God's As Love Examined

[Mercy_Shown]

We should view them from not only God's point of view but from who God is. I have not seen any evidence that you do that.

Very handy to be judge and jury. Just because one "sees" no evidence doesn't mean that there is none. Perhaps you are not seeing what is there?

And I do not mean that as a put down, but a statement of what I see and don't see. It doesn't matter how many answers you received from "Calvinists." It matters what those doctrines are and where they can be found and supported in the Scriptures.

"Supported in the scriptures" is often a matter of how one interprets scriptures, how biased they are, and what they have been led to believe. This is a possibility for every one of us.

They are btw, the same doctrines in traditional orthodox Christianity.

Tradition is part of what the Pharisees in trouble. "Orthodox Christianity" is a moving target. Each century had its spin on orthodoxy. Jesus was unorthodox in His practices and teachings.

What you and the great majority of Christians teach are heresies from that.

What Christ taught was heresies from the orthodox point of view. John Calvin on the other hand defended wielding his influence against Michael Servetus who dared to return a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins.

“Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly, his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” - Calvin

On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward. For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:

In Calvin's defense, he did urge the council to chop off his head instead of baking him to death. The point of this is that orthodoxy should not be our guide, Only Christ should be our guide.

And there are no other truly Christian tenants established since. It is all hodge podge. Everyone believe what they want to believe and say scripture means whatever they want it to mean. Does that sound like what Christ intended for His church?

How do you know that your views aren't part of the hodge-podge? I certainly do not trust my views that much.

Considering Paul's final instructions to his successor Timothy. 2 Tim 4:1-5 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing in his kingdom. I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage---with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

This should require us to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord and let Him lift us.

Consider this Eph 2:19-21 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

1 Cor 3:10-15 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw---each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

You have said you do not like to be labeled and do not label yourself.Yet you label others and you argue doctrine from a label on one side (Calvinism)and no label on the other. What one ought to do is the same thing that produced the doctrines of Christianity condensed in the confessions. Start somewhere as they did. "On God and the Holy Trinity." Who is man. Then through all the subjects that pertain to Christ and to salvation. And find out what the Bible says without over laying anything onto it.

I don't have a side. I do not label anyone as a Calvinist once they tell me they aren't. Most own the label with pride. I have no problem with Calvinists, I enjoy debating with them. Grace covers us, they know it and I know it. The rest is just about the nature of God which is far above our pay-grades.

 

[Josheb]

Very handy to be judge and jury. Just because one "sees" no evidence doesn't mean that there is none. Perhaps you are not seeing what is there?

The correct response is to either provide the evidence or summarized what is already in evidence (maybe add a link to the posts where that evidence can be found).

"Supported in the scriptures" is often a matter of how one interprets scriptures, how biased they are, and what they have been led to believe. This is a possibility for every one of us.

Only for those refusing to read it without "interpretation."

Only Christ should be our guide.

That is a dubious assertion given the premise "'Supported in the scriptures' is often a matter of how one interprets..." and "This is a possibility for every one of us." Those beliefs necessitate "Christ should be our guide" is a subjective matter of interpretation.

How do you know that your views aren't part of the hodge-podge?

What answer would satisfy you sufficiently to consider others' input as valid and veracious?

I certainly do not trust my views that much.

Is that a metric applied to all others?

This should require us to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord and let Him lift us.

It should certainly require you to humble yourself without an expectation all others do likewise.

I don't have a side.

The four ops you've authored prove otherwise. Has something changed since joining the forum four weeks ago?

I have no problem with Calvinists, I enjoy debating with them.

Comments like, "I have no more time to devote to your insecurities. Good luck," and "Good grief. I have never seen such a misunderstanding of exegesis. How can we go on when no one can agree on the terms? Yes, it was exegesis whether you believe it or not. I'm done for a while," and "why would a Calvinist argue doctrine since it will not change the outcome of what God's sovereignty dictates?" prove otherwise. I am glad you prefer an island of Cals over Arms because the sincere ones would be fully relying on God alone for their salvation, but many of your own comments show you do have some problems with both Calvinism and Calvinists. Moderate ones, perhaps, but problems, nonetheless. One of them is insinuating blindness of others instead of posting the evidence presumed unseen. Do you think the lurkers want to read you post evidence in a well-reasoned case or post negative insinuations?

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

Factually speaking, not seeing evidence does not mean none exists. Methodologically speaking, the comment is non sequitur and ineffective if the goal is "to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse."

