Philetus
New member
elected4ever said:like salt in your open wound.
One man’s salt is another man’s seasoning.
sorry,
Philetus
elected4ever said:like salt in your open wound.
If that is what you believe then there is no place of agreement for you and me. You don't even believe the Bible. How much less you would believe me. You are just another blind guide of the blind. Have it your way. You wish to believe the lie. Go for it. I am done with this conversation.Clete said:Your problem is that you do not understand what logic is.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "HUMAN LOGIC"!!!!
You can call some line of thinking that if you like but by doing so what you are saying is that the line of thinking is not actually logical at all. Nothing you said about the Christian doctrine of our rigteousness before Christ in spite of the sin that is within our flesh is not illogical in the slightest degree. The only thing you said in the above paragraph that is illogical is when you suggested that there is some logical disparity between what is true of us spiritually and what is true of us in the flesh. There is no such logical disparity.
The facts are these...
1. We have been declared righteous in Christ.
2. We sin virtually daily in our flesh.
These are not contradictory in any fashion. The law of contradiction states that two opposing claims cannot both be true at the same time AND IN THE SAME RESPECT. The two truths in question here are about two different aspects of the Christian life (spirit vs. flesh) and thus there is no logical contradiction.
If you want to present more such "contradictions" I would be happy to point out how they are not irrational according to the three laws of logic. Nothing that is true, whether spiritual or otherwise, could ever be irrational because to be irrational is to be false and the truth is not false.
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever said:If that is what you believe then there is no place of agreement for you and me. You don't even believe the Bible. How much less you would believe me. You are just another blind guide of the blind. Have it your way. You wish to believe the lie. Go for it. I am done with this conversation.
lee_merrill said:Certainly not, but he did have agency in what happened, right?
lee_merrill said:And my response was, and is, as follows:
Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.
Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.
Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.
patman: "To paraphrase : God is just. He uses trouble to bring a man back from sin, when he sins. He holds them to their sins. God does not bring these upon righteous. Job said God did. I say he wouldn't, but because Job said that he does, he had now sinned and had taken on the judgement due those who had sinned."
Then what was Job's judgment? That would be my question here, and who was judging Job, according to Elihu?
patman: "Note the bolded words. Elihu is saying 'Job, you are saying I am innocent, yet God brings disaster on me! Listen to your unrighteous tongue! God isn't like man to do that to someone.' Don't you see that lee?"
No, I don't, because Elihu didn't say that! What did he actually say?
"God is greater than man," this is not what you had him saying here, it would seem...
9 For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God.’
patman: "Job was out of his mind in sorrow, Lee! He was saying terrible things about God, and you agree with them, you agree that God did this to him?"
Yet this is not the text, you see. Job says "It was no profit for me to serve God." That is different than reading "God did this to me."
You are rewriting the passage here, sad to say, again and again, and this is serious, it is sinning.
Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.
Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.
Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.
Clearly Elihu is saying God struck Job.
Also, this you did not respond to, other than asking me if I knew the meaning of innocent:
Then did God not bring the cross on Jesus?
John 18:11 “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
And there are many examples of this, Job among them, you have not yet explained to me what “the trouble the Lord had brought on him” means. Similarly, we see this in Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 21:3-6 This is what the Lord says: “I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked. Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north. Then all people will know that I the Lord have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again.” Therefore groan, son of man! Groan before them with broken heart and bitter grief.
And these verses here also show that God does use and cause sinful acts for good purposes:
2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.
Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?
Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...
And my reply again is this:
Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him…
This is a different statement than “God rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing,” though certainly this latter statement is true, we can’t say a phrase is a figure of speech and rewrite it like this, for it does not contract other verses (to strike a cue ball so it pockets the nine, the cue ball is a secondary cause, and you are the primary cause), and a main point does not erase other points in the passage, and “the trouble the Lord brought on him”, what grammar says this is a figure of speech people would recognize as meaning “rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing”?
