I just don't want any future PMs from you. Get it? You PMed me back twice already, that's enough.
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
I just don't want any future PMs from you. Get it? You PMed me back twice already, that's enough.
marhig
Well-known member
God isn't three, he is one God and Christ and his people are at one with him. This brings those two verses you quoted together.
John 17
17:11
Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
17:21-23
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.
The three baring record in heaven are the three bringing us the true word of God, and in this they are one, of one essence, word and nature. But God the father is still above all.
We agree in one. In spirit (indwelling spirit in the heart), water (the word) and blood (the life of Christ in us and us living it out)
And when we are living in this way, we are truly following the way of Christ Jesus, and we then we become at one with God and Christ.
Also, if they are one as you put it, then Jesus would be the father, but Jesus isn't the father, He's the son!
Rosenritter
New member
Do you mean when I responded to a question you asked me by Private Message? or do you mean when you said "Go find this type of church" and I replied back with "Thank you, I trust you mean well?"
Originally Posted by Rosenritter
Originally Posted by Grosnick Marowbe
Hi Rose, You've been posting some good things, of late. Could you tell me what church or denomination you're affiliated with?
Sorry, wasn't trying to ignore you. I haven't been as active on the forums in the last few days, Thanks for the letter.
I consider myself non-demoninational Biblical Christian. On the other hand we are locally associated with the Alliance and the Lutheran churches here in town. I don't know if you would consider that "affiliated" but we have friends in both places.
I would offer some good advice. Find a good Non-Denominational Bible Church that's Non-Calvinist and Non- Pentecostal. I would stay far away from the big Denominational churches such as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, and such. Some of them have gone liberal and accept homosexuality and Female Pastors which is not okay with the Bible. Just trying to help you, trust me on that.
GM
What is is about a twelve word (more or less I didn't count) polite "thank you" that you find intrusive or offensive? You're acting creepy now. If you want to be blocked this is the way to go about it Grosnick.
Rosenritter
New member
Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I didn't like your attitude outside of those PMs. It wasn't those PMs that perturbed me. Remember this:
"The surest way to failure is to try and please EVERYONE." I'm now placing you on ignore. Don't be concerned too much, I have a handful of others on ignore. Most likely everybody has somebody on ignore?
popsthebuilder
New member
No sir... Not everyone.
That looked like a question, so I chimed in.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
You're most likely on somebodies ignore list.
popsthebuilder
New member
Now, you're just grasping at straws, which means you know you've been beaten.
Moses is the one who used the word Elohim in the very first mention of God in the bible. Think of that! The very first time God is mentioned in the bible the word used is undeniably the plural form of the word God.
And you want to accuse me of eisegesis! That's sort of funny!
Well that's just it, isn't it! No one uses Genesis 1:1 to argue that there are multiple Gods precisely for this exact reason. In addition to that, the passages that state that Jesus is the Creator in John and Colossians couldn't be any more explicitly clear than they are. Further still, in the Gospels we are shown the Creator being baptized, the Father speaking "from Heaven" and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove. Are you going to deny the deity of the Holy Spirit they way you deny the deity of Christ?
Who are you arguing with here? How many times will I have to repeat that there is only one God?
It isn't necessary for it to make such a blatant statement but Moses came pretty close to exactly that in Genesis 1:1.
Further, I've already proven biblically that Jesus is the Creator. You surely wouldn't be so stupid as to deny that Jesus claimed to be one with the Father and that if you've seen Him you've seen the Father. There are passages where Jesus unilaterally forgives sins. Jesus tells one of those being crucified with Him where he'll be after death. Jesus accepts worship. The bible tells us that He was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit and Jesus claimed that He (Himself) had the power to both lay down His life and to pick it up again. Etc. Etc. Etc. Jesus was either God in the flesh or He was a lunatic with a god complex who "thought it not robbery to be equal with God".
Resting in Him,
Clete
Good post. If Jesus was not God, then who was he? Only God can turn water into wine, walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, feed 5000, ascend into heaven.
Rosenritter
New member
What do you think you are arguing against?
1. You must have not paid attention to the post you are replying to (unfortunately, that's par the course on these forums)
2. You then seem to create a position to attack that was not presented (straw man argument fallacy)
3. You seem to not have paid much attention to this board content for the past couple weeks (understandable given overall spam and drama)
As a legitimate question, are you here to discuss and/or compare, or to simply argue and/or fight? "You know you've been beaten?" Seriously?