 

[Mercy_Shown]

The correct response is to either provide the evidence or summarized what is already in evidence (maybe add a link to the posts where that evidence can be found).

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”
― Robert Burns

Only for those refusing to read it without "interpretation."

It is a particular function of blind pride.

That is a dubious assertion given the premise "'Supported in the scriptures' is often a matter of how one interprets..." and "This is a possibility for every one of us." Those beliefs necessitate "Christ should be our guide" is a subjective matter of interpretation.

All interpretations are subjective. Yes, even yours.

What answer would satisfy you sufficiently to consider others' input as valid and veracious?

I do not consider anyone's answer invalid per se, only our degrees of certainty. What makes you see other people's answers as invalid?

Is that a metric applied to all others?

It is a human metric

It should certainly require you to humble yourself without an expectation all others do likewise.

I do not expect others to humble themselves for it is a very rare phenomenon.

The four ops you've authored prove otherwise. Has something changed since joining the forum four weeks ago?

You say prove otherwise. But that is not a fact, it is an opinion.

Comments like, "I have no more time to devote to your insecurities. Good luck," and "Good grief. I have never seen such a misunderstanding of exegesis. How can we go on when no one can agree on the terms? Yes, it was exegesis whether you believe it or not. I'm done for a while," and "why would a Calvinist argue doctrine since it will not change the outcome of what God's sovereignty dictates?" prove otherwise. I am glad you prefer an island of Cals over Arms because the sincere ones would be fully relying on God alone for their salvation, but many of your own comments show you do have some problems with both Calvinism and Calvinists. Moderate ones, perhaps, but problems, nonetheless. One of them is insinuating blindness of others instead of posting the evidence presumed unseen. Do you think the lurkers want to read you post evidence in a well-reasoned case or post negative insinuations?

No, I do not react to the doctrines people hold, but I do struggle with those who try too hard to prove their intellect. I am not saying that it is correct, no, in fact, it is a failing of mine.

Factually speaking, not seeing evidence does not mean none exists. Methodologically speaking, the comment is non sequitur and ineffective if the goal is "to reflect his meekness and kindness in all of my discourse."

It does not change the goal just because I have not fully reached it yet. If that were the case, no one would finish anything because they would be sidetracked by failure. You seem to have a lot of eggshells to deal with.

 

[Josheb]

The correct response is to either provide the evidence or summarized what is already in evidence (maybe add a link to the posts where that evidence can be found).

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”
― Robert Burns

As I said, the correct response is to either provide the evidence anew or link to what exists.

I have no problem with Calvinists, I enjoy debating with them.

Post proves otherwise.

It does not change the goal just because I have not fully reached it yet. If that were the case, no one would finish anything because they would be sidetracked by failure. You seem to have a lot of eggshells to deal with.

Cop out.


What's this thread about? Got anything op-relevant to contribute beside....

The problem with your thesis is that you are picking and choosing what to use to define God from the OT. Are you now also prepared to agree that God repents of actions He has taken? Are you prepared to explain how an omnipotent God gets angry?

To be clear, are you Saying that an omnipotent god who knows the end from the beginning needs to comfort himself?

To be clear, are you also stating that God needs to think differently than he once did under certain circumstances?

Do you think that because the old testament had many instances where God became angry that and omnipotent God who knows the end from the beginning can be angry just as a human Would?

Did not God pre-Destin everything by his sovereign power? These are some things that I am not clear about when it comes to Calvinism.

Go back and re-read Posts 16, 17, and 18 and tell me what in those posts has anything specifically to do with examining "God is love."

I have concluded that God is more concerned with the way I discuss theological differences with those who have a different point of view than I do than He is with the views themselves. My walk, our walk with God is revealed more in the way we interact than in the theology we espouse.

I agree .


Got anything op-relevant to contribute?



God is love is plainly stated in scripture, and it is written as an ontological statement. No need for anyone to have a decided soteriological position to see, read, know, and understand that. It is equally true the Reformed members of this forum have all experienced the misguided argument monergistic soteriology necessitates an unloving of God. The op is correct. The exact same cross that saves also condemns. Same God. The Son who came in peace and walked silently to his death later returns with a sword in his mouth to lay waste. God is love. Some folks have difficulty reconciling the seemingly disparate and contradictory but, as you might put it, just because it's not seen does not mean it doesn't exist.