From Patman, as he pointed out to me (thank you!) yet you made the same exact claim Patman did, so then you will get the same answer.Philetus said:Where did these statement come from?
So if you open the door so the lion gets out of his cage, you had no agency in what the lion did in roaming about the earth?Lee: … but he did have agency in what happened, right?
Patman: Wrong. You are not causing provoking respecting involved with, in any way, with sin when by allowing it. There is no relation...
It’s actually quite simple, if you ask the same question, you get the same answer! Maybe with the wrong name on it, but…Patman said:I will answer your other questions, but you addressed the wrong person through half of it...
Certainly, all I am saying here is that Elihu says that God struck Job—for his sin, of course, and in this Elihu was wrong. But here, and throughout the book, even with the mention of the devil and the Chaldeans and others doing sinful deeds, all agree that God was acting here, and Scripture confirms it.you said, "Clearly Elihu is saying God struck Job" because Elihu said "But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you." (Job 36:17) [Elihu] certainly didn't tell Job God punishes the innocent.
Certainly God repays people according to their works, and the Lord repaid Job here for his faithfulness and perseverance:Soo it appears God repays man according to their works lee. Scripture says God brings disaster on those who deserve disaster. He repays men according to their works. Why don't you just trust scripture?
Yet the Father gave this cup to Jesus, there was agency here, and was it not God's decision to bring about salvation for sinners by Jesus' sacrifice at the hands of sinful men?As for the Cross. God did not force the cross on Jesus. He sat the cup before Jesus, Jesus took it.
With this hermeneutic, you can prove anything! Just say “don’t be woodenly literal,” just take the whole of Scripture—which remarkably enough fits exactly with my theology—and thus this verse can’t mean what it seems to say … so just put the required meaning in there.Clete said:It is not a formal "figure of speech" like 'hyperbole' or 'metaphor' or something like that but it is what one might call a “manner of speaking” and certainly is not woodenly literal…
This is most ironic.and the only reason to insist otherwise is to preserve a pet doctrine and/or to ignore sound Biblical hermeneutics
This is really too much. Ignore the plain meaning? I claim the plain meaning of “The Lord took away” is that the Lord took away, “the trouble the Lord brought on Job” means the Lord brought trouble on him, so the Open Theists are the ones ignoring the plain meaning, to suit a pet doctrine.and the plain meaning of the text.
No, it’s both quality and quantity.WHY God does what He does (i.e. His righteous character) or HOW WELL He does what He does (i.e. His wisdom) are qualitative attributes.
This however is a false dichotomy, for all God’s attributes are both qualities and quantities, perfect holiness and righteousness and power, infinite in wisdom and love and understanding, forever faithful.You for some unknown reason want to equate the two as though they are equally important but the Bible explicitly states that God's power is established on the foundation of His righteousness and thus when we come to a passage which forces us to make a choice about which we are going to give precedence too, the Bible teaches us to give God's quality the superior position.
You perhaps know somehow, my thoughts, my motives? No, for me God’s love is primary, I am in fact an authority on my own beliefs, and you do not somehow know them better than I do.The point is that when you read the Bible, all of these qualitative attributes take a back seat to God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, providence, etc.
elected4ever Offline
Originally Posted by Bob Hill
We Open View Theists believe God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do.
He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would do for man, but because man sinned, He now says He will not do it.
It is also the best answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.
Sealed until the Day of Redemption, when this body is going to be changed,
Bob Hill
Excuse me, your arrogance is showing again.
The doctrine of two gospels is heresy Plan and simple. Paul taught grace through faith, Peter taught grace through faith, John taught grace through faith. Abraham taught grace through faith. Moses taught grace through faith. The doctrine of two gospels is but another example of the Open theist well reasoned lies passed on as truth.Knight said:Thanks Bob, and for you folks that really want to jump into the details regarding the topic that Bob is addressing I want to encourage you to buy Bob Hills book The Big Difference.