17 But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.
How you say he causes sin? Our holy father's house would fall!
A note to all S.V.
Something for all of you who think God causes sin:
Didn't Jesus say a house divided against itself will fall?
Luke 11:17 But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.
How you say he causes sin? Our holy father's house would fall!
patman
Active member
Open Theist are so BAD at english, I gotta use a dictionary:doh:
From the new oxford American dictionary
plan |plan| noun
1 a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something : the UN peace plan.
• [with adj. ] a scheme for the regular payment of contributions toward a pension, savings account, or insurance policy : a personal pension plan.
2 (usu. plans) an intention or decision about what one is going to do : I have no plans to retire.
3 a detailed diagram, drawing, or program, in particular
• a fairly large-scale map of a town or district : a street plan.
• a drawing or diagram made by projection on a horizontal plane, esp. one showing the layout of a building or one floor of a building. Compare with elevation (sense 3 ).
• a diagram showing how something will be arranged : look at the seating plan. verb ( planned , planning ) [ trans. ] 1 decide on and arrange in advance : they were planning a trip to Egypt | [with infinitive ] he plans to fly on Wednesday | [ intrans. ] we plan on getting married in the near future. See note at intend .
• [ intrans. ] make preparations for an anticipated event or time : we have to plan for the future.
2 design or make a plan of (something to be made or built) : they were planning a garden. PHRASES someone's (or the) best plan a person's (or the) most sensible course of action. go according to plan happen as one arranged or intended. plan of action (or attack) an organized program of measures to be taken in order to achieve a goal. ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from French, from earlier plant ‘ground plan, plane surface,’ influenced in sense by Italian pianta ‘plan of building.’ Compare with plant .
Thesaurus
plan noun
1 a plan for raising money procedure, scheme, strategy, idea, proposal, proposition, suggestion; project, program, system, method, stratagem, formula, recipe; way, means, measure, tactic.
2 her plan was to win a medal intention, aim, idea, intent, objective, object, goal, target, ambition.
3 plans for the clubhouse blueprint, drawing, diagram, sketch, layout; illustration, representation. verb
1 plan your route in advance organize, arrange, work out, design, outline, map out, prepare, schedule, formulate, frame, develop, devise, concoct; plot, scheme, hatch, brew, slate.
2 he plans to buy a house intend, aim, propose, mean, hope, want, wish, desire, envisage; formal purpose. See note at intend .
3 I'm planning a new garden design, draw up, sketch out, map out.
author |?ô??r| (abbr.: auth.) noun
a writer of a book, article, or report : he is the author of several books on the subject.
• someone who writes books as a profession : my favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley.
• the writings of such a person : I had to read authors I disliked.
• figurative an originator or creator of something, esp. a plan or idea : the authors of the peace plan. verb [ trans. ] be the author of (a book or piece of writing) : she has authored several articles on wildlife.
• figurative be the originator of; create : the concept has been authored largely by insurance companies. DERIVATIVES authorial |ô??ôr??l| adjective ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [a person who invents or causes something] ): from Old French autor, from Latin auctor, from augere ‘increase, originate, promote.’ The spelling with th arose in the 15th cent., and perhaps became established under the influence of authentic.USAGE In the sense ‘be the author of,’ the verb author is objected to by some traditionalists who regard it as an awkward or pretentious substitute for: write or | compose. It is widespread and well established though, especially in North America, and has been in use since the end of the 16th century. The verb coauthor, for which there is no common synonym, is useful and unobjectionable.
Thesaurus
author noun
1 modern Latin American authors writer; novelist, playwright, poet, essayist, biographer; columnist, reporter; wordsmith; bard; informal scribe, scribbler.
2 the author of the peace plan originator, creator, instigator, founder, father, architect, designer, deviser, producer; cause, agent.
Gee, apparently according to our own english language, when someone says something plans or authors something, he can be considered the creator with intent to bring about that thing once it is actually happened. In context, that is just what they are saying, in fact.
So let's see. Jesus tells us that even the thought of hate towards a brother is the same as murder because of intent. So God can't murder because he can't sin, so he wouldn't intend to murder on the same principal.
