Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
    and then you call me gibberish
    He was saying that he does not understand your broken English. Your grammar is very difficult to understand at times.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      "plan" seems to be YOUR word, FEB, and you are infusing it with your own meaning. So why are you asking others to debate some term you came up with and the meaning you infused it with?

      The bible is clear that the Father ordained Jesus to be the savior before creating the world. That means it was already done. Not "planned" to be done. The only place time comes into the equation is that we live in a universe with time and the event had to take place at some time in the timeline of mankind because Jesus became one of us.

      Hebrews 4:3
      For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


      2 Timothy 1:9
      Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

      God even chose us to belong to him before he even created the world.

      Ephesians 1:4
      According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love
      Finding meaning is indeed my point, Sparko. But quite honestly, I am not infusing my own meaning on the word plan; my understanding of that word is just a regular meaning that is applied by common people. Rather, you are the one's who make your own meaning, and in so doing, creating confusions as well. I cannot accept that the revelation of God is without understanding.

      On one point, the consequence of your belief is more applicable to the Calvinist, than a Molinist: as Calvinist would deridely ask "who triggered the switch of our salvation?" A Calvinist can defend himself using your understanding that there is no such past and future, but only eternal now that God is good and humans are evil. (This is just a part of my musings considering your belief on the meaning of time).
      ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
      ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
      https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
        Finding meaning is indeed my point, Sparko. But quite honestly, I am not infusing my own meaning on the word plan; my understanding of that word is just a regular meaning that is applied by common people. Rather, you are the one's who make your own meaning, and in so doing, creating confusions as well. I cannot accept that the revelation of God is without understanding.

        On one point, the consequence of your belief is more applicable to the Calvinist, than a Molinist: as Calvinist would deridely ask "who triggered the switch of our salvation?" A Calvinist can defend himself using your understanding that there is no such past and future, but only eternal now that God is good and humans are evil. (This is just a part of my musings considering your belief on the meaning of time).
        er, what?

        My belief? I just quoted some bible verses to you. You can accept them or not.

        No where does it say God PLANNED Jesus to save us. It says he foreordained him.

        Also "plan" in english can be a verb or a noun. You are using "plan" as a verb when the bible doesn't use it that way in regards to salvation. It could however be used as a noun in that God had a plan for our salvation "before" he even created the universe. And by "before" I mean "prior to" in a logical sense, not a temporal one.

        Your comments about Calvinists and Molinists make no sense whatsoever. Either you don't understand either one, or I am just not reading what you are trying to say correctly.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          er, what?

          My belief? I just quoted some bible verses to you. You can accept them or not.
          Quoting a verse, even the whole Bible, does not make the person understands what s/he is talking about. The reason I posed the question in the OP is because people understand them in way that it does not make sense.

          No where does it say God PLANNED Jesus to save us. It says he foreordained him.
          Let me leave this part for the moment.

          Also "plan" in english can be a verb or a noun. You are using "plan" as a verb when the bible doesn't use it that way in regards to salvation. It could however be used as a noun in that God had a plan for our salvation "before" he even created the universe. And by "before" I mean "prior to" in a logical sense, not a temporal one.
          It would not matter considering the word as a noun or a verb, the problem arises as admitted by Jedidiah regardless he agrees with foudroyant. The problem is then real. And so I cant accept fodrouyant's view to be a revelation, when it is purely unproductive, and merely pushes the believer to be fanatical.

          Your comments about Calvinists and Molinists make no sense whatsoever. Either you don't understand either one, or I am just not reading what you are trying to say correctly.
          Perhaps, different forms of soteriologies are accusing each others of not making sense. So, you, as a Molinist, would not accept my Calvinistic proposition(though I am not strictly a Calvinist). I guess we have to leave this part since it would just rehash ongoing conflicts between soteriologies. I guess we have to go then after the issues of coherence before accusing who ever make sense. Because, IMO, people throw nonsense arguments in the excuse that "nobody understand God's omniscience, anyways." So, perhaps, if you'd be sincere, let us try to resolve the truth of God's omniscience.
          ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
          ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
          https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
            Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus
            *
            *
            How God's omniscience play in these issues?
            From the perspective of God's omniscience, neither precedes.
            What are the implications if Faith came first?
            What are the implications if God's plan came first?
            There is an order to the carrying out of God's plan, in which the plan precedes faith as it is to be carried out.

