BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Clete]

I didn't say LOGICAL FALLACY. I said a FALLACY OF UNDERSTANDING. A FALSE UNDERSTANDING.

Look RobE, I can read and I am not stupid. You said, "The fallacy of understanding these attributes in literal terms is that we are talking about God's attributes,.."
The structure of that sentence indicates that since we are talking about God's attributes, it is the understanding of these attributes in literal terms that is itself a fallacy (presumably of logic). And so even if you meant what you indicate here in your clarification, it isn't as if I had to be some sort of idiot to think you were saying something else.

On Settled View terms, God has a patient and longsuffering character. Whether outside of time or within time, God is patient and longsuffering as an quality of His character. The Open Theist's God is an existentialist, and therefore, in order for Him to be patient and longsuffering, He must be stuck in time, and he had to have had occasion to be patient and longsuffering.

You need to clarify what you mean by calling the open theist an existentialist because aside from the phrase "whether outside of time or within time", this open theist agrees completely with the rest of what you've said about God's character. God has always had the same character that He has right now. His character is immutable.

Clete doesn't read very carefully. My comment is NOT in the context of God being timeless, but rather in the Open View's context of a God stuck in time.

[snip fallacious response]

On Settled View terms, a figure of speech is used to indicate logical order (not chronological order) with respect to creation. On Open View terms, "before creation" means before the existence of sin. So the question stands. Was God forgiving, on Open View terms, BEFORE the existence of sin?

Okay, first of all where the crap did you get that the open views understanding of "before creation" means before the existence of sin? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Before creation is that time prior to Genesis 1:1 not prior to Genesis 3!
Secondly, you've presented a false dichotomy. The logical order is the chronological order because you are talking about events. The order in which events occur (sequences and duration) is what time is and so there is no distinction between the logical order and the chronological order, they are the exact same thing.

See what I mean? This answers my question. Open Theists are existentialists. No question about it. And again I say, The fallacy of understanding these attributes in literal terms is that we are talking about God's attributes, whether He expressed them, manifested them or not.

I agree! Not with the notion that I am an existentialist but with the idea that God is patient whether He has occasion to manifest patience or not! I have never had any opportunity to preach in front of a church congregation but I know absolutely that if such an opportunity arose that I not only could do it but I would do it very well. That's because I have a personality that is conducive to that sort of behavior. That's not a perfect analogy but I think it's good enough to get the point across. Being forgiving or patient has to do with one's character not necessarily with one’s actions or lack thereof. In other words, it is the character of a person which produces the action not the action that produces the character. God character is the source of His willingness to forgive not the other way around.
Further we can know that God has always been forgiving, in spite of the lack of any opportunity to forgive prior to the advent of sin in the universe, because He is forgiving now. God's character does not change and so what sort of person God is today, He always has been and always will be.

Where are you getting this crap from anyway? You know it's not a sin to be an existentialist as long as what you believe is the truth. Nor does it prove someone wrong if they are shown to be existential in one aspect or another of their theology and so throwing around the term existentialist like its some sort of insult isn't going to get you anywhere with me.

He can chuck the idea of the eternal now. I neither hold nor defend that concept. So it doesn't apply.

What alternative is there?

There is no problem on the Settled View. Patience and longsuffering are essentials in God's character, whether He has occasion to express them or not. This is not true of the Open View, in which God first had to experience the need for patience before He could actually be patient.

No! As I said in my first response to you on this. It is that God is WILLING to wait that makes Him patient and the fact that He is WILLING to forgive that makes Him forgiving. Whether or not any such opportunity arises is beside the point.

How does Clete know this? Is there a verse that says God was WILLING to be merciful and forgiving before the existence of sin?

YES!

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.​

Whatever happened to the "infinitely mutable" God that Enyart espouses?

God's character does not change. Bob, nor any other open theist that I know of has ever suggested otherwise. God can change in many other ways, including going from being the God who created all things including human beings to being a human being Himself and who being eternally alive and the source of all life to being dead and buried in a tomb and then changing back again into the living God who shall live forever more! You simply cannot get around the incarnation as irrefragable proof that God can and does change in important, permanent and undeniable ways. The only aspect of God that does not change according to the Scripture is His righteousness; His holy character.

Really the willingness to forgive and mercy and patience and all such attributes of God are summed up in saying simply that God is righteous.

Yes. Can you demonstrate how this isn't so? I don't think you can.

Was He really forgiving? Or just willing to be forgiving? How could God be willing to forgive before the existence of sin? Or did God conceive of sin and express His willingness to forgive it before it even existed?

Again, you present a false dichotomy. Being a forgiving person means that you are willing to forgive, that's what it means, they aren't two separate concepts.