Jesus also says that it would be better for someone who caused a little one to fall if he were thrown to the bottom of the sea..... So that goes to say God wouldn't cause someone to fall, not only in action, but intent as well, because as stated above, intent can be sin too.
Jesus plainly says a house divided against itself will fall. So God wouldn't go out intending for someone to sin because that causes division.
From the new oxford American dictionary
plan |plan| noun
1 a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something : the UN peace plan.
• [with adj. ] a scheme for the regular payment of contributions toward a pension, savings account, or insurance policy : a personal pension plan.
2 (usu. plans) an intention or decision about what one is going to do : I have no plans to retire.
3 a detailed diagram, drawing, or program, in particular
• a fairly large-scale map of a town or district : a street plan.
• a drawing or diagram made by projection on a horizontal plane, esp. one showing the layout of a building or one floor of a building. Compare with elevation (sense 3 ).
• a diagram showing how something will be arranged : look at the seating plan. verb ( planned , planning ) [ trans. ] 1 decide on and arrange in advance : they were planning a trip to Egypt | [with infinitive ] he plans to fly on Wednesday | [ intrans. ] we plan on getting married in the near future. See note at intend .
• [ intrans. ] make preparations for an anticipated event or time : we have to plan for the future.
2 design or make a plan of (something to be made or built) : they were planning a garden. PHRASES someone's (or the) best plan a person's (or the) most sensible course of action. go according to plan happen as one arranged or intended. plan of action (or attack) an organized program of measures to be taken in order to achieve a goal. ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from French, from earlier plant ‘ground plan, plane surface,’ influenced in sense by Italian pianta ‘plan of building.’ Compare with plant .
Thesaurus
plan noun
1 a plan for raising money procedure, scheme, strategy, idea, proposal, proposition, suggestion; project, program, system, method, stratagem, formula, recipe; way, means, measure, tactic.
2 her plan was to win a medal intention, aim, idea, intent, objective, object, goal, target, ambition.
3 plans for the clubhouse blueprint, drawing, diagram, sketch, layout; illustration, representation. verb
1 plan your route in advance organize, arrange, work out, design, outline, map out, prepare, schedule, formulate, frame, develop, devise, concoct; plot, scheme, hatch, brew, slate.
2 he plans to buy a house intend, aim, propose, mean, hope, want, wish, desire, envisage; formal purpose. See note at intend .
3 I'm planning a new garden design, draw up, sketch out, map out.
author |?ô??r| (abbr.: auth.) noun
a writer of a book, article, or report : he is the author of several books on the subject.
• someone who writes books as a profession : my favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley.
• the writings of such a person : I had to read authors I disliked.
• figurative an originator or creator of something, esp. a plan or idea : the authors of the peace plan. verb [ trans. ] be the author of (a book or piece of writing) : she has authored several articles on wildlife.
• figurative be the originator of; create : the concept has been authored largely by insurance companies. DERIVATIVES authorial |ô??ôr??l| adjective ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [a person who invents or causes something] ): from Old French autor, from Latin auctor, from augere ‘increase, originate, promote.’ The spelling with th arose in the 15th cent., and perhaps became established under the influence of authentic.USAGE In the sense ‘be the author of,’ the verb author is objected to by some traditionalists who regard it as an awkward or pretentious substitute for: write or | compose. It is widespread and well established though, especially in North America, and has been in use since the end of the 16th century. The verb coauthor, for which there is no common synonym, is useful and unobjectionable.
Thesaurus
author noun
1 modern Latin American authors writer; novelist, playwright, poet, essayist, biographer; columnist, reporter; wordsmith; bard; informal scribe, scribbler.
2 the author of the peace plan originator, creator, instigator, founder, father, architect, designer, deviser, producer; cause, agent.
Gee, apparently according to our own english language, when someone says something plans or authors something, he can be considered the creator with intent to bring about that thing once it is actually happened. In context, that is just what they are saying, in fact.
So let's see. Jesus tells us that even the thought of hate towards a brother is the same as murder because of intent. So God can't murder because he can't sin, so he wouldn't intend to murder on the same principal.
Jesus also says that it would be better for someone who caused a little one to fall if he were thrown to the bottom of the sea..... So that goes to say God wouldn't cause someone to fall, not only in action, but intent as well, because as stated above, intent can be sin too.
