|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2019 15:03:45 GMT
The following is a response to a poster on a Christian Doctrinal Debate and Discussion Forum concerning a view that "God's power is limited." It's a unique argument, lol, I was not aware that anyone could seriously question God's Omnipotence:
God's power is not limited due to His allowance of sin. An easy way to understand why God would create the world knowing there would be sin and that He would have to judge sin might be to consider something as simple as getting a dog. Usually when someone wants a dog what do most people do? They go and get a puppy, knowing full well that he/she is going to mess on the floor, chew things up, and a number of other puppy issues that go along with getting a dog. But they still go and get one, right? They know that in order to train the pup there is going to be correction and discipline, but that doesn't stop most people. Now let's consider that after their dog grows up they find him to be extremely vicious and despite trying to teach him not to be, and trying to keep him in check...he goes out and attacks someone causing serious injury or death. What do they do? They put him down (judgment).
But the primary point I would make in all of this is that there is a difference between raising a dog from a pup and going out and buying a fully trained service dog (which stands in the figure of the robot God would have had to create in order to create a world without sin and its consequences). A bond is developed between Master and pup (the born again babe in Christ) that differs from the working relationship of Master and service dog. One distinction is that the pup is fully dependent on the Master, as opposed to the service dog supplying a need to the master.
And just as in the case of the pup, it had no idea that it needed a Master, or that it would be the Master that would come and get him/her. It had not entered into the pup's heart the joys that would be supplied by the Master. And as we all know, there is a difference between a dog that has been adopted by its Master and a wild dog. That is how it is with the natural man, he is a dog but when God comes to get him/her...he is made a pup again. And just as a bond is created when the Master raises, provides, teaches, and even corrects the pup a bond is created between the Lord and the child (pup, lol) of God.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2019 16:20:54 GMT
The following speaks more to God's Omniscience:
Thanks! Glad to be here. I have spent a little time on Facebook in the discussion groups but to be honest there isn't really any serious discussion there, so glad to be back on a real Forum, lol.
I have read it, lol, and it doesn't change the fact that Peter had a grasp of something, though he didn't have full understanding based on something other than that which is stated about God in the Hebrew Scripture (both implicitly as well as explicitly).
But we don't see the concept of "limited omniscience." Peter knew what it meant that God is no respecter of persons, but this served as validation.
Have you and I ever had such an example presented to us that we might echo Peter's statement? No, but we still have an understanding of GoOd's impartiality.
Actually, it is not, because Calvin teaches that men are regenerated in order to have faith. The fact is that this conflicts with the examples of men in Scripture that will be judged more severely because they have had the truth delivered to them, which in this Age is through the Ministry of the Comforter, the Spirit of Grace. It is He Who directly and indirectly reveals the Gospel of Christ to men for the purpose of bringing conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-9):
Hebrews 10:26-29 King James Version (KJV)
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-22 King James Version (KJV)
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Just because men receive revelation from God doesn't mean they understand it, and, just because men are natural doesn't nullify the fact that God enlightens the understanding of the natural man that they might understand His will. This is the consistent pattern seen throughout Scripture, however, the difference being the revelation provided to men in the Age they live in. More on that in a moment.
But you are denying Omniscience and Omnipotence when you say it is limited. I would agree if you altered your argument to God limits the use of these attributes, rather than simply saying God is limited.
The revelation that God is impartial is just a basic principle of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a difference between receiving revelation and receiving full knowledge. For example, no man understood the Mystery of the Gospel because it was not revealed to them until the Comforter was sent. That does not mean, though, that they did not receive revelation of the Gospel. It was veiled,hidden from them (Romans 16:25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; Ephesians 3:3-5; Colossians 1:25-27). But they still knew that a Redeemer was coming and that He would redeem Israel (Luke 24:18-21). But just as men could not understand fully the Gospel that was presented to them (i.e., Galatians 3:6-8; Hebrews 4:1-3) because they did not have a context to understand it by (meaning they did not know the Scriptures that He should rise from the dead and what that meant for them on an eternal basis (John 20:9), Peter was not able to embrace this revelation from a personal perspective through example and personal experience of that principle in action.
Even a Judge among men can be impartial yet have all knowledge of the relevant details. There is no such demand on God to substantiate His impartiality.
Continued...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2019 16:29:11 GMT
Neither examples were unrelated, they were analogous to the issue being discussed. It looks at the fact that despite God's intentions and will for man (which correlates to the person going to get a dog), and despite giving the man everything he needs (revelation) to live according to His will (correlating to the owner's efforts on the part of their pup)...some dogs are simply going to turn out bad.
As far as more training we look to the progressive nature of revelation and how it is presented to men. This is God's personal efforts through the Spirit (the Comforter) which is directly to the hearts of men. Even those who do not come within the sphere of the Gospel of Christ ( which speaks of all Old Testament Saints in regards to full understanding) are not forgotten (Romans 2:13-16).
As to randomness, why would we consider that a given? We see God intervening at times and man's will overridden. Look at Jonah, or Paul on the Road to Damascus. Look at Pharaoh, who ended up doing what God wanted him to do due to the plagues.
But this thread centers on the Rapture, do you have something relevant to that?
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2019 16:34:27 GMT
It's not open for debate...only God is good, and He is...good. We can take the Word of Christ on that point.
You have given no reason to adopt the syllogistic conclusion you have drawn. Both are false, and God is still good.