Again, note how the concept of "infinite mutability" goes right out the window.

How so? One does not have to change in every way to be infinitely mutable as long as whatever way one does change is infinite in scope or in magnitude. If God dies, for example, that would be an infinite change. Do you deny that God died?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[bling]

It seems we always avoid the questions we do not want to answer and make some religious statement instead. My questions go un answered and I begin to think you have no answer, which is find to say, I will ask others, and I will go on to the next question. I have found to many questions result in no answers or grounds to really get off the subject.
In response to two simple questions:
To take 1 Peter 2:24 literally would mean our sins travel through time back to the cross to be bore by Christ on the cross. We have no problem with sins of the pre Christ people being rolled forward to the cross, but going back conflicts with the O.V. doctrine.
At the time of the cross could Jesus feel the burden of your sins?
Do you believe your sins could travel back in time to the cross?

Patman said:

But I see what you are saying here. Jesus did die for all sin, be it sin from 1995, or from -1995 (that is 1995 B.C.) And his death covers all sin. But I didn't live back then. My sin's didn't exist yet. However, his gift covers all sin without regard to it's existing at the time.

That does not hurt our doctrine. We just agree with the Bible, that those before Christ lived by the law and had faith, they were covered until Christ came. The Bible points out that faith is what justifies a man in God's eyes. Regardless of what the law of the day, faith was always the way to righteousness.

Those after Christ's death can find a huge bath of his blood that we can jump into to be clean. Those before can join us in that they were covered of their sins in the ages before by their sacrifices of animals and burnt offerings.

I agree with everything, but it does not address the questions and these questions do hurt the OV doctrine.
Christ’s body on the cross is different from His blood, we are to remember both the Body and the Blood in communion, they are separate! (Heb. 13: 11-12 makes that clear). The atoning blood may still be dripping from the throne of God covering our sins, but the body was sacrificed once in time and bore our sins. Now maybe Jesus did not know your sins, but He did feel them and to do that time is breached.


Thank you for responding.

 

[patman]

Reply to RobE

Reply to RobE

Do you really believe that those before Christ 'can join us in that they were covered of their sins in the ages before by their sacrifices of animals and burnt offerings'? Why did Jesus sacrifice himself again? Do you want to stand by this? I wish I'd read this before responding to your last post that was directed my way. I see a problem here.

RobE

RobE, Forgive me for not answering your longer post. I will later, but for today, time is short.

Those who sinned before Christ had their sins "covered" until Christ came to take their sins away. I do not see a problem in that. That is what I said before, "We just agree with the Bible, that those before Christ lived by the law and had faith, they were covered until Christ came."

Please, RobE, I ask you to give me the benefit of a doubt. We may disagree with each other on God's knowledge, but the workings of Grace and the Death of our savior are perfectly fine, I am sure.

I will post some verses later when I have more time, as well as a response to your post.

 

[patman]

Reply to Lee

Reply to Lee

Hi Patman,

Hi Lee,

But Egypt need not have become part of the kingdom to have been conquered by Neb. Nor does a boundary at one time imply that that boundary was never expanded after that. Nor does saying Neb had all this territory imply that he had no more than that...

The prophecy stated that Neb would take over Egypt. Their time was up. Yet Egypt continued on. Nebuchadnezzar did do battle with Egypt, but never took over, as the prophecy said would happen.

I know this is difficult to take, but it is clear. This prophecy didn't happen.

And here is a map for you! Egypt is included as part of the empire of Babylon, but again, conquering an area need not make it part of an empire, any more than the U.S. defeating Germany and Japan made them part of an American empire...

This is why I gave you the bible verse stating the exact territory that Nebuchadnezzar took over. If the Bible says this was his kingdom, and your map says other wise, I declare, with the Bible's backing, that it is wrong. My maps showed the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates. Just like the Bible.

Ezekiel 29:8,9
" 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. (9) Egypt will become a desolate wasteland.Then they will know that I am the LORD.

Lee, please read the prophecies for yourself. Try to prove that They didn't really say that Nebuchadnezzar would Egypt and Tyre. That's the only way. The answers are in the Bible. Take the facts, that Neb's kingdom went no farther west than the Brook of Egypt, and apply that to what you read.

Thanks for your time Lee and for baring with me.

 

[patman]

Reply to Bling

Reply to Bling

It seems we always avoid the questions we do not want to answer and make some religious statement instead. My questions go un answered and I begin to think you have no answer, which is find to say, I will ask others, and I will go on to the next question. I have found to many questions result in no answers or grounds to really get off the subject.
In response to two simple questions:
To take 1 Peter 2:24 literally would mean our sins travel through time back to the cross to be bore by Christ on the cross. We have no problem with sins of the pre Christ people being rolled forward to the cross, but going back conflicts with the O.V. doctrine.
At the time of the cross could Jesus feel the burden of your sins?
Do you believe your sins could travel back in time to the cross?