To repeat, the reason why your reasoning is circular and qualifies as eisigesis is because you haven taken a word elohim and assumed the very thing you wish to prove. That is, you have assumed that the word means "plural individuals" and then you are taking a Trinity doctrine and attempting to force it into the word to make it fit, square corners into the round holes and all.
An honest interpretation of scripture allows the meaning to flow out from the text naturally. Do you need to know what the word elohim means? Ask Moses. He didn't use the term only once. He used it a few times. For example,
Genesis 1:27 KJV
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27 also uses elohim, so it is fair to use it for context. When used in reference to God, the word functions as a singular. That's why all the pronouns are singular. That's also why every time that there is clarification as to the nature of God himself, the clarification is singular. Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD, and "These three are one."
Does God encompass multiple entities in a plural sense? In a way it can, because God also is representative of the heavenly host, as a ruler is representative of their subjects. For example, if King George invades France, there is more than one person doing the invading. But there is still only one King George. When King George speaks about what he will do, he is actually speaking for the actions of a great number of individuals who follow him.
Is God a single individual? Moses and Jesus both said that he is, that he is "One LORD" and the text uses singular pronouns for God. Is our God God over multiple individuals? Jesus himself said that he could call down seven legions of angels if he so desired. One of his titles is "LORD of Hosts" so I would say so.
Can you please explain why you introducing a question as to the deity of Jesus? If you had paid any attention to this board in the last couple weeks, I have been putting forth proofs of Christ's identify as our LORD that have been more prominent, lengthy, varied, and detailed than yours.
Perhaps if you were to go back and read a few postings you'd find me saying that exact same thing here, on this board, within the last few days even. Misplaced arguments it makes it difficult to have fruitful discussion.
Boiling this down into pertinent points:
1) The scripture disagrees with your proposed interpretation of elohim. It designates it as singular when used in reference to God, as evidenced by singular pronouns and repeated emphasis including from Moses and Jesus that "The LORD your God is one LORD."
2. Attempting to force "Trinity" into Genesis 1:1 is indeed exegesis. Claiming that "elohim" proves "Trinity" seems like somewhat circular reasoning.
3. If you want to dispute whether Jesus was God you're arguing against the wrong person. Marhig would disagree with you on that. I do not. If you need to know my position on this you may read anything I've posted publicly with Marhig in the past two weeks on this thread.
I responded directly to what you said and yes, I'm very serious.
There is no assumptions being made. The word Elohim is PLURAL! That's not an assumption, its a fact. The single verse by itself is certainly not proof of the Trinity doctrine's validity but it certainly valid evidence and it most certainly is not eisegesis!
The verse says what it says. It uses the plural noun and a singular verb. Moses (God through Moses) either did that on purpose or it was a grammatical error made in the very first sentence of the bible.
Which do you think it was?
Here you go again arguing that there is only one God. No one has made any claim to the contrary.
This is either the third or fourth time I've said this so maybe if I put it bigger letters, you'll let it sink in...
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD!!!
And yet, it no language would you use the plural form of king to make the statement. You would never say...
"The Kings of England, he invaded France."
And yet that is precisely the form of the sentence God uses through Moses' pen in Genesis.
In other words, you have no evidence that what you are suggesting is a valid interpretation of the text. The only reason you have to do it is your own doctrine. Whereas I, not only have the text in the original language, I have a Savior who directly claimed to be equal to God Himself and passages which explicitly state the He is the Creator of all things! I, therefore, come to the conclusion that, while I can't explain how it works and while I fully accept that it isn't explained in any detail in scripture, I must nevertheless accept that there is some pluralistic aspect to the nature of the One God, which is all that the Trinity doctrine teaches. This is the opposite of eisegesis.
This is not in dispute and therefore not relevant.
If you accept that Jesus is God and that He existed both with and as God in the beginning and that He is the One who created all things then we are in agreement.
Otherwise, you aren't even a Christian - by definition.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Elohim is a plural noun - period. There is no wiggle room here. That's what it is. That's not "my position", that's a fact of grammar.