Jesus plainly says a house divided against itself will fall. So God wouldn't go out intending for someone to sin because that causes division.
To plan something is not the same as causing something. The architect plans a building, but he doesn't cause it.patman said:
Not so. The principle doesn't apply to God (because He's God). God is able, because of His exhaustive omniscience, to author murder and evil for good purposes. If an author writes a story in which evil actions are purposed for good, that does not constitute sinning by the author. Likewise, God has pre-written all of time and creation, and has planned evil and murder for good purposes.patman said:
God doesn't cause people to fall. He decrees it for good purposes, but He doesn't cause it. The very ones who would commit the sin that Christ condemns are decreed by Christ for good purposes.patman said:
Not so. The Triune Godhead has decreed all things according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. There is no division within the Godhead.patman said:
themuzicman
Well-known member
However, OVTists ARE good at Greek. Since the new Testament was written in Greek, maybe you should use the definitions and nuances of that language, rather than the translted one.
Muz
Muz
Last edited:
Jim, if God is NOT responsible for our salvation, who is?
No one is responsible for our salvation???????Hilston said:
:dizzy: :kookoo:
Jim, your quest for winning the word games has trivialized you as a force in the debate.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
But first! A little Jewish joke from a Jews for Jesus pamphlet, I thought it was kind of fun.
So this Jewish lad comes to talk to the father about engagement to his daughter, “What do you plan to do in life?” the father asks.
“I will study the Torah,” the lad replies.
“Great! A scholar,” says the dad. And how will you procure the beautiful ring my daughter deserves?”
“I will study the Torah, and God will provide.”
“Well then, how will you bring bread to the table and a lovely house such as my daughter requires?”
“I will study the Torah, and God will provide.”
Later, the wife asks how the interview went.
“Oy, don’t ask!” the father replies, “He has no job, no plans, and he thinks I’m God.”
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion…
Psalm 105:17 and he sent a man before them-- Joseph, sold as a slave.
"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it.”
“And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)
Blessings,
Lee
But first! A little Jewish joke from a Jews for Jesus pamphlet, I thought it was kind of fun.
So this Jewish lad comes to talk to the father about engagement to his daughter, “What do you plan to do in life?” the father asks.
“I will study the Torah,” the lad replies.
“Great! A scholar,” says the dad. And how will you procure the beautiful ring my daughter deserves?”
“I will study the Torah, and God will provide.”
“Well then, how will you bring bread to the table and a lovely house such as my daughter requires?”
“I will study the Torah, and God will provide.”
Later, the wife asks how the interview went.
“Oy, don’t ask!” the father replies, “He has no job, no plans, and he thinks I’m God.”
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion…
But then how do you intend something you don’t control?Patman said:
But this is over thousands of years, since Isaiah, and even up to our day. This is not prediction based on character solidification, I would say!
You may perhaps know her story. And so then these are not glib words.
Well … God is:Patman said:
Psalm 105:17 and he sent a man before them-- Joseph, sold as a slave.
"The text says, 'You meant evil against me.' Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, 'God meant it for good.' The word 'it' is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, 'evil.' And the verb 'meant' is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it.”
“And to make this perfectly clear, Ps. 105:17 says about Joseph's coming to Egypt, '[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.' God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God." (John Piper)
Blessings,
Lee
patman
Active member
Hey Lee,lee_merrill said:
Nice joke
I said in the last post that I agreed with Joseph. It is good that the Psm verse seems to confirm it. BUT you and I still disagree that God caused evil. You say he did it to bring about good. But the verse doesn't say God did the evil. It doesn't matter what gender the word is, what matters is the who did the evil to begin with. And the verse makes it clear that the brothers did it, not God.
lee_merrill
New member
Glad you enjoyed it! Jewish humor is fun...patman said:Nice joke
But that was the point of the quote, God sent Joseph, he didn't find him on the way and try and make something good come out of it.
But the grammar demonstrates that it was the very deeds that his brothers did that God meant, and how do you have an intent for a deed you are uninvolved in? "I intend that Patman's next post be for encouragement for the Yankee fans." No, that doesn't work, I cannot have a purposeful intent for something you do, though I can have an intent as to how to work with that. But God intended the deed.