Got anything op-relevant to contribute?






btw, I don't do eggshells.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

As I said, the correct response is to either provide the evidence anew or link to what exists.

Hmmmmm...nah!

Post proves otherwise.

Cop out.

I know it is difficult to engage in conversation and much easier to appeal to stone.

What's this thread about? Got anything op-relevant to contribute beside....

Go back and re-read Posts 16, 17, and 18 and tell me what in those posts has anything specifically to do with examining "God is love."

I can't do the work for you.

I agree .


Got anything op-relevant to contribute?

Not for those who consistently appeal to stone.

God is love is plainly stated in scripture, and it is written as an ontological statement. No need for anyone to have a decided soteriological position to see, read, know, and understand that. It is equally true the Reformed members of this forum have all experienced the misguided argument monergistic soteriology necessitates an unloving of God. The op is correct. The exact same cross that saves also condemns. Same God. The Son who came in peace and walked silently to his death later returns with a sword in his mouth to lay waste. God is love. Some folks have difficulty reconciling the seemingly disparate and contradictory but, as you might put it, just because it's not seen does not mean it doesn't exist.

No place in scripture says the cross condemns. It is the law that condemns.

Got anything op-relevant to contribute?

Only for those who hear.

 

[Mr GLee]

To be clear, are you Saying that an omnipotent god who knows the end from the beginning needs to comfort himself?

Yes he must repent from destroying to creating anew. It show us as he turn us towards Him. . he is a God of mercy.
I am not a ism called the conference. Calvan is dead .The word of God lives on .

To be clear, are you also stating that God needs to think differently than he once did under certain circumstances?

No it was his thought from the beginning to have mercy and grace of some and to others he hardened. God makes out hearts soft.

Do you think that because the old testament had many instances where God became angry that and omnipotent God who knows the end from the beginning can be angry just as a human Would?

God anger is different that ours. Its great mercy is tempered with forgiveness (grace) Man's anger cannot bring about the kind of life our Holy father requires of us. Improper anger (false pride) is sin

Dying mankind's anger must be settled before the Sun go down if not it will wake up a person according the the accuser of the brethren
It is one time the KJ should not be used . It sound like a commandment to be angry .We are angry people living in dying bodies not having received our new bodies.

Ephesian 4:26 KJ Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

The Phillips the better translation

Ephesian 4:26 PHILLIPS If you are angry, be sure that it is not out of wounded pride or bad temper. Never go to bed angry—don’t give the devil that sort of foothold.

 

[Mr GLee]

God is love is plainly stated in scripture, and it is written as an ontological statement. No need for anyone to have a decided soteriological position to see, read, know, and understand that.

By looking as a foundation of ontological, philosophical ideas as oral traditions of dying mankind. We learn by them we cannot know Christ the Holy Spirit of our eternal Father he teaches guides comforts and last but not least in brings to our new minds the things he previously taught ( John 14:26)


Christians are warned of them that say dying mankind must each us(1 John 2: 13 calling them that teach the philosophies of men anti-christ (many) Antichrist another teaching authority other than sola scriptura.

False apostles bringing false prophecy (oral traditions after the philosophies of dying mankind

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The 20/20 faith as a labor of God's love prescription must be applied if we desire to first seek his unseen kingdom revealed as it is written

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Empowered by that grace yoked with him He gives us the understanding why we do not faint but are strengthened by the unseen Power of the faith of Christ the mutual faith that works in all who beleive the living word as it is written

2 Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Yes he must repent from destroying to creating anew. It show us as he turn us towards Him. . he is a God of mercy.

Interesting? Where did you get this explanation from. The passage does not indicate this. It says,”LORD said, ‘ will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.’”

How could an omnipotent sovereign God be grieved at something He purposed to happen? If it happened but He did not purpose it, how is He omnipotent and sovereign?

This is one of the entanglements one can fall into if one used the OT as a primary source for defining the Characteristics of God.

I am not a ism called the conference. Calvan is dead .The word of God lives on .

What mistakes do you see in Calvin’s teachings?

No it was his thought from the beginning to have mercy and grace of some and to others he hardened. God makes out hearts soft.

This presents A serious apparent contradiction for Paul also declared that He wills that all should be saved. If one is appointed for destruction who did the appointing? And how is God’s Will that all be saved thwarted?