At the time of the cross could Jesus feel the burden of your sins?
No, I was not alive, my sins were not yet committed. :nono:
Do you believe your sins could travel back in time to the cross?
No, there is no such thing as time travel. This verse doesn't mention it, it's just your way of explaining it. :nono:

I answered very directly. And please note that I didn't say that Jesus didn't feel the burden of sin. On the cross, the felt a great weight of sin. The weight he took on was enough that it would cover all sins.

I agree with everything, but it does not address the questions and these questions do hurt the OV doctrine.
Christ’s body on the cross is different from His blood, we are to remember both the Body and the Blood in communion, they are separate! (Heb. 13: 11-12 makes that clear). The atoning blood may still be dripping from the throne of God covering our sins, but the body was sacrificed once in time and bore our sins. Now maybe Jesus did not know your sins, but He did feel them and to do that time is breached.


Thank you for responding.

Bling, I am glad you agree. I never thought you would disagree because this is fundamental to our faith. This debate on Open vs. Settled is not an issue that will offer salvation for a soul. We are both Christians, which is a wonderful thing.

Please see that we don't have a problem with this passage. I do not feel troubled at all.

Thanks Bling,
Pat

 

[Clete]

It seems we always avoid the questions we do not want to answer and make some religious statement instead. My questions go un answered and I begin to think you have no answer, which is find to say, I will ask others, and I will go on to the next question. I have found to many questions result in no answers or grounds to really get off the subject.
In response to two simple questions:
To take 1 Peter 2:24 literally would mean our sins travel through time back to the cross to be bore by Christ on the cross. We have no problem with sins of the pre Christ people being rolled forward to the cross, but going back conflicts with the O.V. doctrine.
At the time of the cross could Jesus feel the burden of your sins?
Do you believe your sins could travel back in time to the cross?



I agree with everything, but it does not address the questions and these questions do hurt the OV doctrine.
Christ’s body on the cross is different from His blood, we are to remember both the Body and the Blood in communion, they are separate! (Heb. 13: 11-12 makes that clear). The atoning blood may still be dripping from the throne of God covering our sins, but the body was sacrificed once in time and bore our sins. Now maybe Jesus did not know your sins, but He did feel them and to do that time is breached.


Thank you for responding.

Bling,

I and patman have both directly answered this question already. And no it does not do harm to our theology because what you are proposing is silly. There is no need for our sins to time travel, as has already been explained. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean your question hasn't been directly answered.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

So Christ wan't human?

And what was his preordination to, if not to save us? (in the hypothetical provided by the open view that sin never entered the world.)

Christ was human from about 4 B.C. forward (God-Man= one person with 2 natures). Before the incarnation, He was not human. He was Deity (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2). In His preexistence, He was not flesh/human. The Word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us in the fulness of time (Gal.).

He was ordained to save us if man fell. The fall was not a foregone conclusion nor meritorious (contrary to LDS erroneous teaching). Once man fell, the potential plan of redemption was implemented. It became actual centuries later. In eternity past, it was not an implemented or actual plan (contrary to LDS teaching).

 

[godrulz]

It would be if he couldn't foresee the future, wouldn't it? If not, why not? Does he live 'outside of time' or not?


RobE

The future does not exist. It is not a place nor a thing. It is not yet. It is only possible/potential until it becomes the fixed past through the present.

God does not live outside of time since time is not space (forget relativity theory). He experiences an endless duration of time (from 'everlasting to everlasting' Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:8= tensed).

Timelessness/eternal now is a philosophical (pagan Greek) concept that cannot be found in Scripture.

One's view of time/eternity affects beliefs about foreknowledge.

God and Time: 4 views (IVP) next page for contents

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830815511/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-9280031-7742262#reader-link

(I agree with Wolterstorff)

 

[bling]

Patman answered:
At the time of the cross could Jesus feel the burden of your sins?
No, I was not alive, my sins were not yet committed.
Do you believe your sins could travel back in time to the cross?
No, there is no such thing as time travel. This verse doesn't mention it, it's just your way of explaining it.

I answered very directly. And please note that I didn't say that Jesus didn't feel the burden of sin. On the cross, the felt a great weight of sin. The weight he took on was enough that it would cover all sins.

Thank you for the direct answer. But that does generate more questions. From . Peter 2:24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, Peter is addressing Gentile Christians in this passage, so were their sins bore by Christ on the cross?
Should we take 1 Peter 2:24 literally? If not why not?

