I'd like to clarify what I have said here. God ceates a plan for those who, by their own free will, choose to do evil, yet effectionately and persuasively works to bring them back to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Some turn away from their sins, others remain in them.
God does not decree any man to be evil, but through free will, man choose to live in absence of God. God shows his glory and victory over their evil deeds, but effectionately and persuasively (tough love) works to bring all men back to the saving knowledge of Christ.
--2680. kataskeuazo kat-ask-yoo-ad'-zo from 2596 and a derivative of 4632; to prepare thoroughly (properly, by external equipment; whereas 2090 refers rather to internal fitness); by implication, to construct, create:--build, make, ordain, prepare. To understand how the word "create" is used in Isaiah 45:7, we must understand the context in which it is used. It means that God prepares ahead of time a purpose for those who, by free will, practice evil.
BTW, the word translated as 'sin' in Isaiah 46:10 in the KJ version of the Bible is better translated as 'calamity'. This is the translation used by the NKJ version and its clearly correct in this context and changes the meaning of the verse significantly.
I have no idea what word you are talking about in Isaiah 46:10. There is no word for sin there. Perhaps you are referring to the word translated evil in the King James version of Isaiah 45:7 which could be translated calamity or even wickedness as it has been in other places. It does not change the force of the argument of this video one iota.
God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass. This is well proven in scripture. He is the ultimate cause of all things. Yet God does NOT sin.
Ooops! I was jumping ahead, yeah its 'evil' in 45:7 I was referring to.
Contrary to what you say, the use of the word 'calamity' very much changes the meaning of the verse and most certainly does not fit into the thinking of this video.
So when God creates or causes a calamity such as the tsunami, it is not considered evil by people? How does the word calamity deny that God predestines all things?
Before we go down this particular avenue re 'natural disasters', I'd be very grateful if you answered my question about the morality of holding the User (as defined in my earlier post) at least as culpable as the actual perpetrator of a crime.
Have I explained this clearly?
This point is very important I think since it goes to the question of what is morality. A fundamental point I think you would agree.
I thought I did answer you. You cannot compare coercion of one man by another to God's predestinating the free will actions of His creatures. The person acts under no compulsion or sense of coercion. The cow is not forced to eat grass instead of pizza or the lion flesh instead of icecream. Man sins willingly. I pointed out that by your comparison of God's decree with man's actions you have compared a raisin with a watermellon. GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT is the main video in this series. Watch it:)
GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT - Yes but His rule must always be moral/good or He ceases being righteous.
Its quite illogical to say that God predestines man's free will.
A person may not feel compulsion or coercion to be under the control of another to such a degree that the User/controller is at least equally culpable for the criminal action of the controlled party.
The fact that the actual perpetrator had no qualms about committing the crime is irrelevant, His User/controller is guilty.
You haven't answered my question. Where humans are involved, is it right that a User/controller should not be held guilty of a crime he brought about just because the actual physical perpetrator had no qualm about committing the crime and was unaware that he was being controlled by someone else to commit the crime?
Just for now keep this to the human level only.
It may be that what you are saying is that with God we need a different definition of morality?
I am not talking about humans so don't really care about keeping this on the human level only. If I did do so, however, I might point out that NO human is capable of controling another in the same manner as God is. Even Charles Manson couldn't do that.If they could they would be guilty as well.
When I talk of judging God I'm not using 'judging' in the sense of being in a court of law. I would have thought that was obvious. When we get to know someone we 'judge' their character in the sense of assessing the traits of the person we are getting to know. We do this with God just the same. It is impossible for us to do otherwise as we get to know Him better over the years and as we develop and grow as Christians.
As we mature as Christians over the years we understand Him in a deeper way. To use an analogy, I got to know my human father in a deeper way as I went from infant, to boy, to young man etc. At different stages of my growing up I 'assessed / judged' my dad afresh. God is not affronted by my 'judging' Him in the sense of assessing His character - how could He be, its normal and part of being in a relationship.
It is clear that God has decreed that certain events are to happen knowing full well that a consequence of His decree is that some will sin and that He did not intervene to stop those from sinning.
However, it is not His desire that men sin. His desire in decreeing the event was for a holy righteous purpose. God would have preferred men not to sin (read Ezekiel 18) so to say that God decrees sin is a travesty.
If I as the owner of a piece of land which has been illegally possessed by a violent group of people gain a court order allowing me to repossess my land by force if necessary the fact that when I do repossess a squatter shoots at and kills an assisting deputy can in no way be interpreted as anyone - either me or the judge or the sheriff - having decreed a wrongful act (sin) despite the fact that we all knew there would be 'trouble'. This is not simply a question of semantics either.
And just who is it that has created this standard by which God is to be judged or cease being righteous? Does God do things BECAUSE they are right? or are things RIGHT because God does them? You say it is "quite illogical to say that God predestinates man's free will." How or why is that so? It is not illogical at all. God predestines man to act freely.NOTHING is out of God's sovereign control.You also seem to confuse God's will in the sense of His precepts with His will in the sense of decrees.
Paul shows us in Romans 2 that the heathens knows right from wrong. After Adam sinned he knew 'good and evil'. He didn't lose his understanding of what was right - that is God given and we know inherently that some things are wrong becuase it is a standard that God Himself gave us. "Will the God of all the Earth not do what is right..?" was Abraham's question.
You seem to think that because He is sovereign He can play fast and loose with what is and what is not righteous - but He can't. And yes I can, despite being a mere man, say that because God is unchangeable and therefore what constitutes righteousness is unchangeable. It follows that if it is wrong for a man to compel another man to commit sin, then it would be equally wrong for God to compel man to commit sin.
God doesn't compel anyone to sin. And how does it POSSIBLY follow logically that what is wrong for a man to do is also wrong for God? Can God murder? Can He lie, steal, commit adultery, profane the sabath? Where are His parents that He should have to honor or obey? Why are you to judge the potter but an insignificant lump of clay. If he wants to make an ashtray or spitoon out of you instead of a piece of art, that is His business and your feeble complaints are sinful and ridiculous to boot!
The point is that God absolutely hates sin. God is unchangeable so what constitutes righteousness is also unchangeable. What God determines to be will be therefore for God to decree (which means to command) sin makes Him the author of sin - even Jonathan Edwards could see that. God, if you like, would have sinned vicariously.
If what you say is right, God could torture a child for fun and in so doing He would be acting righteously because He would be doing it. Your thinking is so flawed.
No, sir, YOU are flawed! God did NOT command sin. God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass.God does not command sin but He does decree sin Sin is violation of His laws. Does God also eat grass because the cow does? God's decree is NOT the same as His commands for us to obey or His precepts.
"The term 'will' is ambiguous. The Ten Commandments are God's preceptive will. They command men to do this and refrain from that. They state what OUGHT to be done; but they neither state or cause what is done. God's decretive will, however, as contrasted with His precepts, causes every event."
To decree sin is to command the committing of sin. Look up the meaning of the two verbs. In fact the verb to decree has the stronger sense of ordering that something is done (sin in this case) because it is only someone in actual power/authority who can decree though the verb to command usually implies that someone in power is issuing an order to do something.
You either don't understand the English language or you are committing a very serious blasphemy.
I am sending you my newest video that deals with the subject of God's will-- DOES GOD HAVE TWO WILLS? The word will is ambiguous. It can refer to the Ten Commandments or God's preceptive will. It can also refer to God's decrees.
And do you think ANYTHING happens outside of God's control?
"And do you think ANYTHING happens outside of God's control?" - what do you mean by control? Talk about ambiguity.
The decree - a word which has as its primary meaning an order from one in authority - of an omnipotent ruler would be utterly irresistible. If God decrees sin then He is the direct cause of sin or to put it another way He becomes the fountain or source of sin. The exact opposite to what He actually is. If this is what you mean heaven help you if not you are misusing language.
Perhaps you can explain the ambiguity in the word or my use of the word control. God is either in control of His creation OR somethings are not in His control. It is really that simple.
Just because we assert God decrees whatsoever comes to pass it does not follow He is the immediate or direct cause. In case you missed it, THAT was the point of the video. God decrees sin but does NOT commit sin.
Actually, God is the fountain or source of absolutelyi everything that exists.
I'll look at your new video in some detail and get back to you (probably in the comment section of that video).
What is scary with this video is that what you come over as saying here is so close to certain Islamic thinking about Allah's character as to be scary for a Christian to be saying it - this is the opinion of a friend of mine who converted from Islam to Christianity and her husband who has many active Islamic contacts.
Let me ask YOU; just WHAT is scary about God being sovereign and in control of all things? Who would YOU prefer to be in control? Perhaps sinful man? Perhaps fate or kismet like the Muslims?
Just because Christianity and Islam have some things in common, it does not make the two equal. There is NO doctrine of grace in Islam. There is NO atonement. They do NOT believe in justification by faith. We should be comforted by a loving Father who controls all things. We should trust Him implicitly.
In Romans 2 Paul shows only that the heathen has a conscience that alternately aquits or condemns them but is NEVER a basis to be judge a holy God but only themselves. Something is right because God does it. He does not do it because it is right and forms a standard He must obey.
No, we do NOT determine whether or not God is righteous. God is righteous by definition and we are NOT!. Why would Jesus have to say anything about God's eternal decrees in the first place?
Are you not intending to answer my question? Its a fair question.