No one claimed it as proof but merely as evidence. And besides that, you're the one who brought up Genesis and made a claim that is not supported by the text anywhere is the bible. Nowhere is God lumped in with the angels in the manner which you are suggesting. The only reason to even suggest it is because of your doctrine. That is the textbook definition of eisegesis.
You accept that Jesus is God but reject, not just the Trinity, but any sort of plurality in the Godhead in spite of the fact that Genesis uses a plural noun to refer to God in the very first verse of scripture and in spite of the fact that Jesus prayed to Someone and was Someone's Son and was anointed with (and raised from the dead by) Someone's Holy Spirit.
Care to explain?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Rosenritter
New member
I'll try to dispense with distracting in-line styling.
1. First, whether Elohim refers to multiple individuals or not is dependent on context. Evidence of this contextual dependency is evident in scripture. Elohim, when used for God, is shown to be singular by the grammar itself: the pronouns assigned to it are singular (for example see Genesis 1:26 & 27.) When used outside of the majesty of God, it is plural. For example, see Psalm 82:1, where our translators assign singular to the God and plural to "gods" who shall die like men.
Psalms 82:1 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2. Second, the grammar itself can be interpreted from specific fact statements throughout scripture. Moses says that the Lord is One God. Jesus says that the Lord is One God. John says that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One. There are no instances where it says that the One is more than One, or that the One is Two, Three, Four, or Seven. If you have such a statement to present as contrary evidence, please present it.
3. I was not arguing that there was only one God. Please return focus to what was being argued. What was being argued was that Moses clarified that Elohim is only One. Not plural, but singular. This is not a deduced statement, or inferred, but exactly the point of what Moses is speaking of, and no other. Since you are willing to agree to his statement... then please stop arguing against it.
4. It would be foolish to assume that a word with plural application always applies to multiple beings. If you need a more apt English example to relate to, then consider the words "deer" or "sheep." They may usually refer to multiple creatures, but they may refer to singular depending on context. In the Biblical context, elohim refers to a single God, accompanied by singular pronouns, when referring to the LORD God. Not plural, not multiple individuals, but singular. If you want to argue, then please show evidence that can be examined.
5. You have a strange version of "no evidence." I'vev already presented Moses, and Jesus, and John, all speaking with respect to the nature of God. "The LORD is One God" says Moses and Jesus. "These three are one" says John. If you do not consider direct scripture quotes from a prophet, the Son of God, and the apostle that he loved to be in a class called "evidence" then there's very little point in talking further.
6. Consider your statement for a moment please:
Read what you said. You are attempting to do is to explain how it works. And lest there be a misunderstanding on this, I don't fault you for attempting to understand.
Neither do I fault you for that statement above either. And lest there be misunderstanding, we agree on that.
7. Disagreement
That statement, however, I do fault you for. At this point you are going beyond what Jesus said. That's not the standard Jesus used. I'll use just three passages here for illustration. I'm sure I could find more on request. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats also comes to mind.
Luke 12:8-10 KJV
(8) Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
(9) But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
(10) And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
Luke 9:49-50 KJV
(49) And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
(50) And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
John 20:28-29 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
(29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Notice that Jesus said that even if someone spoke against the Son of Man, it would be forgiven. Notice that Jesus did not say to forbid someone because they followed not after him. Notice that he did not condemn those that would not believe without seeing. And if I can skip forward to the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, do you remember the criteria that Jesus uses to judge between the two?
You may have a different (or better) understanding than someone else as to who Jesus was, God in heaven may have even revealed it unto you (Matthew 16:18) but that does not mean that you have the right to condemn God's other children that love him and follow Christ. Those that follow Christ are Christians. Those that obey his commandments are Christians. They that believe that Jesus is the Christ are Christians. They are evidenced by the love that they show. Scripture proofs for those statements available upon request.
You do not have the right to declare others as not Christian as to their understanding of the identity of Christ. Jesus was forgiving of ignorance on this point, what he cared about was the heart of a person. Even if you breeze over everything else, please confirm this point.
8. Caring to Explain, Part 1. Please avoid putting words in my mouth when possible. I do not specifically reject "the Trinity" because it's undefined by scripture and entirely dependent on the person using it for meaning. I've found that I do agree with some people who say they believe in a Trinity. I do reject a concept of literal plurality in the Godhead, for reasons that the scripture speaks against such a concept.