Genesis 45:7-8 But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.
That would indeed be perfectly clear! But for (I would say) the opposite conclusion.
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
patman
Active member
lee_merrill said:
Lee, your theology leads you to make God out to be the cause of evil, even when there are other explanations to answer the "problems" you present.
So God sent Joseph ahead of Israel. Amen, the bible speaks truth. Now that is where we should stop speculating. But your theology causes you go take it to the next place. Not only did God send Joseph, he now is the cause of the evil the brothers committed against Joseph.
Before Joseph was ever sold, he had dreams from God saying he would be a ruler over even his older brothers. Joseph would have become one with or without the sin of his brothers. He was an ambitious guy. God could have just told him "Go to egypt and tell Pharaoh what he is dreaming about," totally skipping the entire fiasco, and the same thing would have happened.
When his brothers heard of how they would bow to him, they were jealous and tried to stop it. But God was still able to make him a great man, taking the lemons and making lemonade (sorry for the overly used pun). Sure, it was the long way around, but God made it work, without the sin.
It is simple that solution that includes "God caused sin" is wrong. Just stop saying it.
The brothers did the evil. Stop pretending that God needed to do evil to bring about the desired result.
Of course not. What's so difficult about understanding this? Tell me who holds God responsible for salvation? You? Me? To whom does God give an account? Here's what the Bible asks, rhetorically:Knight said:
Job 15:8 Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself?
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Ro 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
God is accountable to no one. You do get that, don't you?Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?
Ro 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
What "word games" are you referring to? How often have I said that Open Theists are guilty of the very thing they accuse of others. This is no exception. Moreover, if anything is being trivialized in this debate, it is Open Theism, given their lack of response in so many areas that keep growning: Open Theists cannot answer how God's decretive will is contrary to His prescriptive will, Open Theists contradict scriptures that show God plans evil for good, Open Theists cannot answer how God moved David to number Israel, against His own prescribed will, all for God's good purposes, Open Theists contradict their own espoused theology by their theory of prayer, Open Theists insist on corporate election even though the scriptures abundantly demonstrate individual election as well, and Open Theists cannot defend their abuse of language and of the metaphors of scripture.Knight said:
2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
Now that's a God who can be trusted.All according to God's decrees, of course.
Jim
Why God is not responsible for salvation.
Here is the deal Jim.... you like the fact that you can play word games with the word responsible when it comes to the idea that it gives you opportunity to escape making the claim that God is not responsible for evil.
But those same word games look absolutely ridiculous to everyone reading this thread when you are forced to assert that God is NOT responsible for our salvation, and in fact NOTHING is responsible for our salvation. :kookoo:
Jim, it's just plain goofy! You know it, I know it, everyone reading this thread knows it. You can try to equivocate all you like it just makes it even more comical.
Hey Jim, your link at the bottom of your post states....
"Why God is not responsible for salvation."
Curious... why did you leave off the word "our"? :think:
OK, humor us. Since "responsible" is being redefined by you to a narrow useless meaning what word would you replace it with?
You fill in the blanks....
God is __________ for our salvation.
But those same word games look absolutely ridiculous to everyone reading this thread when you are forced to assert that God is NOT responsible for our salvation, and in fact NOTHING is responsible for our salvation. :kookoo:
Jim, it's just plain goofy! You know it, I know it, everyone reading this thread knows it. You can try to equivocate all you like it just makes it even more comical.
Hey Jim, your link at the bottom of your post states....
"Why God is not responsible for salvation."
Curious... why did you leave off the word "our"? :think:
OK, humor us. Since "responsible" is being redefined by you to a narrow useless meaning what word would you replace it with?
You fill in the blanks....
God is __________ for our salvation.
Jim, your definition of responsible that you reference is...
2. being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it : the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer.
Take note of... "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited"
Or credited.
Or credited.
Therefore if "Or credited" is as acceptable as "to be blamed" (per your own reference) we could say... responsible means: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.
Jim is that an acceptable definition of the word responsible? And wouldn't you agree that most people use the word in just that way?
Just a note:
Which makes me also wonder, according to Jim....
Can we credit God for our salvation?
Lets look at number 2 shall we?