You say you answered it earlier but I would say that you didn't answer it rather you dismissed it by claiming I was not comparing like with like, drawing some comical analogies and saying your view was well proven.
Will you not address the question I ask in a substantive manner?
How can u say that man sins freely and willingly at the same time as saying that God has decreed the sin - "who has resisted His will?"
In all developed nations where an individual ("the User") is able to force another person to commit a criminal act then the User is culpable for the crime as if he had committed the act himself. How is it you don't see this?
Why do you persist in comparing the actions of God with those of one man coercing another. God predestines man and man does it willingly. How is it you don't see this. You have compared raisins with watermellons.
The Fall did not cause unregenerate man to lose the ability to discern right from wrong in itself. It prevented him from doing what is right when the 'chips are down'.
The reason the User is guilty in my example is because it would be immoral for it to be otherwise - do you not agree (please address this point)?
If so it would be just as immoral for God to decree someone to sin ("who has resisted His will") and not be directly responsible for the committing of the sin.
We must think about this issue in light of Eph 1:11. I am glad the teaching was clear and hopefully at least a bit enjoyable and not a chore to watch. I agree with you about videos that run too long. I try to keep mine short. 5 Minutes is tops but3 is better. God bless.
I learned something new by watching your video this evening! I Love learning from God's Word and it gives me so much Peace. I for one (and wish everyone would, but understand why they may never and some will never) Love it that our Father and our Savior and Lord Jesus is in Total Control of Absolutely Everything!!!!!!! I am at Peace with this and I understand what you are teaching in this video! Thank You Brother! Agape!
The Westminster Confession of Faith, and other Reformed Creeds have defined the historic faith. It is heretics such as yourself who seriously need to realize you are out of step with the word of God.
I didn't know you were a papist! Obviously you think the Roman Catholic Church to be the definers of orthodoxy. You need to look up the word in a good dictionary. Stay on topic please. Oh, BTW, have you said your rosary today? LOL
This video and similar stuff propogated by the likes of James White constitute the grossest defamation of God's character imaginable.
The word transliterated into Greek as 'ra' which is said to mean 'evil' is better translated as 'calamity' in the context of the scriptures quoted in this video - very different.
I can only assume that those who believe as Bloggrich does haven't ever had any real direct personal experience of the Living God.
If as Bloggrich says "God predestines everything that comes to pass both good and evil" then it must follow that God predestined man to sin willingly and freely otherwise God didn't predestine everything. So God must be totally responsible for every sin.
What blasphemous rubbish - what a mess your heart and mind are in Bloggrich to subscribe to such awfulness.
You and those who believe this doctrine are more damaging to the Body of Christ than ever Todd Bentley was - and TB was bad enough!
See our video THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.
Sinners and God haters always find a sovereign or omnipotent God repulsive. For this very reason they fashion a golden calf for themselves that they can worship in His place. The Arminian god is just such an idol. The damnable heresy of a free will that is beyond God's control is its creed. Repent!
You are the one in need of repentance. Have the courage to address the point raised like a man and stop hiding behind empty rhetoric and strawmen arguments. Then read Ezekiel 18 - how does your perverted doctrine explain this scripture Bloggrich?
I appreciate that debating someone very young whose Bible knowledge is not too extensive is an easier option Bloggrich, but I had hoped you would address the question I posed and the additional question relating to Ezekiel 18.
Yeah, no offence. You only need to keep to one or two points to show how wrong this thinking is. Bloggrich like most who use humanist thinking will try to pull you this way and that in order to avoid the obvious.
You make some excellent points.
I find Hyper Calvinists to be the greasiest of greased eels in these debates and was hoping to get Bloggrich55 to respond to the points I raised here and on another of his videos.
1 - Can God be truly "All-Powerful" yet still leave certain events within the control of His individual creations (human beings).
No, Gregory, for an all powerful Being to leave certain events within the control of His individual creations is for an all powerful Being to cease to be all powerful. Your question is inherently self-contradictory and therefore illogical.
2 - Can God truly be "All-Good" and yet still decree - and thus be the initial cause of - all actions, including those which are evil.
Yes.Anything God does is by definition good simply because there is no superior standard of goodness by which to judge Him. See our attached video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT and please pay careful attention to what is said in that video. God is the initial cause of all things because there was no one else there during the initial act of creation.
Per your answer to "1", I can infer that you equate "Power" with "Control". This is where we part ways, for I hold to the traditional view that "all-powerful" is a description of God's abilities only.
Rather than God being in control of every event within the universe, I would contend that "all-powerful" means simply that God has the ability to do anything which He wills to do.
Per your answer to "2" (and that other "video" which you mentioned), I see that we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding God's goodness and the nature of morality.
Without being too detailed, I hold to the position that moral law is not arbitrarily determined by God, but is in fact intrinsic to His nature. In other words, He is not omni-benevolent merely because whatever He does is by definition moral, but because in accordance with His nature, He does only that which is moral.
Note: In regards to "2", this is not to say that there is anything outside of God which determines what is right and what is wrong. It is still God who determines what is right and what is wrong, but the basis for these moral laws is not His will, but His very nature.
In other words, God is repulsed by the idea of murder or rape just as fundamentally He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
As such, we have no fear that God will all-of-a-sudden decree that, for instance, child molestation is now a moral duty. Such a decree is beyond the bounds of God's very nature.
Gregory, omnipotence that is not exercised ceases to be omnipotence. An all powerful Being who gives up some of His power ceases to be all powerful. Your position is actually a denial of the sovereignty of God and your understanding of omnipotence is really not that of omnipotence at all but a denial of omnipotence.
I have to run for a couple of hours and can't respond now but will be back soon. Please feel free to proceed as you choose Gregory and God bless you young brother!
I suppose we can come back to the second question later.
Now for "1". I think you illustrated very well where we disagree. You seem to be operating under the assumption that "Power" and "Control" are the same thing.
Therefore, "All-Powerful" would be synonymous with "All-Controlling". And so, likewise, to say that God does not control (literally) everything is to deny omnipotence.
But you see, I have a subtly different view of what omnipotence actually is and what it entails.
I think I can best illustrate my point through the use of an illustration.
Imagine, for the moment, a strongman at a carnival. But not just any strongman. Let us assume that this strongman is capable of lifting a potentially infinite amount of weight.
Any object you bring to him he can lift, no matter how heavy it may be. Thus, he can be said to possess infinite strength.
But the fact that this strongman has infinite strength does not itself entail that he is always lifting weights. He may put down an object for the moment in order to pick up another, or not lift any object at all, should he so choose. Though his strength is infinite, it is of course at his own discretion what objects, if any, he decides to lift.
The same could be said for God. He has infinite power, but that in itself does not imply that He exercises all said power at every opportunity.
Omnipotence as a concept is a potentiality, not an actuality. In other words, though God possesses the ability to control everything within the Universe, He is not required to control everything within the Universe. That is His choice.
To the degree that God relinquishes some of His power or control to His creation to that degree God ceases to be all powerful; to that degree He ceases to be in control. God cannot be all powerful and limited in power at the same time. You have reduced God's omnipotence to a mere potentiality. You do not believe that God is actually omnipotent.
If God is not in control of all things then some things are out of His control. Are we to suppose that God must adjust His plans as these events occur?
You need to go by what the Bible says and NOT by Aristotle's vain philosophical Theory of Potentiality and Actuality. It didn't do much to help Thomas Aquinas.
Not only that but if God has to constantly adjust Himself to events supposedly out of His control, then He is NOT immutable.
"I hold to the position that moral law is not arbitrarily determined by God..."
The word "arbitrary" is a perfect example of where we need to avoid equivocation for it can have different meanings. One meaning given in Merriam Webster;s Unabridged dictionary is:
"Despotic; absolute in power; bound by no law."
If by arbitrary you mean capricious we reject that. However if you mean the only potentate and supreme Being who is outside of any law and answerable to no one, we agree. Soooo.....
It is important to know what the root-meaning of arbitrary is. "Augustine wrote a book on De Libero Arbitrio: On Free Will. Erasmus used the same title, to which Luther replied with his famous De Servo Arbitrio. Arbitrium means the will; and to say that God does not will, does not decree or act by arbitrio is to contradict a large section of Scripture.The trouble is the word arbitrary has at least two very different meanings in English.
If morality is not determined by God's will (commands) then what, precisely, is it determined by? As far as God decreeing, all of a sudden, that "child molestation is now a moral duty," we must remember that the cannon of scripture is closed. In the Bible we have the complete preceptive will of God. The 10 commandments are not restrictions on God Himself but directed towards us.
1 - I have twice now pointed out this equation that you make between power and control. Though you have not directly acknowledged that that is what you are doing, you seem to be self-aware in this respect. Thus, I would like you to give support for this equation, as most of what you have said seems to presuppose that they are synonymous.
As far as "reducing" God's omnipotence to a "mere" potentiality, this is hardly a criticism.
I am merely arguing that omnipotence is necessarily a potentiality. in other words, I am not saying that God is "potentially omnipotent", I am saying that omnipotence is necessarily a measure of a being's potential, as with my illustration regarding the strongman.
Speaking of the strongman. I spent quite a bit of thought on that one. I was rather disappointed to find that you didn't address it.
- If God is not in control of all things then some things are out of His control. -
I'll hardly try to argue with that. But I will have you note that these things would only be "out of His control" insofar as He allows them to be. If He wishes to take control of them, He may do so without resistance, as the strongman takes up his weights.