God anger is different that ours. Its great mercy is tempered with forgiveness (grace) Man's anger cannot bring about the kind of life our Holy father requires of us. Improper anger (false pride) is sin

It is different but how? A mother’s anger is very often tempered with grace. Since God lives in all time and it is assumed He predestined salvation for the elect and was angry with those appointed for destruction He must also have been angery all the tim since before tge foundation of the earth. He is angery at what He predestined.

God hardens a man and then is angery at the man?

Dying mankind's anger must be settled before the Sun go down if not it will wake up a person according the the accuser of the brethren
It is one time the KJ should not be used . It sound like a commandment to be angry .We are angry people living in dying bodies not having received our new bodies.

God is an angry God at those He has hardened? Why? Just make them soft and save them all according to His Will.

Ephesian 4:26 KJ Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

The Phillips the better translation

Ephesian 4:26 PHILLIPS If you are angry, be sure that it is not out of wounded pride or bad temper. Never go to bed angry—don’t give the devil that sort of foothold.

Amen. This is what is really important.

 

[Arial]

"Supported in the scriptures" is often a matter of how one interprets scriptures, how biased they are, and what they have been led to believe. This is a possibility for every one of us.

Deflection.

Tradition is part of what the Pharisees in trouble. "Orthodox Christianity" is a moving target. Each century had its spin on orthodoxy. Jesus was unorthodox in His practices and teachings.

Deflection.

What Christ taught was heresies from the orthodox point of view. John Calvin on the other hand defended wielding his influence against Michael Servetus who dared to return a copy of Calvin's Institutes with critical comments in the margins.

“Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly, his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies?” - Calvin

On October 27, 1553, green wood was used for the fire so Servetus would be slowly baked alive from the feet upward. For 30 minutes he screamed for mercy and prayed to Jesus as the fire worked its way up his body to burn the theology book strapped to his chest as a symbol of his heresy. Calvin summarized the execution this way:

In Calvin's defense, he did urge the council to chop off his head instead of baking him to death. The point of this is that orthodoxy should not be our guide, Only Christ should be our guide.

Delection.

How do you know that your views aren't part of the hodge-podge?

What does hodgepodge mean? The views in orthodox traditional Christianity of the reformation are very organized and systematically arrived at. Do you think that Jesus, and the writers of the Epistles set a hodgepodge cornerstone and a hodgepodge foundation? Do you think there is anything hodgepodge about the entirety of Scripture? Anything hodgepodge about God who is the author of those scriptures? If no, then why do you think it is acceptable to arrive at teachings and beliefs in a hodgepodge manner and that no one can lay claim to actually knowing what God really means and teaches, or even worse that no one can?

I certainly do not trust my views that much.

Evidently you do since you won't actually listen to or examine anything but those views.

This should require us to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord and let Him lift us.

Deflection. What does the scripture mean?

I don't have a side. I do not label anyone as a Calvinist once they tell me they aren't. Most own the label with pride. I have no problem with Calvinists, I enjoy debating with them. Grace covers us, they know it and I know it

Deflection. You did not address the scriptures given. And you do not debate. That would require you to actually address what is stated point by point, instead of deflecting from and ignoring every argument put forth.

Grace covers us, they know it and I know it. The rest is just about the nature of God which is far above our pay-grades.

The rest isn't just about the nature of God although His nature as revealed by Himself is always considered first. And it is not above our pay grade because God gave us an entire book that covers who He is, what He is doing, and how He is doing it, from its beginning to its end. He put it in words so we could understand. He stooped down to us to do it. You seem very dismissive of sound doctrine, even though Jesus stressed its importance and so did the apostles when they laid the foundation of His church and the foundation is the doctrines of His church.

 

[Mr GLee]

Interesting? Where did you get this explanation from. The passage does not indicate this. It says,”LORD said, ‘ will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.’”

How could an omnipotent sovereign God be grieved at something He purposed to happen? If it happened but He did not purpose it, how is He omnipotent and sovereign?

This is one of the entanglements one can fall into if one used the OT as a primary source for defining the Characteristics of God.

Hi thanks for the reply.

”LORD said, ‘ will blot out man, whom I have created

Yes, the Lord of lords not human lord But the Faithful Creator who faithfully said "let there be" and it was "God alone good"

In that way because he hates the death of a saint the sufferings they go through to give a understanding to the world. showing us his unseen power .

He knew in selfish false pride the creation would deny the Faithful Creator in exchange for a creature seen no faith needed . . mankind fell

Psalm 116:15Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

His pains of our new birth. Pouring his Holy Spirit in jeopardy of his own Spirit on dying flesh, giving us a living hope beyond the grave and a new family on earth .