Now, if you wish to continue this "plural form" argument then I've got a problem to present to you:
Exodus 4:16 KJV
(16) And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
Elohim isn't being used in the sense of plural in that statement either, and I don't anticipate that you'll argue that Moses is multiple people.
9. Caring to Explain, Part 2. Re, Jesus prayed. First, I believe that God is able to be in more than one place at a time (he cannot be contained in a box.) Second, I believe that God is able to allocate his attention in more than one place at a time (how else could he hear our prayers?) Third, I believe that God is capable of being born in the flesh, and limiting his perception and experience to the human realm, and ruling from heaven in full glory and majesty with full omniscience and omnipotence, both at the same time. I believe this last part in faith because this is an ability that I do not have, thus have more difficulty relating to as compared to the first two points.
You may think of that as being "multiple persons" but Jesus was not acting as the Godhead when he was on earth as the Son of Man. Afterwards it says that he ascended to his Father, that he returned to the glory that was his even from before the world began, but there is no good indication that I can see that there are literal multiple people in that Godhead. Multiple forms of address or allusion, perhaps, but not multiple persons.
10. Caring to Explain, Part 3. Jesus was someone's son. Jesus was the son of Mary, biologically. Jesus was the son of Joseph, for sake of legal inheritance and succession. Jesus was the Son of God, because he was from God, and spoke for God, and was God. "Son of God" does not mean that one was born, nor does it mean that it is a different individual. If we need to clarify what "Son of God" implies we have this part in Hebrews to reference:
Hebrews 7:3 KJV
(3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
11. Caring to Explain, part 4. "... (and raised from the dead by) Someone's Holy Spirit."
Jesus said that he would raise himself from the dead. Singular.
John 2:19 KJV
(19) Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Jesus is allowed to refer to God in the third person when it suits his purposes for communication. If he wanted us to be able to relate to him, he needed to walk the proverbial miles (and years) in our shoes. When he was hungry he didn't make the stones bread, when he was hung on a tree he didn't call down the angels to rescue him.
Matthew 27:40 KJV
(40) And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
As such, I can understand why there might be legitimate confusion either that 1) Jesus was not actually God but something close, or 2) Jesus was God but that God is more than one person. You said earlier that you wanted to believe what the scripture said, even if you didn't understand the specifics. Here are the specifics I see:
1) There is only one God. Should not be up for dispute, repeated over and over in scripture. Not vague.
2) Jesus identifies himself as God, is called God, claimed the names and titles of God, is even called the everlasting Father.
3) Although God is referred to multiple ways, and was on earth and heaven at the same time, in the flesh and spirit at once, the resolution of the scripture results in the message from One God, and the promise of One God. See Revelation 21:7.
If the Bible meant to tell us that God existed as "multiple people" then I think it would be fair to expect it to say such a thing, and not in vague terms, but in the same way that it tells us "there is One God" and "I am Alpha and Omega." We have givens, clear statements, and attempts to explain with models should never be allowed to take precedence over scripture.
And furthermore, attempts to explain with models should never be used to exile or declare "not Christian" others that do not accept your model. What was the answer when the sheep asked Jesus, at the end of the world, "When did we do this unto you?"
I hope that's sufficient explanation.
marhig
Well-known member
And why? Because God the father was in him and through him and Jesus lived by the will of God and not by the will of his flesh. So we could see the father completely through him, he was in and through Jesus Christ fully.
Jesus Christ isn't the father, he is the son, he even called his disciples his brethren. He prayed to the father and relied on the father for everything. He said, without the father he could do nothing and the father is greater than I. Jesus even prayed to him and asked the father that if it is possible let this cup pass from me, yet not my will but thy will be done. So, how is he the father if he was doing the will of the father and not his own?
You have a unique tallent for wasting time and for double talk.
I'm not going to waste any more time justifying that statement except to point out that the bulk of your post was your attempt to justify the notion that plural nouns are singular. In addition to that, in spite of all that verbosity, you managed to ignore the only question that would have progressed the discussion in any meaningful way. I'll ask it again in the hopes that you'll address it and prove that you aren't as dumn as plural=singular makes you sound...
