This would be why God never need change his plan! Glad to agree...Philetus said:God’s plans do not fail even if and when people do.
lee_merrill said:This would be why God never need change his plan! Glad to agree...
Blessings,
Lee
Then why does the OVer insist that God changes His mind and can make amends for past mistakes that he made because of poor judgement? You can't have it both ways. I agree that pure Calvinism is wrong but so is the OVT that I have seen on this board. Just because one is wrong in certain assumptions does not make the opposite right. We need not place one in one camp or the other.Philetus said:God’s plans do not fail even if and when people do. God’s plans include people who fail even after they fail. It is called redemption and the goal is relationship which requires change. God isn’t immutable. Only SVer seem immutable.
Jesus did not become God, God became Jesus.rehcjam said:"When did Jesus become God?"
Non-sequitor. Jesus is a man, He did not become one. However, if you mean "When did God become man?" then the answer is, "When He became Jesus." More specifically, God became a man when the virgin Mary conceived the Son of God in her womb by the Holy Spirit of God, which incidentally, may have happen, by our modern calender, on December 25th in the year 5 B.C. He would have been born then 240 days later on the Feast of Tabernacles in the year 4 B.C.When did Jesus become man?
elected4ever said:Then why does the OVer insist that God changes His mind and can make amends for past mistakes that he made because of poor judgement? You can't have it both ways. I agree that pure Calvinism is wrong but so is the OVT that I have seen on this board. Just because one is wrong in certain assumptions does not make the opposite right. We need not place one in one camp or the other.
I though they were grate answersClete said:I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand but at the very least it shows that God does change so here's goes nothing....
Jesus did not become God, God became Jesus.
Non-sequitor. Jesus is a man, He did not become one. However, if you mean "When did God become man?" then the answer is, "When He became Jesus." More specifically, God became a man when the virgin Mary conceived the Son of God in her womb by the Holy Spirit of God, which incidentally, may have happen, by our modern calender, on December 25th in the year 5 B.C. He would have been born then 240 days later on the Feast of Tabernacles in the year 4 B.C.
Any more questions?
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. It's been some time since I read anything on this so if someone knows the details here to be off, please feel free to correct me.
Because you continue to make stupid statements like, "God 'changes' or ‘adjusts’ to continue to include people in His plans." God made his plan and God has not change it or adjusted it because man remains stupid for the most part. The whole idea is ridiculous.Philetus said:God doesn’t make mistakes or have poor judgment. Where did you ever get that impression?
God 'changes' or ‘adjusts’ to continue to include people in His plans; people who make mistakes, sin and have poor judgment. OVT isn't the opposite of pure or impure Calvinism. OVT is a theological statement of the truth about God as it is revealed in the Bible and in God's creation; neither which contradicts the other. Calvinism is a construct of what Augustine brought to the church from Platonism, which contradicts both the biblical revelation and the truth about God evident in creation.
Your struggle is that you want us to keep dealing with those things that you have brought from Calvinism though you yourself are not a Calvinist but are defiantly Calvinistic in your views. That is why you can’t hear what the OVT is really saying as your remark makes evident.
Philetus said:God doesn’t make mistakes or have poor judgment. Where did you ever get that impression?
How then were people included in the plan to have Saul be king, what adjustment was made to include people in this plan? No, OVT says this plan was abandoned, not adjusted.Philetus said:God 'changes' or ‘adjusts’ to continue to include people in His plans...
I agree that my views are Calvinistic, I also think I have heard what the OVT is really saying, they say God changes his mind, he repents.... you yourself are not a Calvinist but are defiantly Calvinistic in your views. That is why you can’t hear what the OVT is really saying as your remark makes evident.
So if the Bible says the Lord took away, then that is who did it? And then Satan only served the Lord's good purpose, with a bad intent, as the Sabeans served the devil's intent, not with an intent to serve the devil, but to serve themselves.Lee: Not the Sabeans? Satan was not instrumental when people were involved?
Patman: If the bible says the Sabeans did it, that is who did it. Satan put them up to it.
Foolish fellow that I am, when I read "the trouble the Lord had brought on him," I think it means the Lord brought the trouble. This argument OVTers say is extraordinarily complex and convoluted, and yet they only tell me it's a figure of speech or a manner of speaking [i.e. it doesn't mean what it plainly says] because the context says otherwise, only the context says the Lord took away, every person in the whole book says the Lord did it, and the Lord does not correct this, Scripture even says this.But you will not humble yourself and step away from the evil teachings you have.
No, what I meant is that the taking away involved sinful deeds, so then if the Lord did this, to say the Lord did cause a sinful deed, in your view, would then be blasphemous.Patman: Even what he said is not blaspheme, "shall we take good from god and not bad" and "The Lord takes away" are a far cry from blaspheme.
Lee: It is if it refers to sinful deeds, is this not your view?
Patman: I just said it wasn't didn't I? Job didn't understand what was going on.
So then God made a choice when he saw these events happening, and to see a rock about to roll into a house, and not stop it, when you could, involves you in the consequences.God can stop sin. God will stop sin too. But not before he knows who will love God.