            As to temporal order:
            God precedes truth (God Himself being the fundamental truth of all truth).
            Truth (plan) precedes faith.
            Truth (God's plan) is the originator of faith in it.

            Now that is how I understand this.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              From the perspective of God's omniscience, neither precedes.

              The foremost problem I see in this is that this is pantheism in the strictest sense. It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience. Whatever that exists, whether visible or invisible, all these things are part of God's being. We are not a product of a choice, but rather we are part of God's knowledge. And this will ultimately leads to accepting evil as part of God's being.


              I wish there will be pantheists in here and discuss this issue.


              There is an order to the carrying out of God's plan, in which the plan precedes faith as it is to be carried out.


              As to temporal order:
              God precedes truth (God Himself being the fundamental truth of all truth).
              Truth (plan) precedes faith.
              Truth (God's plan) is the originator of faith in it.


              Now that is how I understand this.

              How can God precedes truth, when truth is part of God's omniscience?


              The problem with your point of view is when you consider omniscience as the ability of what is to know, but then what is to be known is not independent of God itself.


              I agree, however, that God's plan precedes faith. Whether we speak of individual faith, or the faith as a whole, it is preceded by God's plan. The problem arises, however, when people think of omniscience according to your POV.


              My POV is simple, God knows everything because He created all things according to his purpose. His purpose of creation is not about his omniscience but of his power. God can create Truth (God's plan) in different ways.
              ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
              ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
              https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                The foremost problem I see in this is that this is pantheism in the strictest sense. It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience. Whatever that exists, whether visible or invisible, all these things are part of God's being. We are not a product of a choice, but rather we are part of God's knowledge. And this will ultimately leads to accepting evil as part of God's being.
                You conflate things created with the omnipresence of God. God is everywhere, but not everything (pantheism). You my friend come across to me to have a very imprecise view of God.

                I wish there will be pantheists in here and discuss this issue.
                This reminds me of an alleged Hindu story, where a young disciple of a noted guru, was taught that he was a god. And one day an elephant in his way would not move, but instead, pick the young man up in his trunk, and placed him on the side of the road and went past him. The next day, the young man when back to his guru, and asked him, how this could happen since if he was a god as taught it should not have. The guru explained that the elephant is a god also.



                How can God precedes truth, when truth is part of God's omniscience?
                God is the ultimate truth. All other truths proceed from Him.

                The problem with your point of view is when you consider omniscience as the ability of what is to know, but then what is to be known is not independent of God itself.
                You do seem to conflate the eternal and immutable God with the temporal truths. God being eternal and omniscient cannot not know.

                I agree, however, that God's plan precedes faith. Whether we speak of individual faith, or the faith as a whole, it is preceded by God's plan. The problem arises, however, when people think of omniscience according to your POV.
                Explain what you mean. The problem is people are finite in knowledge. God is infinite.

                My POV is simple, God knows everything because He created all things according to his purpose. His purpose of creation is not about his omniscience but of his power. God can create Truth (God's plan) in different ways.
                So your God is limited in knowledge. Is that your view? An all powerful being, who does not know for sure what he is doing. Hay, he could change his mind, and all of this would cease to . . . <blink>
                Last edited by 37818; 06-11-2014, 08:40 PM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  You conflate things created with the omnipresence of God. God is everywhere, but not everything (pantheism). You my friend come across to me to have a very imprecise view of God.
                  Note what I said: "It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience." I am not merely speaking of my physical existence, but I become part of the knowledge of God. See the difference?

                  One thing, note that I responding to your point where time is "eternal now," to wit that we are speaking of conceptual things. Perhaps, you don't subscribe to the "eternal now" concept?

