Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
January 25, 2008
ESV Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
In recent days I have spent time in Lima and Sullana Peru and Mexico City and I have discovered that people by nature are the same. Man has a heart that is inclined to selfishness and idolatry. Sin abounds in the remotest parts of the land because the heart is desperately wicked. Thousands bow before statues of Mary and pray to her hoping for answers. I have seen these people stare hopelessly at Mary icons, Jesus icons, and a host of dead saints who will do nothing for them. I have talked with people who pray to the pope and say that they love him. I talked with one lady who said that she knew that Jesus was the Savior, but she loved the pope. Thousands bow before Santa Muerte (holy death angel) in hopes that she will do whatever they ask her. I have seen people bring money, burning cigarettes, beer, whiskey, chocolate, plants, and flowers to Santa Muerte in hopes of her answers. I have seen these people bowing on their knees on the concrete in the middle of public places to worship their idol. Millions of people come into the Basilica in Mexico City and pay their money, confess their sins, and stare hopelessly at relics in hope that their sins will be pardoned. In America countless thousands are chained to baseball games, football games, material possessions, and whatever else their heart of idols can produce to worship.
My heart has broken in these last weeks because the God of heaven is not honored as he ought to be honored. People worship the things that are created rather than worshiping the Creator. God has been gracious to all mankind and yet mankind has hardened their hearts against a loving God. God brings the rain on the just and unjust. God brings the beautiful sunrises and sunsets upon the just and unjust. God gives good gifts unto all and above all things he has given his Son that those who would believe in him would be saved. However, man has taken the good things of God and perverted them unto idols and turned their attention away from God. I get a feel for Jesus as he overlooked Jerusalem or Paul as he beseeched for God to save Israel. When you accept the reality of the truth of the glory of God is breaks your heart that people would turn away from the great and awesome God of heaven to serve lesser things. Moses was outraged by the golden calf, the prophets passionately preached against idolatry, Jesus was angered that the temple was changed in an idolatrous business, and Paul preached to the idolaters of Mars Hill by telling them of the unknown God.
I arrived back at home wondering how I should respond to all the idolatry that I have beheld in these last three weeks. I wondered how our church here in the states should respond to all of the idolatry in the world. What are the options? First, I suppose we could sit around and hope that people chose to get their life together and stop being idolaters. However, I do not know how that could ever happen apart from them hearing the truth. Second, I suppose we could spend a lifetime studying cultural issues and customs in hope that we could somehow learn to relate to the people of other countries. However, the bible is quite clear that all men are the same. Men are dead in sin, shaped in iniquity, and by nature are the enemies of God. Thirdly, we could pay other people or other agencies to go and do a work for us while we remain comfortably in the states. However, there is no way to insure that there will be doctrinal accuracy or integrity. If we only pay other people to take the gospel we will miss out on all of the benefits of being obedient to the mission of God. Lastly, we could seek where God would have us to do a lasting work and then invest our lives there for the glory of God. The gospel has the power to raise the dead in any culture and we must be willing to take the gospel wherever God would have us take it. It is for sure that our church cannot go to every country and reach every people group, so we must determine where God would have us work and seek to be obedient wherever that is.
It seems that some doors are opening in the Spanish speaking countries below us and perhaps God is beginning to reveal where we are to work. There are some options for work to be partnered with in Peru and there could be a couple of options in Mexico. The need is greater than I can express upon this paper for a biblical gospel to be proclaimed in Peru and Mexico. Oh, that God would glorify his great name in Peru and Mexico by using a small little church in a town that does not exist to proclaim his great gospel amongst a people who desperately need the truth.
I give thanks to the LORD for allowing me the privilege of going to these countries and broadening my horizons. The things that I have seen will be forever engraved upon my heart. I will long remember the pastors that I spent time with in Peru and I will never forget Adolfo who translated for me in Mexico. I will relish the time that I spent with Paul Washer and the others. When I think of church I will forever remember being on top of that mountain in Sullana at that church which had no electricity and no roof. I am convinced that heaven was looking down on that little church on top of that mountain and very few people on earth even know that it exist. Oh, God I pray that the things of this world will continue to grow dim and that God’s people will be caught up in his glorious presence.
Because of the truth: Pastor: J. Randall Easter II Timothy 2:19 "Our God is in heaven and does whatever He pleases."(Ps. 115:3) "He predestined us according to the good pleasure of His will."(Eph. 1:5) Those who have been saved have been saved for His glory and they are being made holy for this is the will of God. Are you being made holy? Spurgeon says, "If your religion does not make you holy it will damn you to hell."
