Posted on 01/03/2005 8:18:33 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
On the contrary, I think it's rather plain and obvious. What baffles me is how others do not understand what seems to be a relatively straight forward concept.
This is the way God works in every believer's life. Stepping out of the Calvinist/Arminian message for the moment, God knows our strengths and weaknesses and He provides the right conditions for us to flourish as much as we possibly can.
Saul was no different then you or I. When Nahash the Ammonite came and besieged Jabesh-gilead all the men of Israel wept. But God empowered Saul and Saul knew what to do by God’s Spirit, and under God’s power rallied the troops for a military victory.
God works just the same way in you and me through the gifts and talents of the Holy Spirit to accomplish His will. And when we don’t do according to all what God would prefer us to do it GRIEVES the Spirit (Eph 4:30) which is the same as saying WE grieve the Father. This is no different from God grieving (or repenting) over Saul in 1 Samuel.
We agree totally. How did THAT happen?
Because God created and choose the right person at the right time for the right task.
It's simple. He can pronounce it knowing full well ahead of time whether or not it will be heeded.
The statement "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them" remains valid regardless of whether or not God has a hand in their turning.
It appears that he chose Saul for his plan BECAUSE he knew that Saul would fail, and he chose David BECAUSE he knew that David would succeed where Saul failed.
Indeed God apparently chose these specific men for these specific tasks because of what God knew each would do if placed in that position. And what they did was perfectly according to God's plan, wasn't it?
I believe there are absolutes with things like the natural sciences, but I do not believe there are absolutes when applied to things like morality, spirituality, religions, or other metaphysical subjects.
Yes, but the question remains whether God could have enabled Saul to succeed, and whether God was ultimately responsible for David's success.
So by works you were saved. But just one thing. Seeing that God says we are spirtitually dead. How did you choose ? Can dead people select anything ?
What a fine first absolute. Know test it to see if its true.
It is a belief not an absolute, it cannot be tested. If it can, please show me how.
Interesting.
Paul refers to himself as a bondslave. A bondslave is no longer free. A Bondslave is a slave who when given the choice to be free, exercises that choice to be forever enslaved to his master and thus surrenders any free will that he may have had.
He is then placed into a position where he has voluntarily placed himself into a position where he is "forced" to serve his master.
Who said Saul failed? Saul and his sons had their successes with the Lord. And for all the things Saul did to David, David knew and respected Saul's calling as "the Lord's annointed".
But Saul did some things he shouldn't have done and disobeyed God's command (1 Sam 13). God knew Saul would be disobedient yet He still annointed him king. God created Saul and purposely raised Saul up to do exactly what He wanted him to do. There isn't "success" or "failure" with God.
I would think this principle would be refreshing to understand. God has choosen and redeemed us knowing we will goof up. But success and failure in carrying out God's plan doesn't rest with us. Our failures doesn't affect God's perfect plan or will or the thing He has called us to do in carrying out His plan. Because of His divine gifts all Christians will be successful for what God has called us to do. But our failures along the way only limit the blessings God wants to bestow on us and grieves the God who desires to give us His blessings.
BTW-It also should be noted that God sent kings up to fail as well but Saul was not such a person.
Your statement is itself an absolute.
Can you prove that? If you cannot answer, just say so.
What do you mean by "absolute"? Seriously. I think we must all be using the terms very differently. I would have thought many "absolutes" could not be tested, while my experience and study of the natural sciences leads me to conclude that every statement made has an implied "as far as we now know" attached to it -- which to me means it is very UNabsolute and provisional.
Do you mean to say it can't be tested BECAUSE it is a belief? Golly, we're going to have to find another forum to keep this conversation going!
Tell me this: Do you think you are RIGHT in believing that there are absolutes in the natural sciences. Does being right matter somehow? Do you think we theists are wrong when we say the things we do and do you think (or believe) our being wrong matters?
And if you hold that it does matter to be right or wrong, is that a belief or an absolute? It seems to me, that many of the most important things have to be believed and cannot be known the way we "know" say Newton's First Law. That my child loves me and that it is desperately important that she love me seems to me to be a good bet, but unknowable.
"It's simple. He can pronounce it knowing full well ahead of time whether or not it will be heeded."
So, He can pronounce something as true knowing it is not? That's a terrible position to take.
"Who said Saul failed?"
God. God said He was sorry He made Saul king, you disagree?
"So by works you were saved. But just one thing. Seeing that God says we are spirtitually dead. How did you choose? Can dead people select anything?"
This is bogus exo-theo-nonsense (I'll coin my own ten cent word to sound important)!
If God makes people believe or reject, why does He question aloud when people reject or disobey Him? It makes no sense. It's as if the Lord were perplexed by His own actions or will....
Numbers 14
11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
I'm talking about moral absolutes...I have questioned many here on FR, as to the actual definition of a moral absolute, and I have yet to get a definition, just examples. As you say, many absolutes cannot be tested and have an implied 'as far as we know'. This seems especially true with the ones dealing with religion and morality. This is why I question people that seem convinced their moral and religious views, are 'absolute truths'...perhaps I've missed something, and they can provide some insight...consequently, I am still asking.
All this reinforces my thinking that these morals and religious beliefs are relative.....to the individual, or group of individuals, depending on many variables. Throughout history, it has been shown that some society, tribe, or group of individuals, has condoned things that others, in different times or places, have considered to be wrong or immoral. If there were moral absolutes, or truths, then I would expect that truth to be something self-evident, or inherent in all men, at all times. For lack of being able to present it any better, this was my analogy for the necessity of breathing...something that all men must accept.
While I believe in one, all-knowing and all-powerful God, I also do not believe there is any way to prove it, thus I follow no religion, and accept things as they are.
My, or anyone else, being right or wrong, is not relevant.
We know that God needed to send a savior so its obvious he wasn't pleased.
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.