I understand the blood being great enough to wash away all sins, but on the cross did He bare every sin?
Isaiah 53: 11…my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities. (MANY not all)

Hebrew928so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people;… (MANY not all)

Did Jesus bare the sins of those that died in sin (sinners not saved) before He died?

As we take communion and remember the blood that was shed for our sins and then the body: Is there an advantage to remembering the Body on the cross bearing the burden of our personal sins, to help me with my love for Him?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Christ was human from about 4 B.C. forward (God-Man= one person with 2 natures). Before the incarnation, He was not human. He was Deity (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2). In His preexistence, He was not flesh/human. The Word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us in the fulness of time (Gal.).

He was ordained to save us if man fell. The fall was not a foregone conclusion nor meritorious (contrary to LDS erroneous teaching). Once man fell, the potential plan of redemption was implemented. It became actual centuries later. In eternity past, it was not an implemented or actual plan (contrary to LDS teaching).

Then if evil had never come into existance what would be the role of Christ? Would he still have been born? If so, to what purpose? If not then how would we know of the nature of God(as you view it in the supposed "triune")?

 

[patman]

To RobE (if that's your REAL name!)

To RobE (if that's your REAL name!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

RobE,

I must say that I am not getting you and why you are arguing with me over what Calvinist believe.


Because you believe that Calvinists(armenians) think God sins. He doesn't. I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just trying to hear an open viewer admit that it's possible that the Lord could foresee events without sinning. They, and I'm afraid you, will not.

Calvinist do not want to believe that God "sins," but by their belief that God foreordains everything, they unwittingly put God as the author of everyone's actions, including sins. This is simply the Calvinist view. If you do not agree that God foreordains everything, you are not a true Calvinist. I said that before.

And I never said anything about the Arminian specifically before this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

Calvinist do believe that God foreordained everything.


Which is different than sinning or causing sin, right? What do Armenians believe?

This is how wikibedia.org Explains Arminianism:
The original Arminian party arose within the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, to advocate a revision of the Reformed doctrine of predestination, in favor of an idea of predestination that was more agreeable to reason and Catholic tradition. They charged that the Calvinist party, especially the followers of Theodore Beza and the University of Leiden professor, Franciscus Gomarus, had developed a system of doctrine that made God the author of evil as well as of good.

It seems that I am not alone in the believe that Calvinist's belief system put God as the author of sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

I don't like it, apparently you don't like it, but they do. If you disagree, good! I am glad you can disagree with that. But stop taking cheap shots at someone who is simply stating a fact. Calvinist do believe that God foreordained all things. If you don't believe that, you are not a true calvinist. And good for you. But I was not accusing you of this.


I'm not a Calvinist as a matter of fact, but that's a different story. I'm really trying to figure this out. What fact are you stating. You, yourself, said that if God knows the future then he is responsible for sin. How can this be. I've simply tried to point out that it can't be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

I think Settled Viewers should think that God foreordained everything. It makes since that they would think that.


Every THING is the problem here. This implies a creation. Sin wasn't created(just as you pointed out that time wasn't created in your earlier posts to Lee). To say God created sin because he knew sin would occur is not realistic. Calvin believed God did not create sin. I believe God did not create sin. You believe God did not create sin as long as he didn't foresee anyone sinning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

But lets just talk about what you think. I am not going to tuck you under a category, I just want to know what you think. If you believe that God knows the future, I have a problem with understanding how you cannot come to the same logical conclusion that Calvin did: God foreordained everything.


Calvin denied fate.

Calvinist Believe God predestined people to go to heaven and the others to hell.

If He can die on the cross for those who already perished, doesn't this imply that He lives 'outside of time' as Lee has argued?

No. And this is touching on what bling is presenting. He is using time travel of sins instead of just God living out side of time...

We must be careful about using ideas about the cross as scripture, when scripture doesn't say our ideas. Time travel is one not mentioned. And being as the Bible describes sin as a debt that was paid off by Christ for those who believe, I do not see the problem that this would present to the O.V.

When I became a Christian, my debt was paid by the wages earned at the cross. AMEN and Thank God for that too. This requires no foreknowledge or time travel or being outside of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

To me, it is logical that if God knows the future, it means he created it, thus ordained it. If you know of another way of explaining this other than saying, "just because", I am very interested to hear it.


God knows the future because he can foresee where his creation is going not because he created the future. As you say 'time is not a thing, it's a series of events.'. 'Ordained' is a big word. Too full of insinuations in this context. Perhaps I'd like to say he knows it, but didn't ordain(create it). I know Oprah Winfrey, but didn't create her(I'm not sure how to express this).

hehehe, that was funny. If you really know her, tell her hi for me. :wave2:

And I understand what you are saying here. It's like a physics problem. If ball starts at X and is going T speed with R acceleration, it will stop at X1 place. God, if he wanted to, would know exactly where that ball is going to end up (X1) because he knows X, T and R and has a massive "brain" with which to calculate. Believe it or not, I agree. God can predict that exact thing because there are laws that control the balls action in a measurable way.