                  Anyways, I do not subscribe to such concept; it is, IMO, absurd and unrealistic. There is no boundary for thinking of possibilities. Secondly, it makes God to be finite.


                  This reminds me of an alleged Hindu story, where a young disciple of a noted guru, was taught that he was a god. And one day an elephant in his way would not move, but instead, pick the young man up in his trunk, and placed him on the side of the road and went past him. The next day, the young man when back to his guru, and asked him, how this could happen since if he was a god as taught it should not have. The guru explained that the elephant is a god also.
                  You misread me. I wan't the pantheists to present also their ideas, if there is anything of what I am discussing that may resemble in their beliefs.

                  God is the ultimate truth. All other truths proceed from Him.
                  The problem is about when we speak of "eternal now" the word "proceed" is actually meaningless. Every point of time is merely a part of a whole "now."

                  You do seem to conflate the eternal and immutable God with the temporal truths. God being eternal and omniscient cannot not know.
                  I seem cannot agree of your understanding of immutability.

                  Ask God the highest number..... As I said there is no boundary of thinking about possibilities.

                  Explain what you mean. The problem is people are finite in knowledge. God is infinite.
                  In my POV, where I do not subscribe to the "eternal now", God is the ultimate mover, and the first cause. But in the POV of "eternal now" you can see the problem as I laid initially in this post.


                  So your God is limited in knowledge. Is that your view?
                  Not at all! Thinking is a process and there is no boundaries of possibilities. However, God's creation is finite. And it would not make sense that God does not know his creation.



                  An all powerful being, who does not know for sure what he is doing. Hay, he could change his mind, and all of this would cease to . . . <blink>
                  Not everything that God does is "necessary." He saved us through mercy; mercy is not a necessary action, and it is not an act of love either. Yet because the creation was made for his glory, it is necessary for Him to maintain it for eternity.
                  ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
                  ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
                  https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                    Note what I said: "It shows that my existence is part of God's omniscience." I am not merely speaking of my physical existence, but I become part of the knowledge of God. See the difference?
                    It seems that I see it to be more of a difference than you do. Our existence in God's knowledge. How can it not be? That does not make the things God knows omnisciently to be God too. Which is how your view is coming across to me.
                    One thing, note that I responding to your point where time is "eternal now," to wit that we are speaking of conceptual things. Perhaps, you don't subscribe to the "eternal now" concept?
                    The "eternal now" concept is one way we can partially comprehend God's omniscience of past present and future. Of course God's omniscience of of the end from the beginning does not exclude Him from fully knowing both the logical and temporal order of things as they had and now do and will happen. Like imagining that there is only one electron. All electrons are that one electron. There are places where electrons are not. God's omniscience is full and complete.

                    Anyways, I do not subscribe to such concept; it is, IMO, absurd and unrealistic. There is no boundary for thinking of possibilities. Secondly, it makes God to be finite.
                    Well, at best that view only partially presents God's infinite knowing to our finite minds. It is an explanation for our finite minds. God's mind is infinite, to say the least.



                    You misread me. I wan't the pantheists to present also their ideas, if there is anything of what I am discussing that may resemble in their beliefs.
                    Fine. Pantheism holds everything is God. It conflates the things in God's prence with His omnipresence. God being everywhere at once. Past, present and future (like the "eternal now" but not the same).

                    "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." -- Acts 17:28.


                    The problem is about when we speak of "eternal now" the word "proceed" is actually meaningless. Every point of time is merely a part of a whole "now."
                    Yeah. From our finite point of view. God's point of view is infinite and does not exclude Him from the temporal. The eternal Trinity of Persons in the Godhead demonstrates God's temporal relationship is also an eternal one. The Son of God.

                    I seem cannot agree of your understanding of immutability.
                    God is eternal - being immutable. The Trinity, Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit always were both an eternal and temporal relationship. So the eternal immutability of God never changes. But through God's temporal relationship, which is immutably true, change takes place: Creation (John 1:3), the incarnation (John 1:14), the holy sinless life, death for sin and the bodily resurrection where in Jesus Christ the man is now the same forever (Hebrews 13:8).