Kosta: I think I am, it is used to question the word preceding it, it appears after the questionable word and is italicized in square brackets. If God's testing only "helps" then it is uncertain.
On "sic" you're pretty close. Most of the online dictionaries I looked at had something like this: "This word is sometimes inserted in a quotation [sic], to call attention to the fact that some remarkable or inaccurate expression, misspelling, or the like, is literally reproduced." When quoting someone else, the basic idea is to say "don't blame me for this obvious spelling, grammatical, or usage error, I'm just quoting letter for letter". However, it is not used for a great difference of opinion.
For example, this is correct: "I two [sic], am a sinner". However, this is not: "I know [sic] I am not a sinner, but you are". So, when I said "testing helps to sanctify us", I don't think "sic" is appropriate because to my knowledge we both see sanctification as a process, but even if we didn't agree it would be a matter of opinion. My position is that testing is one thing that "helps" that process along. Prayer is another, and Bible study is still another.
Another thing to consider is whether you have special knowledge of the author's intent. So, if you were quoting me, this would be correct: "testing helps to justify [sic] us during our lives...". But from someone you don't know, it would just be a ridiculous statement that the author actually meant (as far as you know) and "sic" would not be indicated.
Moreover, many an individual is tested to his detriment, and does not necessarily "help" sanctify.
Really? When does that ever happen from God? God never tests us to our ultimate harm, He only tests us to our ultimate good. Sometimes great lessons are learned through something we perceive as bad at the time, but God ALWAYS comes through in the end. Tempting often has bad results, but not testing.
FK: "Anyway, I don't know of anyone who goes through life untested by God. Have you ever lost a loved one who "died too young"? Boom, you've been tested, etc. God tests all those He loves. I don't know who you mean by those who have not been tested."
Harley D recently reminded me that equality is not biblical. Not everyone is tested equally and some are hardly tested at all. Yet others just go through life tested to the max. There is no proof that testing making one a better or stronger believer and being "lucky" makes one a weak believer or a non-believer.
Well, I fully agree with Harley, and I also fully agree with me. :) There is nothing incompatible in what we said when put together. I said testing is ONE avenue of sanctification. There are others. One being tested "a lot" in no way means he is automatically "more sanctified" than one who is tested less. It doesn't match up like that. Everyone's individual levels of the various methods of sanctification are all over the place. Nothing wrong with that.
Death is not a test; it is a fact of life which we try to rationalize into something comforting.
Of course death CAN be a test to the living (but not always). It's a perfect example in my book. Do not many people contemplate their own faiths during these times? Do they not make choices during these times?
It's easier to face the "what's this all about" dilemma that way, because despite all the chest-thumping faith so many claim, if given the opportunity to live 200 more years in health and youth, very few would opt for an early meeting with God!
Depends on who's making the offer. :) I want to live on this earth EXACTLY as long as God wants me to, no more.
Death is never, not even among the so-called believers, something they look forward to, provided they are happy where they are. Heavenly bliss can wait.
I totally disagree. I absolutely look forward to Heavenly bliss, in God's good time, not mine. What's not to look forward to? It just isn't my decision when that's going to happen. While I'm here, God has a reason for me to be here and I happily accept that and all of His blessings upon me. When my mission is completed He will call me home and I will accept that too, (assuming I am reasonably sure it is my time).
It was the sweeping generalization that God testing us somehow "helps" sanctify us is why I put a {sic] behind "helps." It didn't "help" Abram. Abram already believed and trusted God. He not once doubted that God wanted his son sacrificed and he was willing and ready to kill his son for God! So how did the cruelty Abram was exposed to help Abram believe more is beyond me.
How can you possibly know what did or did not "help" Abraham??? IMMEDIATELY after the Lord had provided, the angel said this:
Gen 22:15-18 : 15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
Are you telling me that Abraham took this as a ho-hum, matter of fact saying? Did his faith not grow even stronger after this? Do you believe humans are capable of PERFECT faith during our time on earth? I mean, Mary is out of the question, since she showed weakness in faith, regardless of whether she was sinless. No human, outside of Jesus, achieves perfect faith during earthly life. Abraham's faith WAS made stronger because of this experience.
Besides, considering Abram and Job, and Theotokos, what did their ordeals do to their faith and their sanctity that they already didn't have?
