Posted on 01/20/2002 5:02:48 PM PST by CCWoody
RnMom said that God doesn't have emotions....that when human kinds of things are mentioned that it's just antropomorphic (and I'm interpreting her, so she needs a chance to respond here, so I've tagged her). Using that principle, one could say that God didn't hate Esau. Nor can we say that God loves. (Both are emotions.)
Nor does God have a hand, even though he covered Moses with his hand.
Let me first say that WM must have some kind of mor-dar; that uncanny ability to know when someone is talking about the LDS. Just like GWB seems to have Bush-dar (I note is recent exchange with Jerry over Hebrews 10:14).
God has emotion, but He does not experience emotion the same way that we do. Therefore, you have to be careful that you don't make God like man. Romans 1:23 anyone?
To explain, we know that God knew before the world was framed that the Man who is His companion would have to Redeem His creation. (I pause to let WM pat himself on the back in his confusion over the Trinity.) Therefore, such events do not come as a suprise to God. He already foreknew what would happen and what he would do; that is, He already knew that He would destroy man from the face of the earth.
Mormons (WM will comment I'm sure) believe that in Genesis 1:26-7 that when God created man in His image that He created man in the form image of God; i.e. His physical likeness. I (and those who agree with me) believe that man was created in His spiritual image.
2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with uncovered face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.Scripture must intrepret scripture. This above verse should statter your view that the Father has a form like that of man. Else, why would we need to be changed into the same image? Additionally, if we are already in the form image of God, then there would have been no need for Christ to change His form:
Philippians 2:5-7 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.Now, if man is in the form image of God, then why did Christ need to assume the form of a servant (man)? And John 4:24 simply says that God is Spirit.
Now, when the Lord spoke to Moses (Exodus 33:11) the Lord spoke to Moses from a cloudy pillar, which is the visible reminder of His presence. He spoke to Moses from a burning Bush. These are hardly evidence that God has a human form.
Now as to your particular reference (Exodus 33:22), God's hand if it was a human hand would be nowhere big enough to protect Moses' face. Nor could a human hand remain in place long enough while God passed by Moses. This should clue you in that these are figurative references.
Aside to WM: I have never seen the Father just like I have never seen the Holy Spirit. But I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit and I have had intimate encounters with the Son. Mormons are just plain wrong, but it is essential to your exhalted man belief.
(I've got five minutes here to jump in.)
But, will you agree with me that the atonement is only effective for those who believe?
The reason I ask is due to your earlier comments on natural theology. Your earlier point seems to be refuted by these comments of yours:
...there is a very real entry to salvation that is controlled by Jesus. "No one comes to the Father except through him."
Hey, you aren't on US soil are you?
Harsh, yes! But you do stand when them on this issue (at least you seem to).
God foreknew all of us (Romans 8:28-30). He fashioned all of us from the womb (Psalm 139). He knew that by creating Esau with certain characteristics that he would hate his birthright because of some kind of intense hunger pangs. Nevertheless for His Glory, he still created Esau.
Romans 9:13-14 As it is written: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."It does not mean what the LDS teaches that their god knew his spirit children from having celestial sex.What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!
For He saith to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy.
For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth."
Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" But nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, "Why hast thou made me thus?" Hath not the potter power over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?
What if God, choosing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and this, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, whom He had prepared before unto glory, even us whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Since you have introduced Genesis Six, how about this verse?
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
What does this do to any contention that man can follow natural revelation and be saved? Coupled with Psalm 14 and Romans 3, it appears that man is totally incapable of any God pleasing action prior to being acted upon by the Spirit of God.
(BTW, I think that this is one of the key issues we should be discussing. All of the recent talk of Luther and the physical body of God are nothing but a smokescreen keeping us from discussing the really important things.)
Notice that this Creator-hating lie from Satan was a PROSPECTIVE lie. Next, notice that any theological position maintaining that man did not really die spiritually in the Fall is necessarily the very same lie, but offered RETROSPECTIVELY.