                    Ask God the highest number..... As I said there is no boundary of thinking about possibilities.
                    There is no highest number. Infinity is not a number.

                    In my POV, where I do not subscribe to the "eternal now", God is the ultimate mover, and the first cause. But in the POV of "eternal now" you can see the problem as I laid initially in this post.
                    There is no first cause, unless one believes this universe is the only one God made or will ever make and change. There are first causes. Otherwise to suppose a first cause is to deny God's immutability. What is caused requires a change on the part of the one who causes it. (The Son of God always was. So in any case, God remains immutable.)


                    Not at all! Thinking is a process and there is no boundaries of possibilities. However, God's creation is finite. And it would not make sense that God does not know his creation.
                    And if God (the Son of God) made infinite creations besides this universe we know, it is no more difficult than this universe being the only one ever. And any finite number of creations/universes would not be needed. This one is just as remarkable as any finite number. Or infinite creations with there being no first creation ever. Whether one or infinite, still requires the infinite God (by way of the Son of God, John 1:3; Colossians 1:16,17. The Son of God is required.).



                    Not everything that God does is "necessary." He saved us through mercy; mercy is not a necessary action, and it is not an act of love either. Yet because the creation was made for his glory, it is necessary for Him to maintain it for eternity.
                    You are mistaken here. ". . . for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. . . ." -- 1 John 4:8-10.

                    "He that loveth not knoweth not God; . . ." v.8 (2 John 9; John 13:34, 35.)
                    Last edited by 37818; 06-16-2014, 10:43 PM.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Which came first, Faith, or God's plan in Jesus
                      What are the implications if Faith came first?
                      What are the implications if God's plan came first?
                      How God's omniscience play in these issues?
                      "God's plan in Jesus" is that Jesus is God, and that Jesus's Faith is the Father's Faith. The questions are deliberately asked in a way that tries to separate the faith of Christ from the plans of the Father. Christ said He did the will of the Father, making Himself equal with God. The Father and Son are one. It is impossible to separate the Faith of Jesus from the plan of the Father. God is the Son and the Father in one. There is only one God. And Jesus is God.
                      Last edited by NoBibleEqualsSinner; 06-25-2014, 06:01 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        It seems that I see it to be more of a difference than you do. Our existence in God's knowledge. How can it not be? That does not make the things God knows omnisciently to be God too. Which is how your view is coming across to me.
                        I am not speaking of my view, rather I am trying to show the consequence of your belief. And no, I am not saying that the things God knows is God too. Rather think of how a materialist argue that the mind and the brain are the same. Reality, in your view, is fixed and finite in the "eternal now." The consequence would be that whatever existed is become whole in the "eternal now," making it a part rather than imagined, or constructed, or proceeded, from God.


                        The "eternal now" concept is one way we can partially comprehend God's omniscience of past present and future. Of course God's omniscience of of the end from the beginning does not exclude Him from fully knowing both the logical and temporal order of things as they had and now do and will happen. Like imagining that there is only one electron. All electrons are that one electron. There are places where electrons are not. God's omniscience is full and complete.
                        When we conceive of things in an "eternal now," then God's mind cannot be changed. And more, everything that is to be known is coexisting with God. This is the consequence of your belief of omniscience. Just like metamorphosis is part of the butterfly, the same can be conceived of every event becomes part of God. The caterpillar and cocoon are parts the existence of the butterfly, in like wise every event that exists in the eternal now is part of the existence of God.


                        Well, at best that view only partially presents God's infinite knowing to our finite minds. It is an explanation for our finite minds. God's mind is infinite, to say the least.
                        Finite and infinite are contradictory. When you put all things that can be known in an “eternal now” you have already set God’s mind as finite; which will fall into the problem that all that exists is but all of what God’s mind is all about.


                        Fine. Pantheism holds everything is God. It conflates the things in God's presence with His omnipresence. God being everywhere at once. Past, present and future (like the "eternal now" but not the same).