So this is a choice God makes, and then what happened to Job was chosen in your view to be allowed to continue, for this purpose. Then God indeed was involved in what happened to Job, he has responsibility here.God must allow for good and evil until he knows what everyone will choose.
lee_merrill said:Hi Patman,
...Foolish fellow that I am, when I read "the trouble the Lord had brought on him," I think it means the Lord brought the trouble. This argument OVTers say is extraordinarily complex and convoluted, and yet they only tell me it's a figure of speech or a manner of speaking [i.e. it doesn't mean what it plainly says] because the context says otherwise, only the context says the Lord took away, every person in the whole book says the Lord did it, and the Lord does not correct this, Scripture even says this. And yet they will deny this, and tell me a flat denial is all I'm going to get. I believe that, at this point! Sad to say.
....
Blessings,
Lee
No, God doesn't sin when he ends a life, and he has a right to act, but the question is whether his choice when he sees a sin taking place, and does not intervene, entails some responsibility for that decision.patman said:God is our creator and life giver. When he ends our lives, they continue in the afterlife. So... he kinda has the right to move someone from one side to the other. It isn't a sin Lee. Surely you do not think God ending a life is God sinning??
Yet he made a decision not to stop it, and that involves him in the consequences.If a huge rock is rolling down a hill and hits a house, and God didn't make it roll, but let it hit the house, he certianly is not sinning, Lee. And obviously not involved.
This would be the conclusion, yet now we need to examine the arguments.There is no involvement, for one...
So an insult is an argument?You would have LOVED for that rock smashing into that house to have been God's plan!!!!! It is what makes you get up in the morning.
Now an argument! Then God is involved if he doesn't allow a sinful action? Just trying to clarify your position here. God is responsible if he intervenes? Or if, say, he removes a hedge?God is not involved when he allows our actions. Otherwise all our actions would be pure and sinless because he does not sin nor create nor author sin.
I agree, that is my view, and then God does not change his plan.Lee: ... if some plans can fail, then we cannot always trust God's counsel, because another choice might turn out better, even from God's perspective
Patman: Don't you get that his plans are sometimes conditional?
Lee: So if the Bible says the Lord took away, then that is who did it?
Not by intent, but yes, the devil hates God and still serves his purposes, odd how God is capable enough to bring that about.You also said Satan served God's purposes. Funny. I always thought Satan hated God and was not in his service. I guess Hitler was also serving God too...
!
Well, it does, though.The bible didn't say that.
Psalm 119:91 Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you.
And again:
Proverbs 16:4 The Lord works out everything for his own ends-- even the wicked for a day of disaster.
And again:
Romans 9:22-23 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--
Only (as noted) God say he spoke what was right when Job said the Lord has taken away.Job, who is in the Bible, and who is a fallible man, did.
Well no, for we do not read that they spoke what was right. This really is not difficult!The Pharisees said Jesus had an evil spirit too... does that mean you blindly believe it because it is "in the Bible," Lee?
Certainly, I meant that God does not say "I didn't do this," in fact, he says "the trouble the Lord brought." This is not difficult...Lee:Foolish fellow that I am, when I read "the trouble the Lord had brought on him," I think it means the Lord brought the trouble... only the context says the Lord took away, every person in the whole book says the Lord did it, and the Lord does not correct this...
Patman: Umm.... "Lord does not correct this?" Really? Well I thought that whole making Job and his 3 buddys sacrafice for their sins was God correcting them.
Or the Sabeans? Who is it, exactly? The Sabeans acted, we read, Satan did it, we also read, and then God did it, we also read.Look, Lee, the author of Job was trying to show us that Satan did this to Job.
Exactly, that was the problem, and God was not blameworthy, in whatever way he may act or not act.He is trying to show you that everyone was blaming God. And they were all wrong...
But clearly what happened to Job involved sinful deeds.Lee: No, what I meant is that the taking away involved sinful deeds, so then if the Lord did this, to say the Lord did cause a sinful deed, in your view, would then be blasphemous.
Patman: Job didn't say "the Lord did cause a sinful deed" until later. At first tho.. He was not sinning because all he said was "The Lord took away" and "We should take bad things from God as well as good."
Had Job said "the Lord did cause a sinful deed" In Job 1 and 2.. the author would have said he sinned.
Not at all, I read the Lord brought the trouble, the Lord took away, and I read "blessed be the name of the Lord." Amen.You just don't seem to connect the story together right at all. Even after all of us try to tell you to just read it... You just go on and pull out whatever you can to prove God is a sinner.
This kind?Look at your own words...God causes sin? God planned for all evil? Satan works for God? Why do you blaspheme God Lee? What kind of christian are you?
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?
Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Blessings,
Lee
lee_merrill said:So an insult is an argument?
Well, that was an insult, and a pretty towering one, actually.patman said:I am throwing in the towel. You are impossible. :wave:
:think: Or a fact?lee_merrill said:Well, that was an insult, and a pretty towering one, actually.
Blessings to you,
Lee
Or a fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee_merrill
Well, that was an insult, and a pretty towering one, actually.
Blessings to you,
Lee
Or a fact?
patman
I have to start a new topic before Lee drags me back in.
I always wondered what it would have been like had Adam and Eve not sinned and t things went according to his plan. I have no basis for this, but maybe someone can validate or invalidate it:
Would god have ever let Adam and Eve eat of the tree "Once they were grown up enough?"
Perhaps this belongs in a different thread, but the best OVers are on here...