When NASA was trying to predict (and accurately did so) the path hurricane Katrina with their super computers, God already knew it for the same reasons. However, the human heart/mind/soul/spirit is not confined to such rules. This makes the human decision impossible to predict 100% of the time.

But your believe that God uses his knowledge of us to know all about the future still leaves room for God to cause sin. God created the first man and first woman. If what you say is true, he created them in such a way that would set them on a path, just like the ball, that would start a chain reaction that would put them, and every one else, on a sinful walk.

I do not know if you agree with this or not, but a lot of people think anything is possible for God. That would include God having an alternative for creating Man and Woman, without the path to destruction being built into them.

In order to free God from the blame of sin, you have to totally take it out of his hands. If God is able to look ahead, he would know how not to make creation if he wanted to make a holy creation. Take away this ability, and say God created with hope instead of knowledge, and you end up with a God who is not responsible for sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patman

Perhaps this can be our starting point, other than just smarting off to each other.


I've answered your post the best that I can. I know some of it will need clarification. I'm really not trying to smart off to you. If it's coming across like that----I'm truly sorry. I will keep re-stating a couple of points until I understand where the 'open view' is coming from.

Stop with the sorry's already. "It aint no thang." :jazz:

RobE, I know you truly believe we have a holy and righteous God. You show that in your posts. I just hope you can see from this side of the fence. I really understand why you believe God knows the future. I hope you can identify why even that way still unwittingly implies that God started sin at some level.

Point 1: Why do people of the 'open view' believe people of the 'closed view' worship a
God who is responsible for sin? Who is responsible for sin even if God can
foresee sinning?

The O.V. simply takes most of that belief right from the source. We have heard it all our lives from Calvinists and others who agree with predestination.

Point 2: Is God Love or loving? Are there limitations to his Love? (i.e. if He is all love
then why does he allow sin to continue? Isn't this just as bad as
foreseeing sin and allowing it to happen?)

God is loving. And that is exactly why he allows sin. My short answer may not do it for you, but here is an analogy used often by us O.V.'ers: A man forces a woman to stay with him because he loves her, yet he is really hurting her because she doesn't love him back. In the end, the man really doesn't love the woman, he just imprisons her.

I am sure you can agree that the man does not love the woman. Should God be like this man? Should he prevent us from sinning so that he might have us in spite of the fact that we would rather sin?

If God wanted us to act like we loved him, he could have made us into robots, programed to say we love him... But instead, God did not program us. He made us like he is, free. If we were a program, God would know all there is to know about us and our future actions. But we are not a program.

Why does God test in the Bible? After all he tested Abraham when he commanded a sacrifice of his only son. And when the test was over, God said it was for God's own benefit, not Abraham's! For God wanted to know if Abraham would give it all to God. He never said he wanted to show Abraham what Abraham would do, as some would say.

There will be other points I need answered in the future, but I really don't think these have been answered fully. I'm willing to discuss other things, but these are the questions pressing on me.

Thanks,

RobE

I am glad to get your take on the S.V. and your opinions on the O.V. I hope you can see that we Open Viewers are not blind or crazy to think as we do. There is a lot of logic that goes into this.

I know there is much to be discussed in my answers as well. If you want to take point 1 and talk about it more fully in the next post, I suggest we do so. I am glad to have this open dialog with you. If we focus on one point at a time, it will hopefully move things along better.

As for the Calvinist thing, If you don't agree that Calvinist believe God foreordained everything that is up to you. I think Calvinist do believe that. It doesn't matter in the over all scheme of things. Your two points are more pressing than our views on what Calvinism is. I wish to just leave that conversation in the past and move on to your points and questions for the O.V. If you want to have the last word, that is fine, but I wish to discuss this issue no further.

Take care and GB, RobE.
Pat

 

[Nathon Detroit]

patman :up:

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Patman,

This is why I gave you the bible verse stating the exact territory that Nebuchadnezzar took over.

Well, actually, the statement is that Neb took this over. This verse does not say this is all that Neb took over, then or at another time...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Then if evil had never come into existance what would be the role of Christ? Would he still have been born? If so, to what purpose? If not then how would we know of the nature of God(as you view it in the supposed "triune")?