You and I both know that this is a false dilemma. And, if you've read Aquinas, you'll know my answer to it.
But I won't be vague. As I said in my previous comments, I believe that morality is not grounded in God's commands, but His very nature, which is then expressed through His commands.
- ...we must remember that the cannon of scripture is closed. -
As a thought experiment, then, let us assume we are having this discussion pre - cannon closure. How about now? Have we any security that God will not simply decide that we are morally obliged to kill each-other, to worship false gods, or to commit adultery?
"He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?" Dan 4:35
Does He only potentially do according to His will or does He actually do according to His will?
"having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Eph1:11
Does He only potentially work all things or does He actually work all things after the counsel of His will?
"The scriptures very clearly teach that all things outside of God owe not merely their original creation, but their continued existence, with all their properties and power, to the will of God. He upholds all things by the word of His power, He 1:3 He is before all things and in Him all things consist Col 1:17...In Him we live and move and have our being Acts 17:28 Boettner REF DOCT OF PREDESTINATION pg 35
Your illustration of the strong man fails because the relation between the strongman and his barbells is not the same as the relation between God and His creation. The barbells do not depend upon the strongman for their creation or their continued existence whereas creation depends upon God for its moment by moment existence. Thus God is constantly upholding or lifting up His "barbells" or creation.
"The assertion that God can but does not exercise control is, by the Bible, false. The Bible repeatedly asserts, not that God can but does not, but that God does exercise this control. This is what Psalm 105:25 says: "He turned their heart to hate His people." The whole Psalm is a list of things that God not only can do, but has done...if hatred were merely an emotion, the verse would still show that God controls the conscious mental activities of men." BIBLICAL PREDESTINATION GH Clark pg 126
"Ezra 6:22 says 'For the a Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the King of Assyria unto them.' Note, God not only could; He did. There is no abdication of power. Next, 1Samuel 2:6-7 says 'The Lord killeth and maketh alive: He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich: he bringeth low and lifteth up.' He not only can; He does."
Dr. Gordon H Clark BIBLICAL PREDESTINATION page 126
Gregory I have more comments to follow up with but will have to wait until tomorrow to address some of the other things you said. It is time for bed. Take care.
It is not so much that I equate the two as that I assert the logical relationship between them. To the degree God limits His power to that degree He limits His control. I asked you, does God adjust His plans as these out-of-control events occur and you said no, "He includes the actions of free agents within His plans in the first place."
If they are already included in His plans in the first place how then can it be said they were ever out of His control?
Gregory, if this is a false dilemma or false dichotomy you should be able to state the tertium quid. Are you saying morality is based on God's nature? How does one obey a nature? We can obey the commands of God as He has revealed them to us in His law. See our video DID GOD CREATE MORALITY which is attached to our video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT.
You should also look up Deut 29:29 and take it prayerfully to heart. God has not revealed everything there is to know about His nature Gregory.
The various quotes you gave simply do not serve to answer the question which was put forward at the beginning of this thread.
Remember what the original question was: "Can God be truly "All-Powerful" yet still leave certain events within the control of His individual creations (human beings)."
That is the statement you must address, but those verses and Clark's posturing, at best, prove that God DOES control all events and decisions, but they say nothing about whether He MUST.
You seem to be missing the point of my illustration, since your reply does not appear to address the relevant portions of my narrative. I would suggest going through the previous comments and taking more care to notice where in the discussion I used the illustration and why.
I don't see why they would have to be within His control in order for Him to plan for them. We plan for things out of our control, and we aren't even omniscient.
Due to God's omniscience, it seems He could plan for any future event, whether He Himself caused the event or not.
As for the last statement, I did state the tertium quid. I Am saying morality is based upon God's nature, which is then expressed through His commands.
Do we obey His nature? No, we obey His commands, be they written on paper or on one's own heart. But nevertheless, God cannot cease hating extortion, lying, lust, etc. any more than He can cease being omnipresent. In this way, such immorality was wrong long before Moses came down from the mountain, and will continue to be wrong long after.
If you ask me, the idea that morality begins and ends with God's commands makes a mockery of God's benevolence. For to say that "God is good" while holding that God is led by no moral standards is like saying "God is wise" while holding that He is led by no standards of logic or reason.
"If you ask me, the idea that morality begins and ends with God's commands makes a mockery of God's benevolence." (ThatChristian)
Young man, are you seriously talking about the God of the Bible here? Because if you are, you have made HIm into a being of your own liking with language like that! What do you think the 10 Commandments are? Thou shalt not murder? Thou shalt not commit adultery? Thou shalt not covet? Thou shalt not bear false witness?
What laws of ethics, morality, or reason do you refer to that God must follow and obey to avoid making a mockery of YOUR concept of His benevolence. Who gave these laws that God Himself must obey.
So when I asked if God does something because it is right or rather it is right because God does it, and you squeeled "false dilemma," you were wrong! You assumed all along that God is subject to certain criterion. You say these laws are written in mans heart but seem to forget Jer 17:9 Gregory.
Gregory the laws written in our hearts are commandments for us to obey and not restrictions on God. He is the Potter and we are the clay. Will we presume to judge Him? Also you seem to have no problem accepting the idea that God is outside of or unbound by time and space. Yet why do you balk at the idea He is also unbound by morality. Lastly, does His omni-benevolence extend to people in hell?
"...I will have you note that these things would only be 'out of His control' in so far as He allows them to be. If He wishes to take control of them, He may do so without resistance, as the strong man takes up his weights."
Q: Would it not be a violation of the immutability of God if He were to go from being out of control to in control? Besides, how could these things ever have been out of His control if God knew everything ahead of time?
You obviously reject the theology found in the Westminster Confession of Faith on predestination. It would seem you must also reject Luther's viiews as expressed in THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL as well.
Let me help you with this issue of control. If I as the Chief Exec of a company see one of my staff not about to do what I had told him to do and decide to let that instance slide, in what way have I lost control?
Let me tell you that when you run a company you do choose to let some things slide since people being people they don't always do as they ought yet at no time am I out of control of my company by doing this.
"As for the last statement, I did state the tertium quid. I Am saying morality is based upon God's nature, which is then expressed through His commands." (ThatChristian)
Did you just SAY that? Did you see what you said in another comment that I answered? You are totally and utterly contradicting yourself in this comment section, ThatChristian, and you are flooding the comment section with your own, comments, making it difficult for us to understand what you are even TRYING to say!.
As for the first comment, I am having trouble identifying exactly what the point of it was. It was not particularly clear. Perhaps you should rephrase it, or elaborate in some way, because I can't really discern any sort of argument from it.
For the second, I don't remember you responding to anything I had said previously on that topic. Perhaps you could remind me?
Also, I am not sure what I am doing could be called "flooding", considering that Bloggrich himself has been there with me, giving me tit for tat.
As for being condescending, I know that I could do with a more steady diet of humble pie. But, luckily, God is working with me on that, and I occasionally have the presence of mind to catch myself on those occasions when that has been more true than not.
As for being illogical, well, since you didn't point out any specific fallacies which I have committed, there's really no way I can respond to such a blanket assertion at the moment. Perhaps you could provide some examples?
As for having removed my comments, I did so, as I stated to an understanding Richard, because I wasn't particular proud of them. Though I think what I said previously was mostly accurate, I also think the previous conversation, as a whole, was mostly unhelpful toward the purpose of promoting better understanding of the issues raised.
As my gracious "opponent" put it, it produced more "heat" than "light".
So I removed the comments, to give the new conversation a totally clean slate.
With all due respect, you just don't seem to be paying much attention, for again you ask a question which I have already answered. I said God's moral code is found within His own nature, and then you ask where His moral code comes from?
But I will also add that He is not "required" to follow them, He just does. Just like He is not "required" to be omnipotent. He just is.
I am not judging God, nor can anyone, for everything God does is righteous. But it is not so simply because God does it that it then becomes righteous.
To say God is unbound by time and space is not the same as saying He is "unbound" by morality. For starters, since when is total goodness a limitation?
And yes, God's omni-benevolence extends to all people. God's punishment of the wicked is just. And since it is just, it is good.
Finally, I judge Orthodoxy by the standards found in scripture, as should you. Martin Luther is not God, nor is he even an apostle. What he writes is not scripture. Though I admire the man, I am not going to blindly follow everything that came from his pen.
I will end this round with a reminder to please keep this discussion civil. Now, if you would like, you may go ahead and reply.
The reasons I asked you the same question over again is because I don't think you answered it adequately the first time. It was not a matter of forgetfulness on my part. You still have not explained how events that occur in time can be out of control when an omniscient Being made His plan in eternity. How can anything be out of His control?
It would seem you don't have a problem with God adjusting His plan as events occur. Do you consider this the orthodox uhderstanding of immutability?
I never said he was. I was asking you to define your theological position. Saying you believe the Bible is not sufficient. I make the same claim. I will clearly state my position. I believe orthodoxy to be the doctrines as stated in the Westminster Confession and other Reformed statements of Faith. Therefore I ask you the question...
What do you mean by orthodoxy. Can you please point to a statement of faith you agree with?
- What do you mean by orthodoxy. Can you please point to a statement of faith you agree with? -
Certainly. I agree with the Nicene Creed, for example.
But the ultimate authority is not statements of faith from people within certain religious movements. I believe Christ is fully capable of speaking for Himself through scripture.