2. being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it : the gene was responsible for a rare type of eye cancer.
Take note of... "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited"
Or credited.
Or credited.
Therefore if "Or credited" is as acceptable as "to be blamed" (per your own reference) we could say... responsible means: being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.
Jim is that an acceptable definition of the word responsible? And wouldn't you agree that most people use the word in just that way?
Just a note:
Websters Online Dictionary goes on to say... "being the cause or explanation " :think:
Based on that definition (in your own example) most normal thinking people acknowledge that God is responsible for their salvation. Which makes me also wonder, according to Jim....
Can we credit God for our salvation?
Knight, thanks for your friendship. It's nice knowing that my friends won't let me use a dictionary to define words*, but rather insist on using the vague and sloppy definitions, determined by the lowest common denominators of society. Thanks for not caring one whit about what my statements mean and what points they're trying to convey. Instead, you make every effort to twist my words and to make them appear to mean what I do not at all mean. It's good to know that when you're doing your best to turn over a new leaf and to be friendly toward me, I can count on you to doggedly pursue opportunities misrepresent me, to quote me out of context, to smear me at every turn, and best of all, to make absolutely sure no Open Theist agrees with me, let alone saying anything kind toward me in thanks for helping them to think. It's so awesome to have friends! Where did you learn to be such a great friend? Your god, perhaps? :vomit:
*Note that this paragraph was written in response to Knight's post #2436, while he was still using his ad populum argument and before he decided he could no longer ignore the dictionary definitions. Below is my response to the subsequent post in which he decided to begin perverting the dictionary definitions. ~JAH, 10/08/2006 8:11 p.m. EST.
Here is the REAL deal, Eric: You use ignorance as a weapon. You fail to answer the logical and biblical arguments I present to you. Whether it is because you can't or won't, either one bodes badly for you. There are those here who have wondered if you or your cronies are ever going to answer my arguments. Your position is pathetic in its inability to cogently address the most important points of this debate. Instead of dealing with the substantive issues, you instead focus on a disagreement about a word because you see it as an opportunity to put me down. Why is that, Eric? Is it because you have no answer to the real arguments of this dialogue? They're all waiting, each and every post that is chock-full of examples, scriptures, exegesis, logic and explanations that show the absurdity and self-contradictions of the Open View.
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.
[NOTE: The dialogue above was composed in answer to Knight's post #2436, before I saw his post #2437. Hence the reference to Knight's ignorance of dictionary definitions. The dialogue below is my response to Knight's post #2437, in which, since he could no longer ignore the definitions I offered, he decided he would pervert them by dismantling them. I should have gone back and edited what is above in light of what is below, but I didn't. So I offer these annotations instead.]
All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.
Your friend,
Jim
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.
*Note that this paragraph was written in response to Knight's post #2436, while he was still using his ad populum argument and before he decided he could no longer ignore the dictionary definitions. Below is my response to the subsequent post in which he decided to begin perverting the dictionary definitions. ~JAH, 10/08/2006 8:11 p.m. EST.
You call them word games, but they're not. I gave abundant, copius bibliography on the correct and biblical understanding of the word. Your murky, nebulous obscurantist approach to theology is threatened by clarity and precision; you won't stand for it. So you inanely accuse me of word games, despite the unequivocal documentation of the long-standing meaning of the word through the ages, across continents and languages and cultures, from (almost) the beginning of time.Knight said:
Here is the REAL deal, Eric: You use ignorance as a weapon. You fail to answer the logical and biblical arguments I present to you. Whether it is because you can't or won't, either one bodes badly for you. There are those here who have wondered if you or your cronies are ever going to answer my arguments. Your position is pathetic in its inability to cogently address the most important points of this debate. Instead of dealing with the substantive issues, you instead focus on a disagreement about a word because you see it as an opportunity to put me down. Why is that, Eric? Is it because you have no answer to the real arguments of this dialogue? They're all waiting, each and every post that is chock-full of examples, scriptures, exegesis, logic and explanations that show the absurdity and self-contradictions of the Open View.