I believe it pained him just like with Paul in pains of birth until formed by Christ. Not the hands of dying mankind they apostles prove they serve a loving God yoked with him their daily burden or suffering are made lighter

Loving God is not served by dying hand as a will of mankind .He can use a unbeliever to preach his gospel just as easy as one that does have new faith .

Death of a saint the precious demonstrating tool

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Deflection.

So instead of countering my arguement you simply label it and toss it aside. You do not even seriously consider it. Your definitions and understanding of scripture is influenced by your bias just as much as the next persons.

Deflection.

Bias

Delection.

Bias

This is easy.

What does hodgepodge mean? The views in orthodox traditional Christianity of the reformation are very organized and systematically arrived at.

That does not account for disagreements that resulted in Lutherans, Episcopalians, Quakers, Reformed theology, etc. Each just as sure as you are that their views represented orthodoxy.

Do you think that Jesus, and the writers of the Epistles set a hodgepodge cornerstone and a hodgepodge foundation?

Some would say so and believe it just as much as you believe that your beliefs are not hodgepodge. A man’s ways are right in his own eyes. All we can do is discuss and submit to God

Do you think there is anything hodgepodge about the entirety of Scripture? Anything hodgepodge about God who is the author of those scriptures?

Without the Holy Spirit people see the Bible the way they want it.

If no, then why do you think it is acceptable to arrive at teachings and beliefs in a hodgepodge manner and that no one can lay claim to actually knowing what God really means and teaches, or even worse that no one can?

Anyone making such a claim should be regarded with great skepticism.

Evidently you do since you won't actually listen to or examine anything but those views.

Deflection. What does the scripture mean?

Bias

 

[Mr GLee]

Deflection.

Deflection.

Delection.

What does hodgepodge mean? The views in orthodox traditional Christianity of the reformation are very organized and systematically arrived at. Do you think that Jesus, and the writers of the Epistles set a hodgepodge cornerstone and a hodgepodge foundation? Do you think there is anything hodgepodge about the entirety of Scripture? Anything hodgepodge about God who is the author of those scriptures? If no, then why do you think it is acceptable to arrive at teachings and beliefs in a hodgepodge manner and that no one can lay claim to actually knowing what God really means and teaches, or even worse that no one can?

Evidently you do since you won't actually listen to or examine anything but those views.

Deflection. What does the scripture mean?

Deflection. You did not address the scriptures given. And you do not debate. That would require you to actually address what is stated point by point, instead of deflecting from and ignoring every argument put forth.

The rest isn't just about the nature of God although His nature as revealed by Himself is always considered first. And it is not above our pay grade because God gave us an entire book that covers who He is, what He is doing, and how He is doing it, from its beginning to its end. He put it in words so we could understand. He stooped down to us to do it. You seem very dismissive of sound doctrine, even though Jesus stressed its importance and so did the apostles when they laid the foundation of His church and the foundation is the doctrines of His church.

Yes the nature of God's grace, is grace or faith to faith the unseen power to faith. He does not give a remnant of grace Can't separate the grace of God from God .He is the one fountain.

The letter of the law of Moses "death". . . redeemed by the spirit of the law the life grace through faith or God's labor of love faith

1John 1:16-17 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ

 

[Arial]

So instead of countering my arguement you simply label it and toss it aside. You do not even seriously consider it. Your definitions and understanding of scripture is influenced by your bias just as much as the next persons.

Deflection. You are still deflecting by simply parroting what I have said to you in much the way of children: "Your broke the glass." "No your broke the glass." Go back and actually address what I said you were deflecting from.

We should view them from not only God's point of view but from who God is. I have not seen any evidence that you do that. And I do not mean that as a put down, but a statement of what I see and don't see. It doesn't matter how many answers you received from "Calvinists." It matters what those doctrines are and where they can be found and supported in the Scriptures.

"Supported in the scriptures" is often a matter of how one interprets scriptures, how biased they are, and what they have been led to believe. This is a possibility for every one of us.

Your response avoids what was said and needed to be addressed in its full context, and instead merely makes a statement that all are biased and implies that scripture is not objective in its meaning and intent, and therefore unknowable. That is often used as a defective means and makes me wonder why those who use it even bother to engage in discussions, especially when they come out of the gate claiming they want to learn.

Bias

Is bias a bad word and a bad thing? I would hope one would be biased towards truth and earnestly seek it knowing it can be found.