The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical creed and I accept it as much as you do. What I am asking for is a statement of faith that lays out the system of beliefs you have expressed in these comments In particular the idea that God lets things get out of His control.
For the 3rd time I must ask you to define orthodoxy.
Well, since getting this particular question wrong does not make you a heretic, I don't know that any Creed or Confession is necessary to affirm one's position on it. And this whole little side-discussion really is rather irrelevant. I'd like us to get back to the topic at hand.
If you want a DEFINITION of the word "orthodox", try "Conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church." That seems to be a fairly good definition to me.
Gregory, on your channel page you said, "Misinformation about the orthodox doctrines of Christianity thrive. So what good will proving traditional Christianity be if so few make an effort to present what we mean by Christianity itself? That is where I think I come in. The main focus of this channel is going to be geared toward presenting a consistent understanding of Christian doctrine."
How can you present the orthodox teachings of Christianity if you cannot even produce a statement of faith which defines what those doctrines are. What statement of faith can you produce which teaches that God has decided to allow some of His creation to be our of His control? You are beginning to sound like a rogue Christian especially when taking your age into account. Frankly you sound somewhat arrogant.
Once again I ask you: What do you mean by orthodoxy?
By the way, I am not asking you for a definition of the word "orthodox" itself. I'm asking for a statement of faith that defines what the orthodox doctrines of Christianity are that you mention on your channel page.I would expect such a statement of faith to included your belief that God leaves some things out of His control.
Why? Why would such a thing be included in one's statement of faith? As I said before, this particular issue is not a matter of orthodoxy or heresy. It is an in-house discussion, as it were.
Now, could we please get back to the actual issue we have been discussing? We can talk about what constitutes orthodoxy some other time. That topic warrants a whole thread all to itself. For now, we have a completely different topic to discuss.
"Why would such a thing be included in one's statement of faith?"
The reason to include it in a statement of faith is because it is important concerning the sovereignty of God and whether God's will is ultimate or man's will. Our statement of faith does address this issue in chapter #3. You have presented no statement of faith whatsoever nor have you pointed out any group of believers that you identify yourself with concerning this issue.
We have presented a number of Bible passages backing up our position while you have presented none. As to the creeds, the Nicene Creed for example was in opposition to Arianism. So creeds are not only statements of what the Church believes but they also serve to point out heresy and errors.
It seems like your basic argument is more academic and philosophical than biblical when you say, "Omnipotence as a concept is a potentiality not an actuality." Our main concern is to be biblical...
Our main concern is to be biblical and if we have shown that the Bible teaches that God does indeed exercise His omnipotence then our task is done. But speaking philosophically we can say:
"God is not a passive or potential substratum; He is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the biblical idea that God is a living God." LOGIC page 122 Dr.Gordon H Clark
The Bible clearly teaches that the will of man is not outside of God's control "For God is at work in you BOTH to will and to do for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13 In Acts 13:48 it teaches that the reason people believed in God was because God ordained them to believe. They were NOT ordained because they believed. It is God's will that is ultimate and not man's and this indeed is properly included in a statement of faith.
Since you refuse to name a group of believers you identify with or produce a statement of faith you consider the orthodox teachings of Christianity, including your teaching that God leaves part of His creation out of His control, I see no reason to contrinue this discussion.
Your mentioning of Aquinas would lead me to believe you have Roman Catholic sympathies. In any case we wish you well.
I suppose I'll let you have the last word on this. But let it be noted that you have abandoned any defense of your position on the original questions posed in this thread.
This conversation has gone on long enough. I hope we can part on friendly terms, even if the discussion appears to cease to be so.
If anyone does not confess that God the Word was twice begotten, the first before all time from the Father, non- temporal and bodiless, the other in the last days when he came down from the heavens and was incarnate by the holy, glorious, God-bearer, ever-virgin Mary, and born of her, let him be anathema. - Second Council of Constantinople
Q: Rich, do you accept the authority of this council?
Do you? What part of the Westminster Confession of Faith and other REFORMED creeds do you fail to understand? I also don't accept the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. LOL
God does NOT "force" people to commit evil acts. He decrees and ordains, but man is the culpable one and will be held so by a Holy God. If you believe God is ABSOLUTELY Sovereign, you will not have a problem with these difficult teachings and they will cause you to LOVE this God all the more because He has jealously done it all for HIS Children - no one else!
I have posted FOUR videos for this unbeliever to watch. I am sure he/she will find much to say about them, however, you must know that over the next two days, I will be posting the two final videos in this series "Uncomfortable - The God Who Disquiets Our Souls"
Please do not make the God of the Bible, Jehovah God, out into an image of your own making. You say you believe every jot and tittle of the Bible? - try these for size and see what the Bible REALLY says about our God!
Good video!
theocratickingdom30 5 months ago
@theocratickingdom30 Thanks brother! God bless you!
Blogrich55 5 months ago
@ele12957returns
1."Charles Manson didn't kill anyone either but he is in jail for murder"
Charles Manson had someone to answer to. God doesn't!
2."Can God decree something that doesn't happen?" Absolutely NOT! God cannot FAIL!
3."If not than his decree makes him capable..."
It does not make Him "culpable" because God has NO ONE to answer to.
4."Can you show me where Jesus decreed sin?"
It is not necessary to do so.
Haven't you seen our video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT? You should!
Blogrich55 7 months ago
I'd like to clarify what I have said here. God ceates a plan for those who, by their own free will, choose to do evil, yet effectionately and persuasively works to bring them back to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Some turn away from their sins, others remain in them.
MrSMS1976 2 years ago
God does not decree any man to be evil, but through free will, man choose to live in absence of God. God shows his glory and victory over their evil deeds, but effectionately and persuasively (tough love) works to bring all men back to the saving knowledge of Christ.
MrSMS1976 2 years ago
The Greek work for create is:
--2680. kataskeuazo kat-ask-yoo-ad'-zo from 2596 and a derivative of 4632; to prepare thoroughly (properly, by external equipment; whereas 2090 refers rather to internal fitness); by implication, to construct, create:--build, make, ordain, prepare. To understand how the word "create" is used in Isaiah 45:7, we must understand the context in which it is used. It means that God prepares ahead of time a purpose for those who, by free will, practice evil.
MrSMS1976 2 years ago
@MrSMS1976 Free will is complete and utter rubish. Im amazed that people still fall for that hogcrap.
chefshitpiece 8 months ago
great video Rich. Thanks for sending it to me. :) Great explanation, never thought of it like that. God bless!
innocenceagain 2 years ago
Hope it helped you Eden:) You might check out the others in the brief series. God bless you.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
BTW, the word translated as 'sin' in Isaiah 46:10 in the KJ version of the Bible is better translated as 'calamity'. This is the translation used by the NKJ version and its clearly correct in this context and changes the meaning of the verse significantly.
raxorules 2 years ago
I have no idea what word you are talking about in Isaiah 46:10. There is no word for sin there. Perhaps you are referring to the word translated evil in the King James version of Isaiah 45:7 which could be translated calamity or even wickedness as it has been in other places. It does not change the force of the argument of this video one iota.
God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass. This is well proven in scripture. He is the ultimate cause of all things. Yet God does NOT sin.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Ooops! I was jumping ahead, yeah its 'evil' in 45:7 I was referring to.
Contrary to what you say, the use of the word 'calamity' very much changes the meaning of the verse and most certainly does not fit into the thinking of this video.
raxorules 2 years ago
So when God creates or causes a calamity such as the tsunami, it is not considered evil by people? How does the word calamity deny that God predestines all things?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Before we go down this particular avenue re 'natural disasters', I'd be very grateful if you answered my question about the morality of holding the User (as defined in my earlier post) at least as culpable as the actual perpetrator of a crime.
Have I explained this clearly?
This point is very important I think since it goes to the question of what is morality. A fundamental point I think you would agree.
So if you would address it i'd be grateful.
raxorules 2 years ago
I thought I did answer you. You cannot compare coercion of one man by another to God's predestinating the free will actions of His creatures. The person acts under no compulsion or sense of coercion. The cow is not forced to eat grass instead of pizza or the lion flesh instead of icecream. Man sins willingly. I pointed out that by your comparison of God's decree with man's actions you have compared a raisin with a watermellon. GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT is the main video in this series. Watch it:)
Blogrich55 2 years ago
GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT - Yes but His rule must always be moral/good or He ceases being righteous.
Its quite illogical to say that God predestines man's free will.
A person may not feel compulsion or coercion to be under the control of another to such a degree that the User/controller is at least equally culpable for the criminal action of the controlled party.
The fact that the actual perpetrator had no qualms about committing the crime is irrelevant, His User/controller is guilty.
raxorules 2 years ago
You haven't answered my question. Where humans are involved, is it right that a User/controller should not be held guilty of a crime he brought about just because the actual physical perpetrator had no qualm about committing the crime and was unaware that he was being controlled by someone else to commit the crime?
Just for now keep this to the human level only.