Don't you wish that were the case. Apparently, Philetus gets it, much to your consternation and horror. And you just can't stand it. So what do you do? You beat him down. You intimidate him. You're like a jealous little girl whose best friend is enjoying talking to someone you loathe with every cell in your body. I've had other Open Theists send private communication to me about things they're reluctant to share in public. I wonder whom they might be afraid of?Knight said:
There's no shame in that, as long as the word "responsible" is understood etymologically, theologically and rationally.Knight said:
Apparently, Philetus disagrees with you, however reluctantly.Knight said:
There is no equivocation on my part (here's another example of the Open Theist being guilty of the very thing he accuses of others). The definition is consistent and precise, and you can't stand it.Knight said:
So very desperate, aren't you? Actually, it's a good suggestion. I'll add it. Thanks.Knight said:
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.
Ignorance is your weapon, Eric. You deliberately ignore the proofs I offered, with no counterargument. You deliberately ignore the scriptures that affirm those proofs, with no counterargument. You deliberately ignore the examples I offered to corroborate the definitions, the scriptures and the logic, with no counterargument. All you have to offer is the deliberately ignorant assertion that my definition of responsible is ...:Knight said:
Again, with no proof, no support, no counterargument. And you warn me about being trivialized? Please.Knight said:
The Author.Knight said:
[NOTE: The dialogue above was composed in answer to Knight's post #2436, before I saw his post #2437. Hence the reference to Knight's ignorance of dictionary definitions. The dialogue below is my response to Knight's post #2437, in which, since he could no longer ignore the definitions I offered, he decided he would pervert them by dismantling them. I should have gone back and edited what is above in light of what is below, but I didn't. So I offer these annotations instead.]
It can't apply to God. No finite being has grounds upon which to judge God, be it for blame or for credit. This is what we have to get through our heads, all of us. If we presume to judge God, to evaluate Him, we put ourselves in the shoes of Adam, who dared to ponder whether or not God was good or evil on the basis of his own presumed autonomy. We are extol God's greatness based on what He has revealed about Himself. We do not judge God as great. We get this knowledge from Him; not we ourselves. No one has seen God and lived. No one can, on their own experience, authority, judgement or opinion, declare: I hereby credit God for my salvation. It is insolence. It is presumption. We praise God and extol His greatness based on His revelation of these truths to us. We think God's thoughts after Him. Those who presume to judge good and evil (credit or blame) apart from God's revelation, do so according to Luciferian thinking. "Hath God said ...?" is the question that is uttered from the one who presumes to credit God autonomously.Knight said:
No, not as it applies to God.Knight said:
It doesn't matter what the careless and mindless masses do; the dictionary definition is clear, as is the Bible's treatment of the subject; as is the meaning that spans the history of language, culture and continents. If someone wants to protest my usage, then they do so in arrogant opposition to historical usage, logic and scripture.Knight said:
Sure, and those people are sloppy with their use of the word "responsible."Knight said:
No. Not according to that definition. We can only think God's thoughts after Him. He declares Himself to be the Savior and the author of our salvation; we acknowledge that and declare God's words on the matter. We do not autonomously "credit" Him. It's insulting. It's presumptuous.Knight said:
All according to God's inexorable decrees, of course.
Your friend,
Jim
Why God is not responsible for our salvation.
Last edited:
See post 4237.Hilston said:
If I didn't care I wouldn't bother correcting you.
Jim I am doing my best to help you see how silly you are making yourself look.
If that isn't friendly what is?
Should I ignore you and let you say foolish things?
See post 4237.
See post 4237.
I agree, and your own definition proves my point beyond any doubt. See post 4237.
The above paragraph is pure silliness!Hilston said:
Finite beings CAN and DO give God credit for all sort so things.
- I credit God for creating all that exists. (Gen 1)
- God IS responsible for my salvation (I give Him credit for He is the cause Rom 6:23)
- I credit God for giving us His word (Rom 1:2)
- God is responsible for truth (I give Him credit for He is the cause John 14:6 )
- God IS responsible for all that is good, and the perfect gifts that come from above. (James 1:17)
Etc. etc. etc......
In all of the above instances (and many others), I give all the credit to God and I do so using Jim's definition of responsible (being the primary cause of something and so able to be credited for it.). Anyone that doesn't give God credit for these things is part of the lost and we should all pray for them.
- Status