Well, as I said, Mary showed a definite weakness in faith after Jesus was teaching at the synagogue. So, we know for certain that her faith had room to grow. So does everyone else's throughout life. That is, unless you want to proffer a faith by someone whose faith was equal to Christ's. Does the Orthodox Church say that happens for the saints who reach theosis during life? They have no more room for growth in Christ?
Yeah, it's the art of "feels-good" or "feels-bad" approach to decision-making.
“Yeah, it’s the art of “feels-good” or “feels-bad” approach to decision-making”
Sounds like the public schools’ idea of “critical thinking”.
It can be used for outrageous or unsubstantiated claims stated as a matter of fact. Thus "He said he was God" would warrant a [sic] after the word "God."
You made an absolute statement "testing helps to sanctify us..." actually warrants a double [sic], one for making it a matter-of-fact when it is not, and two for saying that it merely "helps" rather than accomplishes. If testing is from God, it is only "helping" or is it actually achieving the desired effect?
If you already have faith and are irreversibly saved by grace, what doth testing do, pray tell?
Kosta: Moreover, many an individual is tested to his detriment, and does not necessarily "help" sanctify.
FK: Really? When does that ever happen from God? God never tests us to our ultimate harm, He only tests us to our ultimate good That's a politically correct answer, FK, but unfortunately it is false. The OT God you believe in does harm people. It's just that if we go through a tribulation and recover, we call it "being tested," and if we don't make it, we call it "tempted."
One being tested "a lot" in no way means he is automatically "more sanctified" than one who is tested less. It doesn't match up like that. Everyone's individual levels of the various methods of sanctification are all over the place.
And how do you know that?
I want to live on this earth EXACTLY as long as God wants me to, no more.
Why, aren't you lucky that's exactly what you want, given that you don't have any choice!
When my mission is completed He will call me home and I will accept that too, (assuming I am reasonably sure it is my time).
Yeah, make sure you "verify" that it agrees with you!
How can you possibly know what did or did not "help" Abraham??? IMMEDIATELY after the Lord had provided, the angel said this...Gen 22:15-18 : 15 "I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars...
But Abraham's deed was a given; so was his faith, although faith here was not the "deed"; none of it was any of Abraham's doing (if we are to follow Reformed theology). Yet God makes it sound as if he was "rewarding" Abraham for what Abraham did when there was no question if Abraham would do what was predestined; it was an accomplished act before it even happened.
When you strip all the fat and get down to the bone, that's what the whole life is all about: feels good, or feels bad. It is the core of our decision-making. It's more a knee-jerk packaged with rationalizations than critical thinking.
So for you freedom means the ability to thwart God's will, and you like freedom? :)
So, Judas and Pontius Pilate, Hitler, John the Baptist and Christ Himself were doing only what was preordained.
You say "only" as if it is a bad thing when what God ordained happens.
Neither you nor I know what is God's "perspective."
God's perspective is that of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. We can have "some" idea what that means. The Fathers certainly took a stab at it. :)
If I invite you and Mark and Irish and all our Freeper Religion Forum friends to a party and some of you show up, while others don't, whose fault is it if those who didn't show up missed a great party? Am I following the leadership of others? Of course not. I make the invitation. Those who show up win, those who don't lose.
But let's say that you WANTED at least 10 people to show up (you thought the party couldn't be a success unless at least 10 showed), but only eight did. Your will has been thwarted by the people and there's nothing you can do about it. The people determined whether you got what you wanted. That doesn't make you a weak person because, hey, you're only human. :) However, that would certainly make for a very weak God.
If I send out invitations only to some and then force them to show up, are they there because they want to be or because they have to be? I think the qualitative difference is obvious. They are there because they must be not because they want to be. It's forced "love" FK. And some people like it that way...
Let's say you invite me and I hem and haw for a while, but then you, knowing that I find a certain food irresistible, tell me that you are serving that food. I then readily accept your gracious invitation. Did you "force" me? No, you gave me an offer I couldn't refuse. :)
Then animals are "persons" as well.
No, the root word is "person", which excludes animals. I thought that much would be clear. :)
When did I state that God is irrational?
Many times, on this thread. But I didn't save them and am not inclined to go through 5,000 posts to find them. If you state that God is a rational Being now, I will take that henceforth. But if you do, then I don't see how you can continue to deny that God has a plan. Without a plan, i.e. without knowing what He wants to do within time, then His actions would be random, or, irrational.