It may be that what you are saying is that with God we need a different definition of morality?
raxorules 2 years ago
I am not talking about humans so don't really care about keeping this on the human level only. If I did do so, however, I might point out that NO human is capable of controling another in the same manner as God is. Even Charles Manson couldn't do that.If they could they would be guilty as well.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
(1 of 4)
When I talk of judging God I'm not using 'judging' in the sense of being in a court of law. I would have thought that was obvious. When we get to know someone we 'judge' their character in the sense of assessing the traits of the person we are getting to know. We do this with God just the same. It is impossible for us to do otherwise as we get to know Him better over the years and as we develop and grow as Christians.
raxorules 2 years ago
(2 of 4)
As we mature as Christians over the years we understand Him in a deeper way. To use an analogy, I got to know my human father in a deeper way as I went from infant, to boy, to young man etc. At different stages of my growing up I 'assessed / judged' my dad afresh. God is not affronted by my 'judging' Him in the sense of assessing His character - how could He be, its normal and part of being in a relationship.
raxorules 2 years ago
(3 of 4)
It is clear that God has decreed that certain events are to happen knowing full well that a consequence of His decree is that some will sin and that He did not intervene to stop those from sinning.
However, it is not His desire that men sin. His desire in decreeing the event was for a holy righteous purpose. God would have preferred men not to sin (read Ezekiel 18) so to say that God decrees sin is a travesty.
raxorules 2 years ago
(4 of 4)
If I as the owner of a piece of land which has been illegally possessed by a violent group of people gain a court order allowing me to repossess my land by force if necessary the fact that when I do repossess a squatter shoots at and kills an assisting deputy can in no way be interpreted as anyone - either me or the judge or the sheriff - having decreed a wrongful act (sin) despite the fact that we all knew there would be 'trouble'. This is not simply a question of semantics either.
raxorules 2 years ago
And just who is it that has created this standard by which God is to be judged or cease being righteous? Does God do things BECAUSE they are right? or are things RIGHT because God does them? You say it is "quite illogical to say that God predestinates man's free will." How or why is that so? It is not illogical at all. God predestines man to act freely.NOTHING is out of God's sovereign control.You also seem to confuse God's will in the sense of His precepts with His will in the sense of decrees.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
God created the standards by which we can measure God and determine whether or not He is righteous.
The Bible is full of declarations of those standards, for example, look at 1 John 1:5 "...in Him is no darkness at all".
Jesus Himself said that those who had seen Him had seen the Father. Where is there any suggestion that Jesus decrees/decreed sin?
His precepts and His decrees are derived from the same character not two different entities.
cont...
raxorules 2 years ago
Paul shows us in Romans 2 that the heathens knows right from wrong. After Adam sinned he knew 'good and evil'. He didn't lose his understanding of what was right - that is God given and we know inherently that some things are wrong becuase it is a standard that God Himself gave us. "Will the God of all the Earth not do what is right..?" was Abraham's question.
cont..
raxorules 2 years ago
You seem to think that because He is sovereign He can play fast and loose with what is and what is not righteous - but He can't. And yes I can, despite being a mere man, say that because God is unchangeable and therefore what constitutes righteousness is unchangeable. It follows that if it is wrong for a man to compel another man to commit sin, then it would be equally wrong for God to compel man to commit sin.
raxorules 2 years ago
God doesn't compel anyone to sin. And how does it POSSIBLY follow logically that what is wrong for a man to do is also wrong for God? Can God murder? Can He lie, steal, commit adultery, profane the sabath? Where are His parents that He should have to honor or obey? Why are you to judge the potter but an insignificant lump of clay. If he wants to make an ashtray or spitoon out of you instead of a piece of art, that is His business and your feeble complaints are sinful and ridiculous to boot!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
The point is that God absolutely hates sin. God is unchangeable so what constitutes righteousness is also unchangeable. What God determines to be will be therefore for God to decree (which means to command) sin makes Him the author of sin - even Jonathan Edwards could see that. God, if you like, would have sinned vicariously.
If what you say is right, God could torture a child for fun and in so doing He would be acting righteously because He would be doing it. Your thinking is so flawed.
twmapsion 2 years ago
No, sir, YOU are flawed! God did NOT command sin. God has predestined whatsoever comes to pass.God does not command sin but He does decree sin Sin is violation of His laws. Does God also eat grass because the cow does? God's decree is NOT the same as His commands for us to obey or His precepts.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"The term 'will' is ambiguous. The Ten Commandments are God's preceptive will. They command men to do this and refrain from that. They state what OUGHT to be done; but they neither state or cause what is done. God's decretive will, however, as contrasted with His precepts, causes every event."
REASON, RELIGION, AND REVELATION pg 222
by Dr. Gordon H Clark
Blogrich55 2 years ago
To decree sin is to command the committing of sin. Look up the meaning of the two verbs. In fact the verb to decree has the stronger sense of ordering that something is done (sin in this case) because it is only someone in actual power/authority who can decree though the verb to command usually implies that someone in power is issuing an order to do something.
You either don't understand the English language or you are committing a very serious blasphemy.
twmapsion 2 years ago
I am sending you my newest video that deals with the subject of God's will-- DOES GOD HAVE TWO WILLS? The word will is ambiguous. It can refer to the Ten Commandments or God's preceptive will. It can also refer to God's decrees.
And do you think ANYTHING happens outside of God's control?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"And do you think ANYTHING happens outside of God's control?" - what do you mean by control? Talk about ambiguity.
The decree - a word which has as its primary meaning an order from one in authority - of an omnipotent ruler would be utterly irresistible. If God decrees sin then He is the direct cause of sin or to put it another way He becomes the fountain or source of sin. The exact opposite to what He actually is. If this is what you mean heaven help you if not you are misusing language.
twmapsion 2 years ago
Perhaps you can explain the ambiguity in the word or my use of the word control. God is either in control of His creation OR somethings are not in His control. It is really that simple.
Just because we assert God decrees whatsoever comes to pass it does not follow He is the immediate or direct cause. In case you missed it, THAT was the point of the video. God decrees sin but does NOT commit sin.
Actually, God is the fountain or source of absolutelyi everything that exists.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I'll look at your new video in some detail and get back to you (probably in the comment section of that video).
What is scary with this video is that what you come over as saying here is so close to certain Islamic thinking about Allah's character as to be scary for a Christian to be saying it - this is the opinion of a friend of mine who converted from Islam to Christianity and her husband who has many active Islamic contacts.
twmapsion 2 years ago
Let me ask YOU; just WHAT is scary about God being sovereign and in control of all things? Who would YOU prefer to be in control? Perhaps sinful man? Perhaps fate or kismet like the Muslims?
Just because Christianity and Islam have some things in common, it does not make the two equal. There is NO doctrine of grace in Islam. There is NO atonement. They do NOT believe in justification by faith. We should be comforted by a loving Father who controls all things. We should trust Him implicitly.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
In Romans 2 Paul shows only that the heathen has a conscience that alternately aquits or condemns them but is NEVER a basis to be judge a holy God but only themselves. Something is right because God does it. He does not do it because it is right and forms a standard He must obey.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
No, we do NOT determine whether or not God is righteous. God is righteous by definition and we are NOT!. Why would Jesus have to say anything about God's eternal decrees in the first place?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I'm gonna have to crash - early start tomorrow and its already late this side of the pond.
I'll try to pick up again tomorrow.
raxorules 2 years ago
Are you not intending to answer my question? Its a fair question.
You say you answered it earlier but I would say that you didn't answer it rather you dismissed it by claiming I was not comparing like with like, drawing some comical analogies and saying your view was well proven.
Will you not address the question I ask in a substantive manner?
raxorules 2 years ago
How can u say that man sins freely and willingly at the same time as saying that God has decreed the sin - "who has resisted His will?"
In all developed nations where an individual ("the User") is able to force another person to commit a criminal act then the User is culpable for the crime as if he had committed the act himself. How is it you don't see this?
raxorules 2 years ago
Why do you persist in comparing the actions of God with those of one man coercing another. God predestines man and man does it willingly. How is it you don't see this. You have compared raisins with watermellons.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
The Fall did not cause unregenerate man to lose the ability to discern right from wrong in itself. It prevented him from doing what is right when the 'chips are down'.
The reason the User is guilty in my example is because it would be immoral for it to be otherwise - do you not agree (please address this point)?
If so it would be just as immoral for God to decree someone to sin ("who has resisted His will") and not be directly responsible for the committing of the sin.
raxorules 2 years ago
Not sure if it's correct but you explained it really well. :)
crazyaboutsquirrels 2 years ago
We must think about this issue in light of Eph 1:11. I am glad the teaching was clear and hopefully at least a bit enjoyable and not a chore to watch. I agree with you about videos that run too long. I try to keep mine short. 5 Minutes is tops but3 is better. God bless.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I learned something new by watching your video this evening! I Love learning from God's Word and it gives me so much Peace. I for one (and wish everyone would, but understand why they may never and some will never) Love it that our Father and our Savior and Lord Jesus is in Total Control of Absolutely Everything!!!!!!! I am at Peace with this and I understand what you are teaching in this video! Thank You Brother! Agape!
gigglesinthesun 2 years ago
Thank you sister Kim. We all mess up so much I can't imagine anyone not trusting God to be in control of reality. God bless you. Agape:)
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Q: Blogrich55 do you consider yourself orthodox?
HumanJesusTheology 2 years ago
Yep!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Q: So on what basis do you consider a faith that deviates from the historic Christian doctrines orthodox?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
The Westminster Confession of Faith, and other Reformed Creeds have defined the historic faith. It is heretics such as yourself who seriously need to realize you are out of step with the word of God.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
A) The Westminster Confession of Faith might define your faith but it most emphatically does not define the historic faith.
