Posted on 10/17/2001 12:18:58 PM PDT by junebug54
What makes you think that I don't have historic Christianity and scholariship far older than the ones you quoted that agree with me, or rather that I agree with them?
I guess we shall see who those are, fairly soon. This should be interesting to see what "camp" they are in. Then we'll get a good idea of what is going on here.
And I didn't say that "old" equates to "competence". I simply pointed out that there was a string of scholarship that went back for a long time -- thereby not being an isolated idea -- that God is not the author of evil (i.e., moral evil or unrighteousness) as you want to maintain.
So, it was time-tested scholarship and subject to critical examination for a long period of time. It has stood the test of time and examination by Biblical scholars.
However, you will find that many of the "faithful defenders of the Word of God" are more in agreement with my viewpoints than yours. None of the Puritan "giants" had ever heard of Dispensationalist premillenialism, nor believed in it. These "giants", "faithful defenders of the Word of God" had no problem in asserting God's total sovereignty over all of His creation, and none of them believed that men have a form of free-will that not even God possesses.
I've made clear my position by statements to that effect. It's clear where I'm coming from. But, I don't believe you have done so, at least not in this thread, so I have no idea what the position is that you are maintaining -- or the scholarship and teachers you have who come from that position. Perhaps you don't even know what position you are coming from, if you have not mentioned it or made it clear. Once the positions are clarified, then it's easy to get right down to the core issues -- as they've already been discussed "ad infinitum" by other scholars.
But, then again, I've known some people who have no position known in any sort of Christianity and simply develop something on the fly... (which is questionable, to say the least).
Perhaps you can clarify that, and save us all a lot of time.
If you don't want to do that, then let me recap: I am a Historical Premillenialist but also recognize that I ought to act as a "pan-millenialist". I believe in the total sovereignty of God over all of His creation without exception, and I hold to the reformed "doctrines of grace". As such, I am in the company of a great many "giants" of the faith, and "defenders of the Word of God".
Re. 153. And you complain that my post didn't have a logical flow !?!
Well now..., I don't believe I quite said that. You might look again. Perhaps you're interpreting that I meant that.
You said in your post that, along with Job, it is sometimes better to keep one's mouth shut. That has been my point all along. If you remember, my original point was the fact that maybe people are saying too much when they say "God didn't cause this", or "It was not God's will". I know that they do this in an attempt to bring comfort, but comfort at what price?
Well, where we keep our mouth shut is where it extends beyond what God has revealed to us and what is in our normal range of abilities to think about what God has said to us. There is much that goes beyond what we're able to really know.
That -- however -- is not meant to say that we should be silent and keep our mouth shut about what God *has said and has made clear to us*. There are clear statements which are made. Where the "going beyond" part would be relevant is where some try to negate what God has said -- on their own basis of reasoning and logic. It's extending what cannot go beyond certain revelations of God.
So, this is not meant to stifle discussion or thoughtful expression of what God has made known to us.
If we believe Amos 3:6, then we know that no disaster befalls a city that the Lord has not caused. Maybe, along with Job, we should say "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15)
I would agree that Isaiah 45:7 (in its true meaning) includes such calamities and disasters that may befall a city. However, some people would like to extend that to "unrighteous acts of God" in committing "moral evil" to a city. That is not correct.
What we need today is less "sound bites", and more faith and dependence upon a God who does bring disaster upon cities, who does slay us, who does control all the events of the universe.
Yes, that is true -- but absent any heretical teachings that God is the author of evil (in the definition of some who want to say that this includes "moral evil" and "unrighteousness" and "unrighteous acts" of God).
If you don't want to do that, then let me recap: I am a Historical Premillenialist but also recognize that I ought to act as a "pan-millenialist". I believe in the total sovereignty of God over all of His creation without exception, and I hold to the reformed "doctrines of grace". As such, I am in the company of a great many "giants" of the faith, and "defenders of the Word of God".
Sorry for having missed it. I'm on too many posts, I guess :-) Thanks for the recap.
P.S. do you find it necessary to be insulting? Especially when you admit that you don't understand the viewpoints of another? It really is a bad fleshly trait rooted in pride.
When I look back at that post, I think you took it to mean that "some people" was you. Perhaps you're taking it a bit too personally. The "some people" are for those whom it fits.
If it doesn't fit -- don't worry about it.
Here is what you said in 153:
"Well, you've got two separate questions here that don't fit in with each other, or don't flow from one to the other."
Sounds like I had it right the first time.
Now, as to your contentions about attributing "evil" to God. I think that you have reacted in a knee-jerk kind of way to CCWoody's posts. He never said that God committed "evil", but he did attempt to get you to understand that you call "evil" some things that Scripture rightly attributes to God. The fact that you stated that you didn't know my point of view shows that you haven't read this thread very carefully. May I suggest you do a re-read and ask for a "do over"?