Bias

This is easy.

See above. Not easy at all unless one keeps avoiding the topics at hand. And always deflects from addressing the well intended comments and views and explanations meant to offer clarification of the doctrines being addressed that the other party claims they do not understand but desire to understand. Everytime I responded "deflection" you could have asked in what way I saw that as a deflection. And then listened to what I said when I answered you.

That does not account for disagreements that resulted in Lutherans, Episcopalians, Quakers, Reformed theology, etc. Each just as sure as you are that their views represented orthodoxy.

You are spreading the net too wide and moving the goalposts before ever having a discussion of what I said. Removing the modern day differences from those things you list, and returning to the doctrines stated via confessions during the Reformation (as that is when it was done)as far as I know the Episcopalians and Quakers did not have a doctrinal confession is the same way as we find in the Heidleberg, Westminster, Baptist etc. in that era. Luther was is a part of that. And the differences in what became local by country as the Reformation spread were very small and had nothing to do with the doctrines of God, Christ, salvation etc. In these they were in agreement. The primary difference dealt with infant baptism. The RCC did have theirs, much of which I am sure you will agree, is heretical to Bible teaching, and was deemed heretical by the Protestants.

Some would say so and believe it just as much as you believe that your beliefs are not hodgepodge. A man’s ways are right in his own eyes. All we can do is discuss and submit to God

For Pete's sake! What does it matter what some would say? What has that to do with anything? Are you saying truth is unknowable, completely subjective (your truth is as good as my truth), and if so, why should there even be Christian or theology forums and people who inhabit them? What is the POINT? As Jesus said to Peter when He asked the disciples who He is, and got a similar to yours reply. "Some say this, and some say that." And Jesus replied "But who do YOU say I am?" ; so it was you I asked if YOU thought Jesus laid a hodgepodge cornerstone and the apostles built a hodgepodge foundation? Answer the question.

Without the Holy Spirit people see the Bible the way they want it.

You utterly deflected from answering the question. Which I will repeat after I say people can see the Bible any way they want to even with the Holy Spirit. They don't bother with Him when interpreting scripture but only listen to themselves (often calling that the Holy Spirit).

So the two questions were: Do YOU think there is anything hodgepodge about the entirety of Scripture? and Is there anything hodgepodge about the God who authored Scripture? I will be hoping for a straightforward answer.

Anyone making such a claim should be regarded with great skepticism.

Better yet. Stop doing it. One does not need to make the statement in order for them to be doing it.

Bias

Pretty sure the scripture does not mean "bias."

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Deflection. You are still deflecting by simply parroting what I have said to you in much the way of children: "Your broke the glass." "No your broke the glass." Go back and actually address what I said you were deflecting from.

Yes, that is the point I am driving at. I debate the premise of your argument and you cry, "deflection." You assume it is a deflection and mistakenly think that because you label it as such it is but that itself is a faulty premise. I deal directly with the premise. Now if you desire a text-by-text approach, I am happy to do so but I do not wish to address an entire lexicon of texts because it ends up creating massive posts.

If one starts with a faulty premise, no matter who it is, then all the texts in the world cannot revive it. Your premise was that the OT shows differences in the love God has for different people. I certainly addressed that premise. If you want to go text-by-text, which text would you like to start with?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Hi thanks for the reply.

”LORD said, ‘ will blot out man, whom I have created

Yes, the Lord of lords not human lord But the Faithful Creator who faithfully said "let there be" and it was "God alone good"

In that way because he hates the death of a saint the sufferings they go through to give a understanding to the world. showing us his unseen power .

He knew in selfish false pride the creation would deny the Faithful Creator in exchange for a creature seen no faith needed . . mankind fell

Psalm 116:15Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

His pains of our new birth. Pouring his Holy Spirit in jeopardy of his own Spirit on dying flesh, giving us a living hope beyond the grave and a new family on earth .

I believe it pained him just like with Paul in pains of birth until formed by Christ. Not the hands of dying mankind they apostles prove they serve a loving God yoked with him their daily burden or suffering are made lighter

Loving God is not served by dying hand as a will of mankind .He can use a unbeliever to preach his gospel just as easy as one that does have new faith .

Death of a saint the precious demonstrating tool

This is a great answer.

 

[Arial]

Yes, that is the point I am driving at. I debate the premise of your argument and you cry, "deflection."