B) Reformation theology is a deviation from the historic Catholic beliefs which had been established orthodoxy for over a thousand years.
Q: Do you confess the ever-virgin Mary to be the Mother of God?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Can you possibly tell me what Mary has to do with the subject matter of this video? Please stay on topic.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
A) You enthusiastically declared that you consider yourself orthodox:
"Yep!" - Blogrich55
B) Since the Reformed faith is not even remotely orthodox so I am curious what you actually believe.
C) To examine your statement I presented a historic Christian belief that is rejected by protestants.
D) To side with them would firmly situate you in the unorthodox camp of anathematized heretics.
Q: So do you confess Mary as the ever-virgin Mother of God or are you not actually orthodox?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
I didn't know you were a papist! Obviously you think the Roman Catholic Church to be the definers of orthodoxy. You need to look up the word in a good dictionary. Stay on topic please. Oh, BTW, have you said your rosary today? LOL
Blogrich55 2 years ago
[I didn't know you were a papist!]
A) lol, I'm not: I'm just trying to demonstrate a point.
[you think the Roman Catholic Church to be definers of orthodoxy]
B) Here is what the Merriam Webster dictionary says under orthodox:
"conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church"
C) By that definition we are both unorthodox my friend.
[have you said your rosary today?]
Q: Shall we do it together?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
This video and similar stuff propogated by the likes of James White constitute the grossest defamation of God's character imaginable.
The word transliterated into Greek as 'ra' which is said to mean 'evil' is better translated as 'calamity' in the context of the scriptures quoted in this video - very different.
I can only assume that those who believe as Bloggrich does haven't ever had any real direct personal experience of the Living God.
twmapsion 2 years ago
If as Bloggrich says "God predestines everything that comes to pass both good and evil" then it must follow that God predestined man to sin willingly and freely otherwise God didn't predestine everything. So God must be totally responsible for every sin.
What blasphemous rubbish - what a mess your heart and mind are in Bloggrich to subscribe to such awfulness.
You and those who believe this doctrine are more damaging to the Body of Christ than ever Todd Bentley was - and TB was bad enough!
twmapsion 2 years ago
See our video THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION.
Sinners and God haters always find a sovereign or omnipotent God repulsive. For this very reason they fashion a golden calf for themselves that they can worship in His place. The Arminian god is just such an idol. The damnable heresy of a free will that is beyond God's control is its creed. Repent!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
You are the one in need of repentance. Have the courage to address the point raised like a man and stop hiding behind empty rhetoric and strawmen arguments. Then read Ezekiel 18 - how does your perverted doctrine explain this scripture Bloggrich?
twmapsion 2 years ago
I appreciate that debating someone very young whose Bible knowledge is not too extensive is an easier option Bloggrich, but I had hoped you would address the question I posed and the additional question relating to Ezekiel 18.
twmapsion 2 years ago
I'm sorry, are you referring to me?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Yeah, no offence. You only need to keep to one or two points to show how wrong this thinking is. Bloggrich like most who use humanist thinking will try to pull you this way and that in order to avoid the obvious.
You make some excellent points.
I find Hyper Calvinists to be the greasiest of greased eels in these debates and was hoping to get Bloggrich55 to respond to the points I raised here and on another of his videos.
Keep his feet to the fire - I'll wait.
twmapsion 2 years ago
Alright. So, remembering the previous conversation, I see two main pressure points.
1 - Can God be truly "All-Powerful" yet still leave certain events within the control of His individual creations (human beings).
2 - Can God truly be "All-Good" and yet still decree - and thus be the initial cause of - all actions, including those which are evil.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatChristian 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Related are these questions:
1 - Is each event determined by the Universe's "initial conditions" (Note: define).
2 - In order to maintain control over the outcome of a series of events, must one maintain control over the individual events within the series.
3 - Can an "irresistible force" limit its own influence.
4 - What is the nature of an initial cause.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
1 - Can God be truly "All-Powerful" yet still leave certain events within the control of His individual creations (human beings).
No, Gregory, for an all powerful Being to leave certain events within the control of His individual creations is for an all powerful Being to cease to be all powerful. Your question is inherently self-contradictory and therefore illogical.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
2 - Can God truly be "All-Good" and yet still decree - and thus be the initial cause of - all actions, including those which are evil.
Yes.Anything God does is by definition good simply because there is no superior standard of goodness by which to judge Him. See our attached video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT and please pay careful attention to what is said in that video. God is the initial cause of all things because there was no one else there during the initial act of creation.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Your answers expose our two fundamental disagreements. And these disagreements come from how we define these two attributes of God which I mentioned.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Per your answer to "1", I can infer that you equate "Power" with "Control". This is where we part ways, for I hold to the traditional view that "all-powerful" is a description of God's abilities only.
Rather than God being in control of every event within the universe, I would contend that "all-powerful" means simply that God has the ability to do anything which He wills to do.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Per your answer to "2" (and that other "video" which you mentioned), I see that we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding God's goodness and the nature of morality.
Without being too detailed, I hold to the position that moral law is not arbitrarily determined by God, but is in fact intrinsic to His nature. In other words, He is not omni-benevolent merely because whatever He does is by definition moral, but because in accordance with His nature, He does only that which is moral.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Note: In regards to "2", this is not to say that there is anything outside of God which determines what is right and what is wrong. It is still God who determines what is right and what is wrong, but the basis for these moral laws is not His will, but His very nature.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
In other words, God is repulsed by the idea of murder or rape just as fundamentally He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
As such, we have no fear that God will all-of-a-sudden decree that, for instance, child molestation is now a moral duty. Such a decree is beyond the bounds of God's very nature.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Gregory, omnipotence that is not exercised ceases to be omnipotence. An all powerful Being who gives up some of His power ceases to be all powerful. Your position is actually a denial of the sovereignty of God and your understanding of omnipotence is really not that of omnipotence at all but a denial of omnipotence.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I am not sure if you are working on any further comments. Please tell me if it is alright to proceed.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I have to run for a couple of hours and can't respond now but will be back soon. Please feel free to proceed as you choose Gregory and God bless you young brother!
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I suppose we can come back to the second question later.
Now for "1". I think you illustrated very well where we disagree. You seem to be operating under the assumption that "Power" and "Control" are the same thing.
Therefore, "All-Powerful" would be synonymous with "All-Controlling". And so, likewise, to say that God does not control (literally) everything is to deny omnipotence.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
But you see, I have a subtly different view of what omnipotence actually is and what it entails.
I think I can best illustrate my point through the use of an illustration.
Imagine, for the moment, a strongman at a carnival. But not just any strongman. Let us assume that this strongman is capable of lifting a potentially infinite amount of weight.
Any object you bring to him he can lift, no matter how heavy it may be. Thus, he can be said to possess infinite strength.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
But the fact that this strongman has infinite strength does not itself entail that he is always lifting weights. He may put down an object for the moment in order to pick up another, or not lift any object at all, should he so choose. Though his strength is infinite, it is of course at his own discretion what objects, if any, he decides to lift.
The same could be said for God. He has infinite power, but that in itself does not imply that He exercises all said power at every opportunity.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Omnipotence as a concept is a potentiality, not an actuality. In other words, though God possesses the ability to control everything within the Universe, He is not required to control everything within the Universe. That is His choice.
That's all I have for now. I await your response.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
To the degree that God relinquishes some of His power or control to His creation to that degree God ceases to be all powerful; to that degree He ceases to be in control. God cannot be all powerful and limited in power at the same time. You have reduced God's omnipotence to a mere potentiality. You do not believe that God is actually omnipotent.
If God is not in control of all things then some things are out of His control. Are we to suppose that God must adjust His plans as these events occur?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
You need to go by what the Bible says and NOT by Aristotle's vain philosophical Theory of Potentiality and Actuality. It didn't do much to help Thomas Aquinas.
Not only that but if God has to constantly adjust Himself to events supposedly out of His control, then He is NOT immutable.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"I hold to the position that moral law is not arbitrarily determined by God..."
The word "arbitrary" is a perfect example of where we need to avoid equivocation for it can have different meanings. One meaning given in Merriam Webster;s Unabridged dictionary is:
"Despotic; absolute in power; bound by no law."
If by arbitrary you mean capricious we reject that. However if you mean the only potentate and supreme Being who is outside of any law and answerable to no one, we agree. Soooo.....
Blogrich55 2 years ago
The question must be answered:
Is something God commands right because God commands it? Or, does God command it because it is right?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
It is important to know what the root-meaning of arbitrary is. "Augustine wrote a book on De Libero Arbitrio: On Free Will. Erasmus used the same title, to which Luther replied with his famous De Servo Arbitrio. Arbitrium means the will; and to say that God does not will, does not decree or act by arbitrio is to contradict a large section of Scripture.The trouble is the word arbitrary has at least two very different meanings in English.
EPHESIANS by Dr. Gordon H Clark, page 20.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
If morality is not determined by God's will (commands) then what, precisely, is it determined by? As far as God decreeing, all of a sudden, that "child molestation is now a moral duty," we must remember that the cannon of scripture is closed. In the Bible we have the complete preceptive will of God. The 10 commandments are not restrictions on God Himself but directed towards us.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Is that all?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I guess I'll take the 40-minute silence as a yes.