I suspect evil would have eventually happened, even if not through Adam and Eve. It is speculative as to how things would have unfolded with different contingencies. We have a revelation of what actually happened, not a theoretical book on what the different scenarios would be. The Son still could have incarnated, but not died as the Lamb of God. It seems unlikely that man would never sin through the generations.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I suspect evil would have eventually happened, even if not through Adam and Eve. It is speculative as to how things would have unfolded with different contingencies. We have a revelation of what actually happened, not a theoretical book on what the different scenarios would be. The Son still could have incarnated, but not died as the Lamb of God. It seems unlikely that man would never sin through the generations.

Well I'm not asking what you suspect or what seems likely through the generations, I'm stating that your belief demands the contingency of evil never coming into the world, ever(if I'm wrong on this being your belief then your going to have to clear up the whole question of evil and God's role in it, my question is that in such an hypothetical what would have been the purpose of preordaining the Christ? (even if that was a title he wouldn't take up untill born) I mean if you truly believe that contingency existed for evil never entering into the world then what would be the purpose of the Son of God? What would have been the purpose of an incarnation if there was no evil to overcome?

 

[patman]

Lee, look what you made me do.

Lee, look what you made me do.

Hi Patman,


Well, actually, the statement is that Neb took this over. This verse does not say this is all that Neb took over, then or at another time...

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, you made me do it. Here is everything. All in context. I have no choice!



NOTE: In honor of copyright, I am using different translations to keep the limit of verses per translation down


Ezekiel 29 NIV

A Prophecy Against Egypt

1 In the tenth year, in the tenth month on the twelfth day, the word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against all Egypt. 3 Speak to him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
" 'I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt,
you great monster lying among your streams.
You say, "The Nile is mine;
I made it for myself."
4 But I will put hooks in your jaws
and make the fish of your streams stick to your scales.
I will pull you out from among your streams,
with all the fish sticking to your scales.

5 I will leave you in the desert,
you and all the fish of your streams.
You will fall on the open field
and not be gathered or picked up.
I will give you as food
to the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air.

6 Then all who live in Egypt will know that I am the LORD.
" 'You have been a staff of reed for the house of Israel. 7 When they grasped you with their hands, you splintered and you tore open their shoulders; when they leaned on you, you broke and their backs were wrenched. [a]

8 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will bring a sword against you and kill your men and their animals. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
" 'Because you said, "The Nile is mine; I made it," 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. 11 No foot of man or animal will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries.

13 " 'Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the nations where they were scattered. 14 I will bring them back from captivity and return them to Upper Egypt, [c] the land of their ancestry. There they will be a lowly kingdom. 15 It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations. 16 Egypt will no longer be a source of confidence for the people of Israel but will be a reminder of their sin in turning to her for help. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.' "

17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD.

21 "On that day I will make a horn [d] grow for the house of Israel, and I will open your mouth among them. Then they will know that I am the LORD."

Ezekiel 30 (New American Standard Bible)
Ezekiel 30

Lament over Egypt

1The word of the LORD came again to me saying,
2"Son of man, prophesy and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD,
"(A)Wail, 'Alas for the day!'
3"For the day is near,
Even (B)the day of the LORD is near;
It will be a day of (C)clouds,
A time of doom for the nations.
4"A sword will come upon Egypt,
And anguish will be in Ethiopia;
When the slain fall in Egypt,
They (D)take away her wealth,
And her foundations are torn down.

5"Ethiopia, Put, Lud, all (E)Arabia, Libya and the people of the land that is in league will fall with them by the sword."
6'Thus says the LORD,
"Indeed, those who support (F)Egypt will fall
And the pride of her power will come down;
From Migdol to Syene
They will fall within her by the sword,"
Declares the Lord GOD.
7"They will be desolate
In the (G)midst of the desolated lands;
And her cities will be
In the midst of the devastated cities.
8"And they will (H)know that I am the LORD,
When I set a (I)fire in Egypt
And all her helpers are broken.

9"On that day (J)messengers will go forth from Me in ships to frighten (K)secure Ethiopia; and (L)anguish will be on them as on the day of Egypt; for behold, it comes!"

10'Thus says the Lord GOD,
"(M)I will also make the hordes of Egypt cease
By the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon.
11"He and his people with him,
(N)The most ruthless of the nations,
Will be brought in to destroy the land;
And they will draw their swords against Egypt
And fill the land with the slain.
12"Moreover, I will make the (O)Nile canals dry
And (P)sell the land into the hands of evil men.
And I will make the land desolate
And all that is in it,
By the hand of strangers; I the LORD have spoken."