You did not address the premise of my argument. You pulled a sentence out of the argument removing it from its context and replied to that, and when you did address any part of it you did so with irrelevancies concerning what some people would say, an unrelated diatribe on Calvin,what others might do. That is deflection.

Now if you desire a text-by-text approach, I am happy to do so but I do not wish to address an entire lexicon of texts because it ends up creating massive posts.

I have never posted a lexicon of texts to you.
What I have done is when you quote a "proof text" removed from its context that I do not believe is saying what you claim it is, is put it into its context and show where it indeed might be saying the opposite of what you claim. I do this with exegesis, giving a few other scriptures in other places that say the same thing, and how your interpretation creates a contradiction. In a debate if you are taking a different view, what you would do then, would be take the same scripture in its context where I have put it, and the confirming scriptures I gave, and take them apart in an exegetical manner to support your position, showing how the context still gives it the same meaning you gave it as a proof text.If you are correct, you should be able to do this. If this is too much trouble and too much to ask, then what is the point of the discussion?

If one starts with a faulty premise, no matter who it is, then all the texts in the world cannot revive it. Your premise was that the OT shows differences in the love God has for different people. I certainly addressed that premise. If you want to go text-by-text, which text would you like to start with?

Did you show it to be a faulty premise or just declare it to be? I will have to go back and read it and I will. Then I will pull this quote back up and address it.

 

[Arial]

If one starts with a faulty premise, no matter who it is, then all the texts in the world cannot revive it. Your premise was that the OT shows differences in the love God has for different people. I certainly addressed that premise. If you want to go text-by-text, which text would you like to start with?

Following will be the order of your first response to the OP.

The problem with your thesis is that you are picking and choosing what to use to define God from the OT. Are you now also prepared to agree that God repents of actions He has taken? Are you prepared to explain how an omnipotent God gets angry?

How am I doing that? I am including all that God says about Himself and all He says He does. I only chose a few instances as an illustration of things that are ignored when one defines God's love as being the supreme characteristic subordinating His other characteristics and attributes beneath love, and that according to the individuals definition of love as being equal in all its ways and to all people equally. And in doing this maintaining that according to love, God must give everyone an equal chance to be saved by their own will. So in order to be fair, it becomes mandatory of Him to also subordinate His will to man's will.

Are you now also prepared to agree that God repents of actions He has taken? Are you prepared to explain how an omnipotent God gets angry?

I do not agree that we can define repent when it is used in the Bible of God, according to our definition of repent as being sorry or changing ones mind, (anymore that we can do that with love). For the simple reason that then we would have God contradicting Himself as revealed. It is simply a use of language by those who only have language to express things.

I do not see any conflict between God getting angry and His omnipotence.

So then you’re a Calvinist who does not believe that God sovereignly predestined everything? Because, it would be crazy for God to predestine something to happen and then become angry about it happening.

When God elected Israel was it his will that the entire nation should be saved?

I am not a Calvinist.

And as for the rest of your post I don't see how it relates in the slightest to what it is responding to. How any of it in any way could be considered an interactive response to my post.

Which part of the Tulip do you find problematic?

I did not see this post until now. I don't have a problem with any of it. Nor have I seen post #16 until now, so I will go back and address it. But you surely see here that you "attacked" my premise as being wrong, never illustrated how it is wrong with the Bible, never illustrated with the Bible even what the "correct" premise is. At this point in the conversation you have deflected to a completely different subject. I don't know that you did it on purpose, stuff happens. All the same, the subject of God's love is lost, long before it was examined. Maybe it comes back up later--dunno without going through the entire thread.

 

[Arial]

The relationship that I intend it is quite simple. You are using part of the Old Testament to define the way God loves but if we are going to use part of the Old Testament to define how God loves then we must agree that the old testament is an authority on the nature of God and if the old testament is an Authority on the nature of God then all of the attributes of God that are demonstrated in it. I find that problematic if God is truly omnipotent.

I noticed several posters barking at the idea that repentance meant repentance when it came to God and they began to redefine repentance in regards to God. This kind of technique has its place if it is evenly applied. This is a very deep topic and deserves its own thread. But suffice it to say, pulling out examples from the OT to say that God does not love all people the same has its deficits.

Btw, do you no where old Studyman went off to?

From the OP. And no I don't know where Studyman went off to but I'm glad it wasn't here.

We see Him tell us in Deut 7 in light of His covenant with Israel, the forerunner and foreshadower of the superior covenant to come. I will highlight a few verses to bring out the crucial points for brevity. But the entire chapter needs to be read.