You accept that Jesus is God but reject, not just the Trinity, but any sort of plurality in the Godhead in spite of the fact that Genesis uses a plural noun to refer to God in the very first verse of scripture and in spite of the fact that Jesus prayed to Someone and was Someone's Son and was anointed with (and raised from the dead by) Someone's Holy Spirit.
Care to explain?
Care to explain?
As for the denial of the deity of Christ and still being a Christian, you're simply delusional. If you don't worship Jesus you aren't a Christian. If you do worship Jesus but don't believe He is God then you're worshiping something that isn't God and still aren't a Christian - BY DEFINITION!
That "by definition" part means that this is not my opinion! Words mean things.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Rosenritter
New member
Every morning, or at least most mornings, I also say "Not my will but thine be done" as my sleepy self chooses not to obey my own will... but instead obeys the will of he who set the alarm the previous day. Who set that alarm? I did, actually. But my will in the morning is to sleep later. So I set my own will aside and obey. Wait a minute, I'm obeying... myself, aren't I?
Isaiah 42:8 KJV
(8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 22:13, 16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Even as a human, it's possible for me to have more than one will, or conflicting wills. When I am sleepy and groggy, I don't have the full awareness as when I was awake previously. I imagine that being manifest in flesh and subject to all our infirmities for the suffering of death might be slightly analogous to my "groggy" state in the early morning.
Regardless, you're still wrestling with the "how." The absolute statements of Jesus says that he is. If God states his name and will not share his glory with another, then how come Jesus claims those names and the glory of God for himself?
Revelation 22:13, 16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rosenritter
New member
Perhaps you are worshiping something other than God. If you worshiped God, you would obey his commandment. And his commandment is simple, and stated thus,
John 13:34-35 KJV
(34) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
(35) By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
marhig
Well-known member
Yes and God is in Christ. But Christ isn't God. As I said, I don't see it as you do! And I can print scripture after scripture show why I believe as I do, do you want me to do that?
Talking about wills, the will of God isn't just understanding in depth all the scriptures, but doing his will in our lives and then he will give us the understanding. Putting him first before ourselves and always being ready to do his will. To deny ourselves and to put others first, to help, care, share, show his love and bring his word to others.
Jesus is the end of my old life as the beginning of my new life in God. And God was in him reconciling the world unto himself. The spirit of God was fully in Jesus, so much so that we didn't see the fleshly Jesus at all, we saw God and he was Emmanuel, God with us. Because he didn't live by his will, he didn't judge by the seeing of his eyes, or reprove after the hearing his ears and his voice was not heard in the streets. But he heard, saw, spoke and lived by the will of God and he denied the flesh completely and Satan couldn't even get a look in, there was no sin in him and he was full of light to lighten the world and bring us out of darkness, he's our Messiah our Christ and our way back to God. He is the only way, the truth and the life.
But as he said himself, without the father he could do nothing, and the father is greater than i
And without Christ I can do nothing, and Christ is greater than I.
I don't know everything, but I'm not half asleep either! I don't walk in the darkness, but in the day and in the light, and my old life in the flesh has ended and i walk in newness of life through Christ. Without him laying down his life to bring us the truth and the true way of God, I'd still be dead in my sins. His life is the only life to follow, he is the only way he is the truth and our perfect example to follow. This world means nothing, building up in it means nothing to me anymore and God means everything!
Also, Jesus said that God was his God, and he said YOU the only true God and Jesus Christ whom YOU have sent. So if it's good enough for Jesus to believe that the father is his God and that the father is the only true God, then it's good enough for me!
Rosenritter
New member
Marhig, aside from several hundred words not addressing those passages, how do you avoid that the LORD God says that he is the first and the last, and that Jesus names himself as that same first and the last? You have never answered that, not to me ever at least.
The words 'love' and 'nice' are not synonyms.
Which is less loving, to state factually that someone has wasted their time by saying dumb things or to be the person who actually wastes everyone's time by saying dumb things?
If you don't like being called a waste of time then find some child near you (3rd grade or older) and ask him whether what you've typed up makes sense. If he says something like, "How can a plural noun be singular?" then maybe you just delete that post and start again.
I'll take your sarcastic reminder that I'm supposed to be loving as a passive aggressive indication that you have no intention of answering my question and will place you back on ignore.
Resting in Him,
Clete