A simple apology would have been much better than your feeble attempt in 167 to deflect criticism from yourself. Another sign of fleshly pride.
I will be away from the computer for at least the next 10 hours, carry on without me.
Would you agree that God is the "first cause" of everything in the universe? After all, couldn't God have kept Lucifer from becoming Satanic had He chosen not to create Lucifer in the first place?
of which I said --
Well, you've got two separate questions here that don't fit in with each other, or don't flow from one to the other."
Now you say --
Sounds like I had it right the first time.
as you were referring to your previous comments of --
Re. 153. And you complain that my post didn't have a logical flow !?!
and my answer of --
Well now..., I don't believe I quite said that. You might look again. Perhaps you're interpreting that I meant that.
And so -- I looked at that, from my last post, in answering you. And I don't see it that way. That is not saying that your "post didn't have a logical flow..."
It simply doesn't seem like they are necessarily linked in that one will be intimately tied in with the other. And the reason why is that God can create Lucifer and not be the first cause of evil and unrighteousness. And you don't include the issue of Lucifer not being a "machine" but rather a being who does have choice -- otherwise he couldn't be held "responsible" (and he is held responsible).
Therefore it doesn't necessarily relate together in terms of one flowing from the other.
So,again, to me -- that is not saying that your post is not logical. You jump on something that is not intended in order to produce some "slight" which is not there.
Even so, how much is it worth going into the way you saw it -- versus -- the way I saw it. I'll simply leave it at the fact that they don't fit in with each other (as flowing from one to the other) and that is the extent of what I said.
Now, as to your contentions about attributing "evil" to God. I think that you have reacted in a knee-jerk kind of way to CCWoody's posts. He never said that God committed "evil", but he did attempt to get you to understand that you call "evil" some things that Scripture rightly attributes to God. The fact that you stated that you didn't know my point of view shows that you haven't read this thread very carefully. May I suggest you do a re-read and ask for a "do over"?
You say... "but he did attempt to get you to understand that you call "evil" some things that Scripture rightly attributes to God." And that is the problem, in that people use the English word of "evil" as in the meaning of unrighteousness -- and that is therefore the wrong word, because of the connotations involved.
Now, if people want to distinguish that word as "calamity" and "woe" -- as opposed to "moral evil" -- and therefore never attribute moral evil and unrighteousness to God -- then I have nothing more to say about it -- because that's the extent to which I'm going. There is nothing more beyond that.
So -- therefore -- if you're saying that CCWoody does not attribute any unrighteousness to God and that the word "evil" (in that context of Isaiah 45:7) has the meaning of "calamity" and "woe" -- even though it uses the "word" evil -- then that's fine. That would be exactly what I'm saying.
HOWEVER, when people take this "tack" and start attributing all meanings of the word "evil" (including "moral evil") to God -- then they are simply wrong.
Thus, it depends on which position CCWoody is taking. I've made mine clear by the fact that I'm saying that the English translation is wrong [if one is to take it as "moral evil"] -- and the word should be rendered "calamity" and/or "woe" and that's sufficient for me to correct the wrong position. It doesn't appear that CCWoody wishes to clarify the situation to the extent of eliminating unrighteousness from God's doing and God's hand.
As far as going back to reading the same things again... no need for me to do that, as I already know what we're talking about here, in regards to Isaiah 45:7 -- which is where this started.
I will be away from the computer for at least the next 10 hours, carry on without me.
Likewise..., time for me to go and get some business done.
Why wouldn't I assume that "some people" refers to me when you devoted the previous paragraph of 162 to me?
One more before I go...
Well very simply because if I were only talking privately to you, I would be e-mailing you. I'm not doing that. I'm posting on a public forum. That means that there are many who are here who fall into the category of "some people".
And as far as to why the post was directed to you -- it's simply because that's the way a person follows a series of comments on Free Republic. One has to address a "response post" to a previous post -- if anyone is to follow a line of reasoning or a series of comments. There are other people reading now (who may be those "some people"). I've seen them already on Free Republic. And many could read this months later when there are no more comments being added.
It makes sense to me, anyway...
huh? I think I missed something here...
Then you can also tell me the time and day... of Christ's return.
Again, all I can say is "HUH?"
(and place, I want to see it Oh that won't be a problem.
Well, I for one don't wear shoes that I think don't fit.
*shrug*
YOU WILL NOT KNOW when the end is going to come.
That means that YOU WILL NOT KNOW.
It does not mean that if you study the bible really hard that you will know. It does not mean that if you are a good Christian that you will know.
YOU WILL NOT KNOW. Period. To try to figure it out means that you believe the lord to be a liar.
This is a pretty simple concept, yet the amount of time spent by people trying to figure it out is considerable.
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.