His reasons are not our reasons any more than our reasons are reasons of an ant. To claim that God "makes sense" to us is to claim that we make sense to a flatworm, if that much.
OK, there it is. We were both right. What you really meant is that God is irrational TO US. A notion I completely disagree with, but I understand better where you are coming from.
He humbled Himself and became a flatworm so we could have a personal relationship with Him and know God through our eyes and ears and minds by seeing Him as one of us. Who can love an ineffable entity?
If that is all there is, then how do you explain that in the OT God spoke DIRECTLY and had real conversations with His prophets? Did all of those conversations never happen? ...... God reveals enough of Himself to us such that we are able to love Him.
A great question. We couldn't be. So, I will add +Athanasius to my side of the discussion. :) And thanks for the links to chap. 2 & 3 of "On the Incarnation".
[From chap. 2:] ... but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.
Whoops, that's not a good start. :) But maybe it's just a syntax problem.
[Ibid.] For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are.
Very true. The loving Word was all over the OT.
[Ibid.] He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for His very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt.
VERY un-Apostolic, but I'll take it in a heartbeat. :)
[Ibid.] For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.
Yes, nobody gets into Heaven but for Christ. But this does not mean that no one was saved until Christ died and rose within time. That's a side issue, though.
[Ibid.] Thus by His own power He restored the whole nature of man.
I'm not sure what he means by this. From his scripture quotes it sort of sounds like he means universal salvation, but I don't know. ........ While Christ's sacrifice certainly had a huge effect on the elect, what difference did it make for the reprobate? I mean, were OT reprobate somehow different from the reprobate of today?
Overall, I'd say I agree with 80-90% of chapter 2. A good read. :)
>[From chap. 3:] ... Why? Simply in order that through this gift of Godlikeness in themselves they may be able to perceive the Image Absolute, that is the Word Himself, and through Him to apprehend the Father; which knowledge of their Maker is for men the only really happy and blessed life.
OK, this seems to say that we can't know "God" but for Christ. I am fine with that as long as everyone agrees that Christ was all over the OT. :) The OT righteous DID know God.
[Ibid.] Three ways thus lay open to them, by which they might obtain the knowledge of God. They could look up into the immensity of heaven, and by pondering the harmony of creation come to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Whose all-ruling providence makes known the Father to all. Or, if this was beyond them, they could converse with holy men, and through them learn to know God, the Artificer of all things, the Father of Christ, and to recognize the worship of idols as the negation of the truth and full of all impiety. Or else, in the third place, they could cease from lukewarmness and lead a good life merely by knowing the law. ....
I have to TOTALLY disagree with this one, for it has man coming to God by his own independent decisions and acts. The Bible just doesn't teach this. I mean, this says one way to salvation was by leading a good life and knowing the Law. Nobody was ever saved that way.
[Ibid.] Again, things being as they were, what was the use of their ever having had the knowledge of God? Surely it would have been better for God never to have bestowed it, than that men should subsequently be found unworthy to receive it. Similarly, what possible profit could it be to God Himself, Who made men, if when made they did not worship Him, but regarded others as their makers? This would be tantamount to His having made them for others and not for Himself.
I really like this approach throughout both chapters. It looks like God cares and is willing to do something about it. Unfortunately, the Church will allow Christ to begin negotiating the deal, but they won't let Him close. :)
Overall, another pretty good read. I'd say 75-85% agreement.
No, it has to do with what God "assigned" to each individual before foundation of the world according to the Reformed theology.
How do you distinguish between the two? If God has no duty, as we believe, then He can't be blamed for ordaining that He would not protect certain individuals.
...... According to the Reformed theology, God decided to withdraw His protection in that moment before the hypothetical you , indeed before the world even existed. God decided from eternity that you will go to hell, that you will be a murderer, and He even assigned the day and the hour when this will happen, and nothing can change that.
If a part of His plan, then yes. So who is responsible for the murder I commit? I say I am. God had no obligation to create us sinless for life or without the potential for sin. Likewise, He has no obligation to protect us from the sin we will inevitably commit according to our nature.
To complete the picture, this Reformed God wants to punish you because He wants you to become a murderer! He decided before you existed that you shall commit murder on a given day and a given hour, and it's somehow all your "fault!" You are a goat, not because you want to be a goat, but because God made you a goat and it's somehow all your "fault." And no amount of prayer will change you into a sheep.