13'Thus says the Lord GOD,
"I will also (Q)destroy the idols
And make the images cease from (R)Memphis.
And there will no longer be a prince in the land of Egypt;
And I will put fear in the land of Egypt.
14"I will make (S)Pathros desolate,
Set a fire in (T)Zoan
And execute judgments on [a](U)Thebes.
15"I will pour out My wrath on Sin,
The stronghold of Egypt;
I will also cut off the hordes of Thebes.
16"I will set a fire in Egypt;
Sin will writhe in anguish,
Thebes will be breached
And [c]Memphis will have distresses daily.
17"The young men of [d](V)On and of Pi-beseth
Will fall by the sword,
And the women will go into captivity.
18"In (W)Tehaphnehes the day will be (X)dark
When I (Y)break there the yoke bars of Egypt.
Then the pride of her power will cease in her;
A cloud will cover her,
And her daughters will go into captivity.
19"Thus I will (Z)execute judgments on Egypt,
And they will know that I am the LORD."'"

Victory for Babylon

20In the (AA)eleventh year, in the first month, on the seventh of the month, the word of the LORD came to me saying,
21"Son of man, I have (AB)broken the arm of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and, behold, it has not been (AC)bound up for healing or wrapped with a bandage, that it may be strong to hold the sword.

22"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I am (AD)against Pharaoh king of Egypt and will break his arms, both the strong and the (AE)broken; and I will make the sword (AF)fall from his hand.

23'I will (AG)scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands.

24'For I will (AH)strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon and put (AI)My sword in his hand; and I will break the arms of Pharaoh, so that he will groan before him with the groanings of a wounded man.

25'Thus I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, but the arms of Pharaoh will fall. Then they will know that I am the LORD,when I put My sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he (AJ)stretches it out against the land of Egypt.

26'When I scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands, then they will know that I am the LORD.'"

It is clear that Egypt is doomed, it is clear Nebuchadnezzar is going to do it, and it is clear why God choose Nebuchadnezzar(as a reward for the attempt on Tyre).

Lee, it can't be any clearer.

And here is 2 Kings 24:7 again, just so you can get that territory down...

And the king of Egypt did not come out of his land anymore, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates.

Read the rest of 2 Kings. Note the lack of mention of Neb invading Egypt!

Had the prophecy come true, it would have used another river... such as the Nile instead of the Brook of Egypt. And our modern Maps would reflect it because Egypt and Babylon kept pretty good history books.

And something else interesting, this was all supposed to happen before Isreal was taken to Babylon! 21 "On that day I will make a horn [d] grow for the house of Israel, and I will open your mouth among them. Then they will know that I am the LORD."

Shew... my hope of short post has been utterly destroyed.

Lee, please read all this. Don't just skim over it. Anyone who reads will see the obvious truth.

And please see that History agrees with the Bible in the land that belonged to Nebuchadnezzar, please see that God said he would give Neb the land of Egypt several times, and please please admit that it didn't happen.

 

[patman]

patman :up:

Thanks Knight. Awesome webpage, love the Aqua!
:thumb:
:thumb:

Two of them right back at'cha'.

 

[bling]

Patman you might help me here:

Patman said:

When I became a Christian, my debt was paid by the wages earned at the cross.

From this comment to RobE I guess you interpret 1 Peter 2:24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, to mean: Christ’s suffering on the cross is used as payment for sins and not the literal interpretation of baring the actual sins.
That leaves me with the idea Peter did a poor job explaining how our sins are handled an, so right now I stick with the literal translation, which I thought, was always to be used unless it contradicted some other scripture.

Patman said:
In order to free God from the blame of sin, you have to totally take it out of his hands. If God is able to look ahead, he would know how not to make creation if he wanted to make a holy creation. Take away this ability, and say God created with hope instead of knowledge, and you end up with a God who is not responsible for sin.

This brings up a lot of questions, many go back to my discussion with Bob Enyart unfortunately, he left before answering. You brought up Adam and God hoping and a concept of Man and God I do not agree with right now. Starting with Adam:

1. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?
2. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?
3. What lesson do you learn from this garden story, which could not be told another way?
4. What is man’s purpose in relationship to God and what is God’s purpose in relationship to man?
5. What is satan’s purpose and why is he continuing to live here?
6. How do you define a Godly HOPE and a Godly believe?

 

[godrulz]

Well I'm not asking what you suspect or what seems likely through the generations, I'm stating that your belief demands the contingency of evil never coming into the world, ever(if I'm wrong on this being your belief then your going to have to clear up the whole question of evil and God's role in it, my question is that in such an hypothetical what would have been the purpose of preordaining the Christ? (even if that was a title he wouldn't take up untill born) I mean if you truly believe that contingency existed for evil never entering into the world then what would be the purpose of the Son of God? What would have been the purpose of an incarnation if there was no evil to overcome?

The incarnation would still make the invisible God visible (we reject that the Father has flesh and bones). It would reveal more of the character and nature of the infinite God to finite beings. He would still be the full revelation of the Father whether He died or not.