1 - I have twice now pointed out this equation that you make between power and control. Though you have not directly acknowledged that that is what you are doing, you seem to be self-aware in this respect. Thus, I would like you to give support for this equation, as most of what you have said seems to presuppose that they are synonymous.
As far as "reducing" God's omnipotence to a "mere" potentiality, this is hardly a criticism.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I am merely arguing that omnipotence is necessarily a potentiality. in other words, I am not saying that God is "potentially omnipotent", I am saying that omnipotence is necessarily a measure of a being's potential, as with my illustration regarding the strongman.
Speaking of the strongman. I spent quite a bit of thought on that one. I was rather disappointed to find that you didn't address it.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
- If God is not in control of all things then some things are out of His control. -
I'll hardly try to argue with that. But I will have you note that these things would only be "out of His control" insofar as He allows them to be. If He wishes to take control of them, He may do so without resistance, as the strongman takes up his weights.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatChristian 2 years ago
- Are we to suppose that God must adjust His plans as these events occur? -
No. Merely suppose that since He is omniscient, He includes the actions of free agents within His plans in the first place.
- Is something God commands right because God commands it? Or, does God command it because it is right? -
ThatChristian 2 years ago
You and I both know that this is a false dilemma. And, if you've read Aquinas, you'll know my answer to it.
But I won't be vague. As I said in my previous comments, I believe that morality is not grounded in God's commands, but His very nature, which is then expressed through His commands.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
- ...we must remember that the cannon of scripture is closed. -
As a thought experiment, then, let us assume we are having this discussion pre - cannon closure. How about now? Have we any security that God will not simply decide that we are morally obliged to kill each-other, to worship false gods, or to commit adultery?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
"He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest thou?" Dan 4:35
Does He only potentially do according to His will or does He actually do according to His will?
"having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Eph1:11
Does He only potentially work all things or does He actually work all things after the counsel of His will?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"The scriptures very clearly teach that all things outside of God owe not merely their original creation, but their continued existence, with all their properties and power, to the will of God. He upholds all things by the word of His power, He 1:3 He is before all things and in Him all things consist Col 1:17...In Him we live and move and have our being Acts 17:28 Boettner REF DOCT OF PREDESTINATION pg 35
Your illustration of the strong man fails ...
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Your illustration of the strong man fails because the relation between the strongman and his barbells is not the same as the relation between God and His creation. The barbells do not depend upon the strongman for their creation or their continued existence whereas creation depends upon God for its moment by moment existence. Thus God is constantly upholding or lifting up His "barbells" or creation.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"The assertion that God can but does not exercise control is, by the Bible, false. The Bible repeatedly asserts, not that God can but does not, but that God does exercise this control. This is what Psalm 105:25 says: "He turned their heart to hate His people." The whole Psalm is a list of things that God not only can do, but has done...if hatred were merely an emotion, the verse would still show that God controls the conscious mental activities of men." BIBLICAL PREDESTINATION GH Clark pg 126
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"Ezra 6:22 says 'For the a Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the King of Assyria unto them.' Note, God not only could; He did. There is no abdication of power. Next, 1Samuel 2:6-7 says 'The Lord killeth and maketh alive: He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich: he bringeth low and lifteth up.' He not only can; He does."
Dr. Gordon H Clark BIBLICAL PREDESTINATION page 126
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Gregory I have more comments to follow up with but will have to wait until tomorrow to address some of the other things you said. It is time for bed. Take care.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatChristian 2 years ago
An equation between power and control?
It is not so much that I equate the two as that I assert the logical relationship between them. To the degree God limits His power to that degree He limits His control. I asked you, does God adjust His plans as these out-of-control events occur and you said no, "He includes the actions of free agents within His plans in the first place."
If they are already included in His plans in the first place how then can it be said they were ever out of His control?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I meant to say "a logical relationship" not "the logical relationship."
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Gregory, if this is a false dilemma or false dichotomy you should be able to state the tertium quid. Are you saying morality is based on God's nature? How does one obey a nature? We can obey the commands of God as He has revealed them to us in His law. See our video DID GOD CREATE MORALITY which is attached to our video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT.
You should also look up Deut 29:29 and take it prayerfully to heart. God has not revealed everything there is to know about His nature Gregory.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
The various quotes you gave simply do not serve to answer the question which was put forward at the beginning of this thread.
Remember what the original question was: "Can God be truly "All-Powerful" yet still leave certain events within the control of His individual creations (human beings)."
That is the statement you must address, but those verses and Clark's posturing, at best, prove that God DOES control all events and decisions, but they say nothing about whether He MUST.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Now for the strongman metaphor.
You seem to be missing the point of my illustration, since your reply does not appear to address the relevant portions of my narrative. I would suggest going through the previous comments and taking more care to notice where in the discussion I used the illustration and why.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
- To the degree God limits His power to that degree He limits His control. -
I suppose I agree, but I don't see how that is relevant. Remember, we are addressing whether God limiting His control limits His power.
Perhaps you simply mismatched the two, which is forgivable. Everyone does it. But then I would simply ask why we should think this is the case?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
- If they are already included in His plans in the first place how then can it be said they were ever out of His control? -
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I don't see why they would have to be within His control in order for Him to plan for them. We plan for things out of our control, and we aren't even omniscient.
Due to God's omniscience, it seems He could plan for any future event, whether He Himself caused the event or not.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Note: I apologize for the seemingly arbitrary splitting of these comments. It was the only way I could get YouTube to let me post them.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
As for the last statement, I did state the tertium quid. I Am saying morality is based upon God's nature, which is then expressed through His commands.
Do we obey His nature? No, we obey His commands, be they written on paper or on one's own heart. But nevertheless, God cannot cease hating extortion, lying, lust, etc. any more than He can cease being omnipresent. In this way, such immorality was wrong long before Moses came down from the mountain, and will continue to be wrong long after.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
If you ask me, the idea that morality begins and ends with God's commands makes a mockery of God's benevolence. For to say that "God is good" while holding that God is led by no moral standards is like saying "God is wise" while holding that He is led by no standards of logic or reason.
Anyway, that's all for now. It's your turn.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
"If you ask me, the idea that morality begins and ends with God's commands makes a mockery of God's benevolence." (ThatChristian)
Young man, are you seriously talking about the God of the Bible here? Because if you are, you have made HIm into a being of your own liking with language like that! What do you think the 10 Commandments are? Thou shalt not murder? Thou shalt not commit adultery? Thou shalt not covet? Thou shalt not bear false witness?
God's benevolence BEGINS with HIs commands!
7thMarch1987 2 years ago
What laws of ethics, morality, or reason do you refer to that God must follow and obey to avoid making a mockery of YOUR concept of His benevolence. Who gave these laws that God Himself must obey.
So when I asked if God does something because it is right or rather it is right because God does it, and you squeeled "false dilemma," you were wrong! You assumed all along that God is subject to certain criterion. You say these laws are written in mans heart but seem to forget Jer 17:9 Gregory.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Gregory the laws written in our hearts are commandments for us to obey and not restrictions on God. He is the Potter and we are the clay. Will we presume to judge Him? Also you seem to have no problem accepting the idea that God is outside of or unbound by time and space. Yet why do you balk at the idea He is also unbound by morality. Lastly, does His omni-benevolence extend to people in hell?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"...I will have you note that these things would only be 'out of His control' in so far as He allows them to be. If He wishes to take control of them, He may do so without resistance, as the strong man takes up his weights."
Q: Would it not be a violation of the immutability of God if He were to go from being out of control to in control? Besides, how could these things ever have been out of His control if God knew everything ahead of time?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
You obviously reject the theology found in the Westminster Confession of Faith on predestination. It would seem you must also reject Luther's viiews as expressed in THE BONDAGE OF THE WILL as well.
Just what do you mean by Orthodoxy Gregory?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Let me help you with this issue of control. If I as the Chief Exec of a company see one of my staff not about to do what I had told him to do and decide to let that instance slide, in what way have I lost control?
Let me tell you that when you run a company you do choose to let some things slide since people being people they don't always do as they ought yet at no time am I out of control of my company by doing this.
Its the same with God - obviously
twmapsion 2 years ago
"As for the last statement, I did state the tertium quid. I Am saying morality is based upon God's nature, which is then expressed through His commands." (ThatChristian)
Did you just SAY that? Did you see what you said in another comment that I answered? You are totally and utterly contradicting yourself in this comment section, ThatChristian, and you are flooding the comment section with your own, comments, making it difficult for us to understand what you are even TRYING to say!.
7thMarch1987 2 years ago
ThatChristian,
Your words are, first of all, condescending, and secondly, illogical!
I would recommend Gordon H. Clark's book "Logic" before you try to take on a video of this calibre and magnitude in the comments section.
7thMarch1987 2 years ago
You have REMOVED your comments, in case you hadn't noticed!
What on earth did you do that for?
7thMarch1987 2 years ago
To 7thMarch1987:
As for the first comment, I am having trouble identifying exactly what the point of it was. It was not particularly clear. Perhaps you should rephrase it, or elaborate in some way, because I can't really discern any sort of argument from it.
For the second, I don't remember you responding to anything I had said previously on that topic. Perhaps you could remind me?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Also, I am not sure what I am doing could be called "flooding", considering that Bloggrich himself has been there with me, giving me tit for tat.