You make God sound masochistic in our eyes. :) It isn't so. He's just sovereign. All people are born "wanting" to be goats. God changes some of them, and they no longer want to be like that. In addition, goats have no use for true prayer, it doesn't occur to them. Goats are responsible for their goat actions in accordance with their goat natures.
You talk as if God is intervening in His rigidly preordained "plan." In fact this plan is so rigid that even God can't change it!
If God changed His plan, then that would admit mistake, and God would cease to be God.
You seem to oscillate between two incompatible visions of God: one who preordained the world in which everything happens exactly as He "planned," and one in which God intervenes and makes fine adjustments.
No, God makes no adjustments. Tuesday vs. Thursday refers to the original choice.
And "my" side will most definitely say "Yes," because you neither decide the day, nor is it really your will that leads you to commit murder but the Reformed God's will! Otherwise your side calls it a "weak" God.
No, it really is my will. God willed it first and set the conditions, but He did not force me to do anything. My free will chose to sin by murder, all by itself. I didn't hear voices from God, and if I was led by anyone it was satan, which we are predisposed to do when born.
Kosta: I think it can be safely said that the Reformed theology is a knee-jerk cause of atheism in the West.
I have no idea what the reference to atheism is, but it appears that the God of controlling man-made Tradition is quite different from the one described in scripture, even more different than I had thought.
No. No "credit" ever goes to sin. All credit for anything good always goes to God. God accomplishes His plan through many means. Through a hypo I am showing that in ALL things God works for the good of those who love Him. All things means all things.
One would think that in the mind of the reformed that the all powerful God would be capable of having Mark witness to the mugging victim WITHOUT a mugging even taking place?
Well of course He could, and often does in billions of other cases. But God decides under what circumstances everything will happen. This was just a hypothetical.
You have thoroughly convinced me that reformed theology takes temptation out of the hands of the devil, thus taking personal sin out of the hands of man in order for God to ordain sin for the good of the elect.
I am sorry if you have gotten that idea from me. In no way is that Reformed thinking. God never tempts, only satan does. Through the principles of first and second causes, God ordains His will, and man is responsible for the sin he commits. God, not man, is sovereign and in control.
In reformed theology goodness cannot be goodness unless its mugged, raped, murdered, aborted etc...
I'm afraid I have no clue at all what you mean.
Sounds like something the devil would say to convince someone that God cannot use goodness to bring Glory to Himself without using evil to do so.
God uses many means to accomplish His plan. I would have to assume that you would agree that evil was involved in the crucifixion of Christ. Do you believe all those events were by random chance, or did God use evil to accomplish His purpose?
No wonder the reformed show such lack of Devotion to Our Blessed Mother.
Actually, that's for different reasons. Our reading of the Bible is that we should have devotion to God. We don't have the parts that say we should share that devotion with Mary or anyone else. I have actually found that devotion to God can be an extremely time-consuming activity. I can't imagine having the time to be spiritually devoted to anyone else. :)
I can’t imagine having the time to be spiritually devoted to anyone else. :)
= =
INDEED.
And . . . drum roll . . . Scripture causes such distractions . . .
idols.
I suppose that a weak God's succumbing to a more-powerful-than-Him ransom demand does sound nicer. :)
If I thought for one minute that God was some divine blood thirsty Dagon Who created men in His image and likeness so he could torment the majority of them in everlasting hellfire, the massacre of His Son not really quite cutting it in the slaking of wrath area, why FK, I’d loath that monster with every fiber of my being.
ME TOO, BROTHER! :) Remember, it's my side that believes Christ's sacrifice actually accomplished something important, and final. It's you guys who say that what Christ did was great, but not good enough to secure the salvation of a single person.
“I suppose that a weak God’s succumbing to a more-powerful-than-Him ransom demand does sound nicer. :)”
You didn’t read +Athanasius the Great did you? Well, its sort of long. Try this and then tell me the Orthodox worship a “weak” God.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-easter.html
It's not a matter of "need", it's a matter of what God wants. His plan. We have:
Luke 17:15-18 : 15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. 17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? 18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. KJV
Isa 49:3 : And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. KJV
Ps 96:3-9 : 3 Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people. 4 For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. 5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens. 6 Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary. 7 Give unto the Lord, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the Lord glory and strength. 8 Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts. 9 O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. KJV
It sure "looks" like God "wants" to be glorified by us. The Bible reveals to us the REASON why we are here. I don't question it. If God had said He wanted something else, that would have been fine with me too. :)
Like what? Two legs, two eyes, speech, reason, etc? The fact is they are predestined by the Reformed God to be evil. Is evil imago dei?