 

[RobE]

reply to: Pat Mann, Sr.

reply to: Pat Mann, Sr.

Calvinist do not want to believe that God "sins," but by their belief that God foreordains everything, they unwittingly put God as the author of everyone's actions, including sins. This is simply the Calvinist view. If you do not agree that God foreordains everything, you are not a true Calvinist. I said that before.

As I pointed out before, I'm not a Calvinist---and never have been.

And I never said anything about the Arminian specifically before this post.

Bingo! As per my post page 4, post #47 I am!

It seems that I am not alone in the believe that Calvinist's belief system put God as the author of sin.Calvinist Believe God predestined people to go to heaven and the others to hell.

If He can die on the cross for those who already perished, doesn't this imply that He lives 'outside of time' as Lee has argued?

No. And this is touching on what bling is presenting. He is using time travel of sins instead of just God living out side of time...

We must be careful about using ideas about the cross as scripture, when scripture doesn't say our ideas. Time travel is one not mentioned. And being as the Bible describes sin as a debt that was paid off by Christ for those who believe, I do not see the problem that this would present to the O.V.

How about to Enoch, Abraham, Noah, and the millions before Christ?

When I became a Christian, my debt was paid by the wages earned at the cross. AMEN and Thank God for that too. This requires no foreknowledge or time travel or being outside of time.

How could he die for your sins in the future, if he is temporal?

God, if he wanted to, would know exactly where that ball is going to end up (X1) because he knows X, T and R and has a massive "brain" with which to calculate. Believe it or not, I agree. God can predict that exact thing because there are laws that control the balls action in a measurable way.

When NASA was trying to predict (and accurately did so) the path hurricane Katrina with their super computers, God already knew it for the same reasons. However, the human heart/mind/soul/spirit is not confined to such rules. This makes the human decision impossible to predict 100% of the time.

Are you saying that humans can create new things or ideas apart from Him?

But your believe that God uses his knowledge of us to know all about the future still leaves room for God to cause sin. God created the first man and first woman. If what you say is true, he created them in such a way that would set them on a path, just like the ball, that would start a chain reaction that would put them, and every one else, on a sinful walk.

See my answer below to this.....

I do not know if you agree with this or not, but a lot of people think anything is possible for God. That would include God having an alternative for creating Man and Woman, without the path to destruction being built into them.

See my answer below to this....

In order to free God from the blame of sin, you have to totally take it out of his hands.

I find this statement sums up much of what I find wrong with the open view. If you understand what I'm saying then that's good. If this makes no sense to you whatsoever then forget it and read on....

If God is able to look ahead, he would know how not to make creation if he wanted to make a holy creation. Take away this ability, and say God created with hope instead of knowledge, and you end up with a God who is not responsible for sin.

I'll answer this below....

RobE, I know you truly believe we have a holy and righteous God. You show that in your posts. I just hope you can see from this side of the fence. I really understand why you believe God knows the future. I hope you can identify why even that way still unwittingly implies that God started sin at some level.

I'll answer this below...

Point 1: Why do people of the 'open view' believe people of the 'closed view' worship a
God who is responsible for sin? Who is responsible for sin even if God can
foresee sinning?

The O.V. simply takes most of that belief right from the source. We have heard it all our lives from Calvinists and others who agree with predestination.

My view of predestination is simple....He's not culpable for your decisions whether he started the program or not. See my earlier posts....#268(pg. 18), #275(pg. 19), #292(pg. 20).

I didn't say a God who does not know the future is responsible for all evil only that he ignores evil around him. It's no truer than open viewers saying the Calvinist God authors sin, right? Both are sins as you well know. To participate or ignore wrong makes you culpable.

The Lord is not responsible for sin even if he foresaw it bacause.....HERE'S THE ANSWER YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR......

God is loving. And that is exactly why he allows sin. My short answer may not do it for you, but here is an analogy used often by us O.V.'ers(actually by all Christians): A man forces a woman to stay with him because he loves her, yet he is really hurting her because she doesn't love him back. In the end, the man really doesn't love the woman, he just imprisons her. I am sure you can agree that the man does not love the woman.

Should God be like this man? Should he prevent us from sinning so that he might have us in spite of the fact that we would rather sin?

If God wanted us to act like we loved him, he could have made us into robots, programed to say we love him... But instead, God did not program us. He made us like he is, free.

This pretty much sums it up. Now do you understand what I've been trying to say. Can we move on in our discussion?

Point 2: Is God Love or loving? Are there limitations to his Love? (i.e. if He is all love
then why does he allow sin to continue? Isn't this just as bad as
foreseeing sin and allowing it to happen?)

God is loving. And that is exactly why he allows sin. My short answer may not do it for you....

RobE