I assume you can follow my logic, and I submit that it is staggeringly important. Because it is important, I'll ask you to be sure you see what I am saying. In any case, I would like to summarize my point by saying that to maintain that man did not die spiritually in Eden is a deadly heresy. It is Satanic, not Christian.
Alas, this demonic mess fools people. The Lie of Eden, when you think about it, is actually a counterfeit gospel predating the gospel! Satan said, in effect, "God forgives. Don't worry: be happy. Trust me as the messenger. Obey me by believing me and acting on that belief to seal that belief. If you do, I will give you the wisdom of God. In that wisdom, you will have liberty to enjoy life to the fullest extent for the first time. And you will live forever in bliss."
Doc, I've selected the above as the heart of your post. Feel free to correct me.
First, we must try to understand what Adam and Eve took to be the meaning of "Thou shalt sure die." For one, how long were they in the Garden in terms of years? We can accurately deduce, I believe, from the ages of Adam and Seth that are revealed that it was less than 120 years. Therefore, the only experience they would have had of what death meant was for something (animal) in the Garden to have died while they were there. I think one could make a case from things like the world being given over to decay by virtue of the Fall that death didn't exist in the Garden, even among the animals. The truth is that the evidence is scanty, and we just don't know.
We also don't know if Peter's revelation that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years" is the interpretation of God telling Adam that in the "day he eats thereof he will surely die." Adam never reached a thousand in age, nor did any of his descendants. This is a possible interpretation.
I'm struggling to remember the verses that say that the death God was speaking of was a spiritual death. I don't think there are any that explicitly say something like, "The death God meant was a spiritual death."
I believe that is a doctrine that is deduced from other evidence. The best evidence for it in my mind is Jesus' words, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto you that you must be born again...."
Therefore, it is a fair doctrine to say that God meant spiritual death. But it's also obvious that God meant physical death as well (death passed to all men). I believe he meant both spiritual and physical death and that biblically (using Peter's definition of day) that both can be affirmed as truth.
God said "in the day you eat thereof you will surely die." Satan said, "you will not die, but your eyes will be opened." Satan said that God was flat out wrong, thereby lying about God. Then he offered a rationalization for why God would misrepresent the truth to Adam and Eve, i.e., that their eyes would be opened. He used this as an enticement that deceived Eve. Adam disobeyed as well.
Your interpretation said that Satan was in effect saying, ""God forgives. Don't worry: be happy. Trust me as the messenger. Obey me by believing me and acting on that belief to seal that belief. If you do, I will give you the wisdom of God. In that wisdom, you will have liberty to enjoy life to the fullest extent for the first time. And you will live forever in bliss."
1. "God forgives." That is a possibility. Another possibility is not that God will forgive, but rather that "God will be pleased because your eyes are opened."
The problem with this, Doc, is that God DOES FORGIVE. "I would have mercy and not sacrifice."
2. You are implying, of course, that those who preach that God forgives are really just mouthing the words of Satan in the garden.
3. Doc, on the one hand the bible absolutely teaches that God forgives. Hanging on the Cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them." That single verse nails it down. God does forgive.
4. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter preached forgiveness IN CONJUNCTION with repentance (which, of course, presumes faith preceding repentance). Who was the forgiveness from: why God, of course.
5. But your view has merit. Preaching forgiveness without the proper context of repentance and faith is preaching a "nice-guy-in-the-sky" kind of God.
6. Such a "forgiveness only" kind of preaching could be equated with Satan's lie. But that is more like the calvinist "electionism out of the blue" than it is like the wesleyan "repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
Not a smokescreen because I INTENTIONALLY inserted it and admitted to doing so and admitted that I always do so when the opportunity to warn about Luther comes up.
I seized that opportunity when using James to balance our view of Romans 3. In the context of James, Luther comes up. Considering his hatred of Baptists, I'd think you'd be aat a minimum, neutral.