As for being condescending, I know that I could do with a more steady diet of humble pie. But, luckily, God is working with me on that, and I occasionally have the presence of mind to catch myself on those occasions when that has been more true than not.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
As for being illogical, well, since you didn't point out any specific fallacies which I have committed, there's really no way I can respond to such a blanket assertion at the moment. Perhaps you could provide some examples?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
As for having removed my comments, I did so, as I stated to an understanding Richard, because I wasn't particular proud of them. Though I think what I said previously was mostly accurate, I also think the previous conversation, as a whole, was mostly unhelpful toward the purpose of promoting better understanding of the issues raised.
As my gracious "opponent" put it, it produced more "heat" than "light".
So I removed the comments, to give the new conversation a totally clean slate.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
To Richard:
With all due respect, you just don't seem to be paying much attention, for again you ask a question which I have already answered. I said God's moral code is found within His own nature, and then you ask where His moral code comes from?
But I will also add that He is not "required" to follow them, He just does. Just like He is not "required" to be omnipotent. He just is.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
As for your second paragraph, again you seem to be a tad forgetful. For you presented the Euthyphro dilemma. To which I "sque[a]led 'false dilemma.'"
And yes, as Paul said in Romans 2:14-16, the Law is written on our hearts. But that is neither here nor there, now is it?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I am not judging God, nor can anyone, for everything God does is righteous. But it is not so simply because God does it that it then becomes righteous.
To say God is unbound by time and space is not the same as saying He is "unbound" by morality. For starters, since when is total goodness a limitation?
And yes, God's omni-benevolence extends to all people. God's punishment of the wicked is just. And since it is just, it is good.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
A:
Depending upon what you mean by "immutability," I don't see why it would be a violation
Again, a rather short memory you must have. For I already answered this second question a few comments back.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Finally, I judge Orthodoxy by the standards found in scripture, as should you. Martin Luther is not God, nor is he even an apostle. What he writes is not scripture. Though I admire the man, I am not going to blindly follow everything that came from his pen.
I will end this round with a reminder to please keep this discussion civil. Now, if you would like, you may go ahead and reply.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
The reasons I asked you the same question over again is because I don't think you answered it adequately the first time. It was not a matter of forgetfulness on my part. You still have not explained how events that occur in time can be out of control when an omniscient Being made His plan in eternity. How can anything be out of His control?
It would seem you don't have a problem with God adjusting His plan as events occur. Do you consider this the orthodox uhderstanding of immutability?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"Martin Luther is not God..."
I never said he was. I was asking you to define your theological position. Saying you believe the Bible is not sufficient. I make the same claim. I will clearly state my position. I believe orthodoxy to be the doctrines as stated in the Westminster Confession and other Reformed statements of Faith. Therefore I ask you the question...
What do you mean by orthodoxy. Can you please point to a statement of faith you agree with?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
- You still have not explained how events that occur in time can be out of control when an omniscient Being made His plan in eternity. -
The burden is on you to explain why the two are incompatible. I thought I had already made that abundantly clear. If I was vague, I apologize.
Statements in the "How is it not..." genre are simply unanswerable. The burden is not on the person being asked the question, here.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
- What do you mean by orthodoxy. Can you please point to a statement of faith you agree with? -
Certainly. I agree with the Nicene Creed, for example.
But the ultimate authority is not statements of faith from people within certain religious movements. I believe Christ is fully capable of speaking for Himself through scripture.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
The Nicene Creed is an ecumenical creed and I accept it as much as you do. What I am asking for is a statement of faith that lays out the system of beliefs you have expressed in these comments In particular the idea that God lets things get out of His control.
For the 3rd time I must ask you to define orthodoxy.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Well, since getting this particular question wrong does not make you a heretic, I don't know that any Creed or Confession is necessary to affirm one's position on it. And this whole little side-discussion really is rather irrelevant. I'd like us to get back to the topic at hand.
If you want a DEFINITION of the word "orthodox", try "Conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church." That seems to be a fairly good definition to me.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Gregory, on your channel page you said, "Misinformation about the orthodox doctrines of Christianity thrive. So what good will proving traditional Christianity be if so few make an effort to present what we mean by Christianity itself? That is where I think I come in. The main focus of this channel is going to be geared toward presenting a consistent understanding of Christian doctrine."
continued....
Blogrich55 2 years ago
How can you present the orthodox teachings of Christianity if you cannot even produce a statement of faith which defines what those doctrines are. What statement of faith can you produce which teaches that God has decided to allow some of His creation to be our of His control? You are beginning to sound like a rogue Christian especially when taking your age into account. Frankly you sound somewhat arrogant.
Once again I ask you: What do you mean by orthodoxy?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
By the way, I am not asking you for a definition of the word "orthodox" itself. I'm asking for a statement of faith that defines what the orthodox doctrines of Christianity are that you mention on your channel page.I would expect such a statement of faith to included your belief that God leaves some things out of His control.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Why? Why would such a thing be included in one's statement of faith? As I said before, this particular issue is not a matter of orthodoxy or heresy. It is an in-house discussion, as it were.
Now, could we please get back to the actual issue we have been discussing? We can talk about what constitutes orthodoxy some other time. That topic warrants a whole thread all to itself. For now, we have a completely different topic to discuss.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
"Why would such a thing be included in one's statement of faith?"
The reason to include it in a statement of faith is because it is important concerning the sovereignty of God and whether God's will is ultimate or man's will. Our statement of faith does address this issue in chapter #3. You have presented no statement of faith whatsoever nor have you pointed out any group of believers that you identify yourself with concerning this issue.
coninued...
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Um... Continued...?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
We have presented a number of Bible passages backing up our position while you have presented none. As to the creeds, the Nicene Creed for example was in opposition to Arianism. So creeds are not only statements of what the Church believes but they also serve to point out heresy and errors.
It seems like your basic argument is more academic and philosophical than biblical when you say, "Omnipotence as a concept is a potentiality not an actuality." Our main concern is to be biblical...
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Our main concern is to be biblical and if we have shown that the Bible teaches that God does indeed exercise His omnipotence then our task is done. But speaking philosophically we can say:
"God is not a passive or potential substratum; He is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the biblical idea that God is a living God." LOGIC page 122 Dr.Gordon H Clark
cont'd....
Blogrich55 2 years ago
The Bible clearly teaches that the will of man is not outside of God's control "For God is at work in you BOTH to will and to do for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13 In Acts 13:48 it teaches that the reason people believed in God was because God ordained them to believe. They were NOT ordained because they believed. It is God's will that is ultimate and not man's and this indeed is properly included in a statement of faith.
cont'd...
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Since you refuse to name a group of believers you identify with or produce a statement of faith you consider the orthodox teachings of Christianity, including your teaching that God leaves part of His creation out of His control, I see no reason to contrinue this discussion.
Your mentioning of Aquinas would lead me to believe you have Roman Catholic sympathies. In any case we wish you well.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I suppose I'll let you have the last word on this. But let it be noted that you have abandoned any defense of your position on the original questions posed in this thread.
This conversation has gone on long enough. I hope we can part on friendly terms, even if the discussion appears to cease to be so.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
[So creeds... point out heresy and errors.]
If anyone does not confess that God the Word was twice begotten, the first before all time from the Father, non- temporal and bodiless, the other in the last days when he came down from the heavens and was incarnate by the holy, glorious, God-bearer, ever-virgin Mary, and born of her, let him be anathema. - Second Council of Constantinople
Q: Rich, do you accept the authority of this council?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Do you? What part of the Westminster Confession of Faith and other REFORMED creeds do you fail to understand? I also don't accept the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. LOL
Blogrich55 2 years ago
[Westminster Confession of Faith and other REFORMED creeds...]
"the Nicene Creed for example..." - Blogrich55
A) The Council of Nicea was Catholic not Reformed.
"creeds are not only statements of what the Church believes but they also serve to point out heresy" - Blogrich55
B) Like for instance, the heresy of not accepting the unwritten traditions of the Church.
Q: Since you accept the authority of the First Council of Nicea do you also accept the authority of the Second Council of Nicea?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
On your view, God forces people to commit evil acts. Yes or no?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
God does NOT "force" people to commit evil acts. He decrees and ordains, but man is the culpable one and will be held so by a Holy God. If you believe God is ABSOLUTELY Sovereign, you will not have a problem with these difficult teachings and they will cause you to LOVE this God all the more because He has jealously done it all for HIS Children - no one else!
7thMarch1987 2 years ago
Thanks Liz you have put it very wisely and well.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I have posted FOUR videos for this unbeliever to watch. I am sure he/she will find much to say about them, however, you must know that over the next two days, I will be posting the two final videos in this series "Uncomfortable - The God Who Disquiets Our Souls"
Please do not make the God of the Bible, Jehovah God, out into an image of your own making. You say you believe every jot and tittle of the Bible? - try these for size and see what the Bible REALLY says about our God!
7thMarch1987 2 years ago
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. - Isaiah 45:7 (NASB)
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Already answered very capably by the Heat151.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
I looked at the comment and I am going to go ahead and disagree with your analysis.
The bottom line is that the Hebrew word can be translated as many things other than "evil".
As long as one of those definitions (e.g. calamity) fits the context than you have no case.
Since most scholarly bibles confirm both of those points your argument has no real support.
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
My argument does NOT depend on this one verse. The crucifixion was an act of murder so, yes, God does decree evil.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
But... you said it was "answered very capably."
The fact is, it wasn't.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
I think Cruzés answer was very capable.
Blogrich55 2 years ago