What does this have to do with the fact that the mother asks a question knowing full well the answer?
God did not know they ate of the fruit? If that is the case then He is not Omniscient, and therefore He is not God. Can I ask what faith you are a part of?
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2019 16:54:57 GMT
No, not always...
This is why I asked you to expand on your statement:
And you imply that it is not a matter of God limiting it in the sense of application, but in the general sense:
This is in response to a question posed to you concerning whether God knew where Adam was and what had happened:
So I would suggest that while I can understand you may think you are referring exclusively to God limiting His own Omniscience and Omnipotence, you are implying limitation in a general sense, which isn't going to be embraced by too many.
It should be a simple discussion of the Rapture, if I am not mistaken. Have you considered starting a thread and making this the topic?
It's an analogy. And I get it, you don't view it as a good one, lol.
It still shows the weakness of the argument you presented:
Knowledge doesn't have to be limited to show true impartiality.
I agree, so let's get back to the apples...the Rapture.
God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2019 15:31:02 GMT
Relevance? To anything I said?
You are derailing a thread about the Rapture to force your pet peeves on people who aren't interested in your theories. Adam and Eve could both discern good and evil, they didn't get that from eating the fruit. What they did receive was experiential knowledge of good and evil. Among the four characters in the Garden, God and Satan were the only ones that had an experiential understanding of good and evil. An example in the case of God is that one of His creations, Satan, rebelled, which I am sure we can both acknowledge was evil, and assume that this caused God grief. Satan because he understood the difference between his position before God when he was obedient and his position when he ceased to be. Adam because his wife had the death penalty, and Eve because she would have a son murdered by another son.
Get it?
And none of that detracts from the fact that God is good. Always and eternally.
I don't view God as having to prove himself to men, but, I will say that He gives ample evidence of His goodness to man. You charge others as putting God in a box when here you are trying to make God fit your doctrine, which is apparently the same tired and simply beef against Calvinism. If you're trying to prove "free will" you are going to fail. Man does not have free will in a salvific context, thus he cannot exercise free will that he might be saved. It is only after he is enlightened to truth that he can exercise his will, and the only free will he can exercise is to reject the truth, which is a result of is nature (which itself is a result of his separation from God).
The will of man, free or no...doesn't play a part in Eternal REdemption:
John 1:11-13 King James Version (KJV)
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
First, there was nothing "sound" about your equation, and it has been, whether you want to admit it or not...been refuted. On the surface, you try to make your "limitation' of God's attributes Self-imposed but the underlying current reveals your heart on the matter. If you truly believe it is just a matter of God limiting His power then you need to be more careful in how you approach others with your views. But you exposed your heart when you implied God was surprised in the Garden.
Absolutely ludicrous.
My analogy makes no statement towards the character of the mother, it simply points out one with superior knowledge addressing a transgression. That is the case with GOd in the Garden. How is it that God can know from Eternity past that He would go to the Cross to redeem mankind but He can't keep up with one man and a woman in the Garden?
Absolutely ludicrous.
Did you even read what I said? It is beginning to look as though you aren't.
What in the world are you talking about? No-one, least of all me...thinks foreknowledge is wicked. The only one trying to do this is you. You are creating arguments so you can push your doctrine and quite frankly...you are failing miserably. THat is because you lean on your own understanding rather than the Word of God and its Doctrine.
Do you know anyone in this thread that does? No...you are simply trying to make it seem that way. Why don't you just pat yourself on the back and be done with it?
Again, do you have anything relevant to the Rapture?
If He "rushed it" one could imply fault on His part. Just not the case. God did not cause Satan to tempt and deceive Eve, and He did not force Adam to partake.
And this is the real issue for you, the reason why you look at a thread about the Rapture and all you see is this issue. That's pretty sad.
I am not a Calvinist, I made that clear in the last post, yet here you ignore everything I have said and continue in your rant.
Is that supposed to be a counter-point?
God is good because He is Who He is. He is Holy, RIghteous, and loving to a fault. Your fault, that is, and mine.
Now, do you have anything at all relevant to the topic of this thread?
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2019 15:35:08 GMT
This Poster examples something that is easy to do in Doctrinal Debate and should be avoided: derailing the topic of discussion. It is obvious he has an agenda and it may be that his views simply aren't interesting enough for others to engage in it, so he has to turn another discussion towards his views to create a pulpit. If your doctrine can stay within the topic of discussion, even though it is a side issue, I see no reason to include it, but the thread this is taken out of is a thread about...the Rapture. I do see relevance to the Rapture in one way: some people do not know that the Rapture and the Second Coming are two separate events, thus they see a relevance to the Rapture because "no man knows the hour" of the Lord's Return. That statement, however, is taken from a context of His physical Return to establish the Millennial Kingdom.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2019 15:45:02 GMT
There is quite a bit that shows that God is good in Scripture, and usually the only ones that deny that do so based on His righteous judgment of evil.
He is not limited by anything. But thanks for proving you weren't being honest in the previous posts where you tried to say your view was that He limited Himself. As I said, you speak thus on the surface but your heart is revealed in what you actually say. So is your doctrine.
I'll take that to mean you aren't attending anywhere right now. And I don't view AoG as Protestant, but Pentecostal. I will say that some of them are very conservative, and if one must attend a Charismatic fellowship this is probably the best option.
Now, do you have anything relevant concerning the topic of this thread?
God bless.
|
|