He LOVES us
I said you were attributing am emotion of man to God.."regret" (yes there is a difference)
Can a perfect God .with perfect foreknowledge regret anything? He can with a breath change anything BEFORE it happens..as He purposes all things..
One of the things that your belief demonstrates is the problem of man. The desire to elevate himself to gods level (as we see in the fall and in many of there cults today),or the need to make God nothing more than a super powerful man like himself..
"Ye shall be as gods"
I wasn't assigning blame for the reason that the thread had drifted off topic, only pointing out that it had. However, I notice that while you continue to address the reasons we are discussing Luther (I can take him or leave him, he really doesn't figure much in my thinking.), you didn't address my question about the basic nature of man. This was also obvious in the way that you presented six or seven different interpretations of doc's passage on the Lie of Eden without giving your view on the subject.
Let's cut to the chase:
Is unregenerate man spiritually dead, or just spiritually sick? In all honesty, this is the foundational question that will determine the future direction of all of our important conversations.
I'll let doc respond to your post (no "tag team"), but have you figured out how a Calvinist reads this verse:
Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And they parted His raiment and cast lots.The One cursed and bleeding on a tree: Father, forgive Woody for he knows not what he does.
My body is in California, but my heart is in Bacolod, if you know what I mean.
Hooked, huh???!!!! LOL! (me, too.)
Of course He can....IF the bible SAYS he can, or if the bible PORTRAYS him as capable of or inclined to doing so.
You do believe the bible don't you, Mom?
I know you do. Therefore, what do the words of that passage SAY? I am not asking how they interpret; I'm asking what at face value they say.
Do you believe that God's actions are formed when an emergency arises?
Just as man ,who can not "picture" God gives Him human characteristics .Man that can not understand the wisdom,power and plan of God attribute to Him the emotional attributes that man would have in such circumstances ..
Based on the interpretation of John 3 that I gave above, you must already know that I believe unregenerate man is spiritually dead. At the same time, there is something called a "worm" that exists eternally and can be punished eternally. "Where their worm never dies and the fire is not quenched....(or something like that.) Gotta look that word "worm" up (there is no translation I have that doesn't translate it "worm.")
There is also, of course, the issue of whether "death of spirit" means "extinction." The following verse "12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" is probably to be applied universally. That implies that even unregenerate man is not devoid of a spirit (extinct), but rather is possessed of a dead spirit.
This fits in perfectly with Wesley's view, then, that God has left a "communication device" within the dead spirit of man; i.e., "law of God written on their hearts, their consciences now accusing now excusing them." This fits perfectly with John's "John 1 8 that one was not the Light, but -- that he might testify about the Light. 9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world; 10 in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him:
Jesus therefore does ENLIGHTEN EVERY MAN coming into the world (Young's literal translation.). When enlightened via the light (perhaps via the conscience but not necessary by virtue of John 1:9.) every man then makes an eternal decision. Perhaps, His Spirit strives with some more than with others. That appears to be the case when he says that the children of believers are "set apart = sanctified" by the faith of the parents.
Good advice. Some verse for your consideration:
Isaiah 64:5b-7 You are indeed angry, for we have sinned--In these ways we continue; and we need to be saved.Therefore, what do the words of that passage SAY? I am not asking how they interpret; I'm asking what at face value they say.But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is no one who calls on Your name, who stirs himself up to take hold of You; for You have hidden Your face from us, and have consumed us because of our iniquities.
Romans 3:10-12,23 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They have all gone from the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."... for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Mom, You clearly just dodged that question. It is a pretty tough pitch to hit.
Here's the verse again: (Once in KJV)
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And once in Young's Literal Translation:
6 and Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself -- unto His heart.
I SAY AGAIN: what do the words of that passage SAY? I am not asking how they interpret; I'm asking what at face value they say.
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.