Posted on 01/03/2005 8:18:33 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Funny, but as I study more and get older (not in that order) I've come to need less choices and less adjectives and less argument to support what I consider to be the Biblical truth of God's total, complete, profound, black-and-white, unerring Predestinating hand in all His creation.
Every healthy baby born is by His specific will. Every battered body that washes ashore in Sumatra is by His will. Every punchline applauded is by His will. Every period at the end of every sentence is by His will. Because if I've been saved by God's grace through faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ alone, which is the greatest event in all eternity, then how numbered everything else must be.
Indeed. Great analysis! Thank you so much for bringing me into the loop!
You are quoting Scripture without attempting to read orthodox interpretations of it, other versions, the original language etc.
That is laziness, and laziness leads to heresy.
Depending on how "open" your open theism is, several parts of the Bible seem to support it. For example, Jacob wrestling with God, or Moses convincing God not to destroy the Isrealites.
No, accepting orthodox interpretations over taking Scripture at face value leads to heresy. Why force Scripture to fit the traditions and ideas of fallen man? Why? The Lord Jesus Christ took so many to task for this...don't you know?
"Every healthy baby born is by His specific will. Every battered body that washes ashore in Sumatra is by His will."
Not really. Here's God's will:
Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
God said the world He made was "good." He only required obedience in this one area. And, He EXPECTED it. He HOPED for it. He DESIRED it. God did not wish for Adam to fall, nor did He cause Adam to fall by some form of "mysterious" predestination. God wanted Adam to OBEY. Calvinistic doctrine assumes that God planned--and even desired!--failure, but was not/is not responsible for it.
Do you know what deism is? I think you are confused and possibly suffering from liberal indoctrination you are unaware of. This deist junk concerning the Founders is propaganda...
To quote from your link: "I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence."
Deists believe there is some higher being unknown that set everything in motion and then checked out -as in no eternal life, no reason to observe 'good' vs. 'evil', no providence, etcetera...
Suggest you deprogram and reevaluate with fresh data...
You do know that the Scripture you are reading is a translation of the original, correct?
And that some words have different flavors of meanings 400 years ago than what they mean today?
I am a Biblical literalist, but your position that just read the Bible without any further study is quite frankly, ignorant.
Personally I prefer pantheism: God knows everything because God is everything. I suppose that's pretty dangerous too? Oh, well. Whatever the case, I am certain God knows a heck of a lot more than me.
God is not the lint behind your sofa cushions, although He created the sofa, the cushions and the lint.
To say God equals His creation elevates the creature to the status of the Creator.
The first no-no. "Ye shall be as gods."
God never regrets His decisions. He only regrets the decisions of man. Since He knows what those decisions will be there is no "new course of action".
Again, the scriptures says God is not like man. To think He changes His mind is to abscribe man-like traits to God.
The people already knew of their faith from Micah in the days of Hezekiah. I think it's safe to assume Jeremiah knew it as well. God doesn't go around saying things He doesn't mean. Your interpretation is flawed. I can't help it if you can't read the text.
"Academic freedom" also means the freedom of the academy to fulfill its missions, and to teach the doctrines it was set up to impart. The largest and most conservative protestant denomination in the US, the Northern Presbyterian Church, was hijacked by the perveyors of an alien faith because they were too dainty to defend themselves, to hold heresy trials.
There are Deists who believe in a Creator but not an active God, but anyone who reads Thomas Jefferson's writing or Ben Franklin's writing did believe God checked out. And neither do I.
A search will show the word "repented" in verse 35 is better translated as "grieved" which is far different then the Lord "changing His mind". I have found this to be the case in just about all the places where it says "the Lord repented".
However, this is not the case in 1 Samuel 15 or Numbers 23:19 where it means "changing one's mind". The problem you have in these verses is that they are in the negative. It tells what God is NOT. God does not lie. God does not change His mind. God is not like man.
I disagree.
:>) with regards. X.
Is that true?
Why do I have to do the other side's work for them? I would suggest reading Whitehead if you're interested. My personal view of Whitehead's work and process theology is that it is a logical tour de force that has nothing to do with reality or my religion.
Omniscient means "knowing everything" or "knowing all", right ? Presumably that means knowing all that can be known. I think (it's been a long time) Whitehead and the rest of them would argue that the future cannot be known because it doesn't exist, it doesn't have the same kind of "being" that the present and the past have -- heck, it doesn't "have being" at all. Anyway, Whitehead would (I think) say that in his view God is omniscient. The notion is not an observation about God's limits, it's a theory about what time and being are.
It's sorta, kinda, a little analogous to saying God is omnipotent. God can do anything that can be done. But can He make a rock so big that he can't lift it?
(I'm always tempted to answer that one with something like, "Yeah He can: He made a cross and the cross, under which He fell three times, lifted Him.)
But you'd rather bet on general empirical principles being a good way to place your bets. So would I, on matters of that kind.
When I'm thinking about "truth", I like to consider the words relationship with "troth", which beautiful word I will debase by saying something you "pledge your troth" to is kinda like something you'd bet on. And among things to bet on there are those worthy of your bet, and those unworthy.
But in general, the "Absolute" that you need oxygen requires some assumptions, and provides some joy about things entirely different from the "Absolute" that God loves you and wants you to be happy and good. The former merely requires that I stick around oxygen-rich environments. The latter suggests that I try things I never dreamed of, commit myself to things that make heroes go pale, and hope for things beyond my imagining. I find that exhilarating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.