6. "For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set His love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8. but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping an oath that He swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a might hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations, and repays to their face those who hate Him, by destroying them.

His love is specific. It is for those who He is in covenant with. This love He has for His covenant people, and the very character of love itself, hates evil and wickedness. He destroys it. He chooses who to love and who to covenant with. If He did not destroy evil that would not be love. He sent His only Son to the cross, into the hands of wicked men to be crucified. Why? Where is the love in that? It was love for Jesus first of all for Jesus tells us this in John 17. He tells us there also that the Father loves us, the believer, His covenant people, just as He loves the Son. Try wrapping your head around that! Jesus went to the cross because He loves the Father's people even as He is loved. It was that once and for all victory over evil, that was foreshadowed in Deut. 7. Those in Christ are His treasured possession out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, simply because He loves them. And all the wicked will be destroyed.

God is obligated to save no one. He is not obligated to us in any way, and certainly not to either save all or none, to treat all equally. He has not changed from the OT to the NT. He was not obligated to covenant with all nations or else no nation. He was not obligated to be fair with every nation and all people without exception---for what is fair about it being the Almighty God who fights against those He does not covenant with? And He is still not obligated to His creatures. And He still loves who He loves, and does not love who He does not love. He still chooses who to covenant with, and He still destroys His enemies. He did and does it all, for His glory.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Following will be the order of your first response to the OP.







I did not see this post until now. I don't have a problem with any of it. Nor have I seen post #16 until now, so I will go back and address it. But you surely see here that you "attacked" my premise as being wrong, never illustrated how it is wrong with the Bible, never illustrated with the Bible even what the "correct" premise is. At this point in the conversation you have deflected to a completely different subject. I don't know that you did it on purpose, stuff happens. All the same, the subject of God's love is lost, long before it was examined. Maybe it comes back up later--dunno without going through the entire thread.

I did show how I felt it was wrong to use the OT as a way to explain God's love as being different for different people and how it opens a whole can of worms on God's nature. If we agree that the OT can be used in such ways then I can start citing it as proof that God gives us choices that we must exercise and that is just the beginning. My problem was, as I see it now, that I did not summarize my response clearly. Here is my premise concerning the use of the OT to define God's nature. The OT is pre-Christ and one of the reasons that Christ came to this earth was to reveal the Father. (John1:18) and therefore the OT does not reveal the Father to us. I would posit that what we see in the OT is man's pre-Christ understanding of God, especially in the books of History. Add to this the fact that we can't judge what was written during those times unless we were there to experience those times.

A simple example of what I mean is found in Genesis 11:5. Did God come down to look at the city? Probably not, but from a primitive human viewpoint of God it made sense and was something one could understand. If you wish to go text-by-text I can further show you how it is unreliable to use the OT alone to define God's love.

If the premise is faulty the thesis is faulty. Does that mean that your premise was wrong? No, it just means that the support for it was inadequate. If we go text-by-text we are going to have to wrestle with a lot of apparent contradictions.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

You did not address the premise of my argument. You pulled a sentence out of the argument removing it from its context and replied to that, and when you did address any part of it you did so with irrelevancies concerning what some people would say, an unrelated diatribe on Calvin,what others might do. That is deflection.

No, it is not. My only mistake was to be unclear. Your stated premise: Scriptures clearly tells us that God is love. This does not mean simply that He loves, but that it is a very attribute of who He is. His love is as large and perfect as is He. Needs no debate for it is true.

But your thesis implied a secondary contradictory premise: And He still loves who He loves, and does not love who He does not love. He still chooses who to covenant with, and He still destroys His enemies. He did and does it all, for His glory.

This premise uses passages from Duet, Malichi, and Samuel in the OT as its support. It was your secondary premise that I was addressing. The idea that God destroys those He hates is a pre-Christ concept written at a time when very few would have described God as love and Christ had not revealed the Father to the world yet.

God did not choose Isreal as His special people just to save them, no, as He told Abraham, "In you shall all the families of the earth be blessed." If you look at the geopolitical picture of the times, where God planted Isreal on the fertile crescent was a place where many nations passed through on their trade routes. It was the perfect spot for evangelism. I believe Jesus was the Jehovah of Isreal and that is why we see the real attitude of God toward them portrayed.

Luke 13:34–35
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

Humans kill themselves by cutting themselves off from God's life-giving flow.