No, of course evil is not the image of God. But neither is eating or sexual reproduction. What's your point? :) I was trying to say that God gives good graces to the reprobate that He does not give to lower animals. That's just true.
I know you all don't believe in original sin, but you do believe in something like it, right? Is whatever THAT is imago dei? I'm sure you'd say no.
FK: So for you freedom means the ability to thwart God's will, and you like freedom?
You have it wrong. God gave us freedom so we can choose whom we shall serve. He knows our choices but he doesn't make them for us.
Kosta: So, Judas and Pontius Pilate, Hitler, John the Baptist and Christ Himself were doing only what was preordained.
FK: You say "only" as if it is a bad thing when what God ordained happens.
Tell me FK: was Hitler and his evil God's will? Is God the creator of Hitler and his evil? Was Hitler predestined by God to exist and to be evil? Was Hitler simply doing God's will?
Kosta: Neither you nor I know what is God's "perspective."
FK: God's perspective is that of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. We can have "some" idea what that means. The Fathers certainly took a stab at it.
Having "some" idea is not the same as knowing.
Kosta: If I invite you and Mark and Irish and all our Freeper Religion Forum friends to a party and some of you show up, while others don't, whose fault is it if those who didn't show up missed a great party? Am I following the leadership of others? Of course not. I make the invitation. Those who show up win, those who don't lose.
FK: But let's say that you WANTED at least 10 people to show up (you thought the party couldn't be a success unless at least 10 showed), but only eight did. Your will has been thwarted by the people and there's nothing you can do about it. The people determined whether you got what you wanted. That doesn't make you a weak person because, hey, you're only human. :) However, that would certainly make for a very weak God.
An invitation is not a summons, FK. Those who don't show up do not make me unscussefful; they miss a great opportunity freely given to them.
Kosta: If I send out invitations only to some and then force them to show up, are they there because they want to be or because they have to be? I think the qualitative difference is obvious. They are there because they must be not because they want to be. It's forced "love" FK. And some people like it that way...
FK: Let's say you invite me and I hem and haw for a while, but then you, knowing that I find a certain food irresistible, tell me that you are serving that food. I then readily accept your gracious invitation. Did you "force" me? No, you gave me an offer I couldn't refuse.
FK, an offer you can't refuse is telling "I either shoot you or you jumpt off this building." If you believe this is how the Christian God operates, then we are a lot farther apart then I ever imagined.
Then animals are "persons" as well.
FK: No, the root word is "person", which excludes animals. I thought that much would be clear.
You said "'personal' means that which personality, distinguishable from others, has the ability to reaosn and love, and communicate with others." The animals don't have personalities that are distinguishable from others of their own kind, have ability to reason (primitive as it may seem to us, but pretty much close to a two-year old, and love and communicate with us in their own ways?
Perosnality is a visible aspect of one's character. The character being the traits. The root is the persona and not person.
Kosta: When did I state that God is irrational?
FK: Many times, on this thread
Oh?
Kosta: His reasons are not our reasons any more than our reasons are reasons of an ant. To claim that God "makes sense" to us is to claim that we make sense to a flatworm, if that much.
FK: OK, there it is. We were both right. What you really meant is that God is irrational TO US. A notion I completely disagree with, but I understand better where you are coming from.
Things can either be reasonable or unreasonable to us. They can eithe make sense or not make sense to us. Because out minds and languages are limited, we know that God, who is beyond everything, is also beyond our comprehension, which is what the Bible tells us when it says that God's ways and throughts are not ours.
Kosta: He humbled Himself and became a flatworm so we could have a personal relationship with Him and know God through our eyes and ears and minds by seeing Him as one of us. Who can love an ineffable entity?
FK: If that is all there is, then how do you explain that in the OT God spoke DIRECTLY and had real conversations with His prophets? Did all of those conversations never happen? ...... God reveals enough of Himself to us such that we are able to love Him.
I don't think the OT God had "conversations" with the prophets and patriarchs. It was more like ordering them to do this or that. Jews did not come to God because they loved him, but because they feared him! God had to prove to them that he is the Lord by showing them what he can do to those who don't obey him. In fact, the Jews took every opportunity to run away from their God. I mean, if you didn't listen to him to the tee, he cold turn you into a pillar of salt! Our knowledge of Christ is nothing like the knowledge of the God of the OT!
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.