                        "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." -- Acts 17:28.
                        Unfortunately, in accepting your view of omniscience, there is not a difference in holding to a pantheistic view. If the reality is known and fixed in God’s omniscience, what is the difference of the reality to be understood as God’s being? None.



                        Yeah. From our finite point of view. God's point of view is infinite and does not exclude Him from the temporal. The eternal Trinity of Persons in the Godhead demonstrates God's temporal relationship is also an eternal one. The Son of God.
                        The problem is you are isolating the Son in God’s omniscience, instead of taking the whole of “eternal now.” How about us in that whole eternal now, don’t we also fall as part of the Godhead?


                        God is eternal - being immutable. The Trinity, Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit always were both an eternal and temporal relationship. So the eternal immutability of God never changes. But through God's temporal relationship, which is immutably true, change takes place: Creation (John 1:3), the incarnation (John 1:14), the holy sinless life, death for sin and the bodily resurrection where in Jesus Christ the man is now the same forever (Hebrews 13:8).

                        There is no highest number. Infinity is not a number.
                        I did not say that infinite is a number. What I am implying is that you cannot set the nature of mind to what is being thought, or been thought.



                        There is no first cause, unless one believes this universe is the only one God made or will ever make and change. There are first causes. Otherwise to suppose a first cause is to deny God's immutability. What is caused requires a change on the part of the one who causes it. (The Son of God always was. So in any case, God remains immutable.)
                        The point of taking the concept of eternal now is that there is no “first cause,” isn’t it? And I wonder why would you simply isolate the Son in the eternal now instead of taking everything of it.




                        And if God (the Son of God) made infinite creations besides this universe we know, it is no more difficult than this universe being the only one ever. And any finite number of creations/universes would not be needed. This one is just as remarkable as any finite number. Or infinite creations with there being no first creation ever. Whether one or infinite, still requires the infinite God (by way of the Son of God, John 1:3; Colossians 1:16,17. The Son of God is required.).
                        From the way I see your POV is that every event comes to pass in time because it is part of God’s being. And so, God created human beings for it is part of God’s being. And that there is no other way would God have created except the way it is in the “eternal now.”

                        You are mistaken here. ". . . for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins. . . ." -- 1 John 4:8-10.

                        "He that loveth not knoweth not God; . . ." v.8 (2 John 9; John 13:34, 35.)
                        Whom God loved “first” were actually the one who will be saved. Not because we loved God. Those whom God loved were the ones elected since the beginning and were predestined to eternal life. The significance of pointing the saved as referring to those whom God loved first is because some men love God, and yet were not saved(read Rom 10:1-3). My point in this is that that the love of God is different to that of the human love. I was actually meaning that God’s mercy is not an act of love as of how humans understood what love is. God cannot love man because of its fallenness. But through God’s mercy, it is God himself who makes us worthy to be the subject of His love.
                        Last edited by FarEastBird; 07-05-2014, 10:40 PM.
                        ...WISDOM giveth life to them that have it. (Ecclesiastes 7:12)
                        ...the ISLES shall wait for his law (Isaiah 42:4)
                        https://philippinesinprophecies.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                          "God's plan in Jesus" is that Jesus is God, and that Jesus's Faith is the Father's Faith. The questions are deliberately asked in a way that tries to separate the faith of Christ from the plans of the Father. Christ said He did the will of the Father, making Himself equal with God. The Father and Son are one. It is impossible to separate the Faith of Jesus from the plan of the Father. God is the Son and the Father in one. There is only one God. And Jesus is God.
                          Jesus is a man, an immortal man in God's presence for us.

                          "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . . " -- 1 Timothy 2:5.

                          "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . _ . . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:6, 12.

                          They are not the same Person,

                          ". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . . _ . . . if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." -- John 8:17 - 19.

                          ". . . And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. . . _ . . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:. . . 32.

                          ". . . Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:6, 7.

                          They are the same God.

                          ". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. John Darby Translation.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by FarEastBird View Post
                            I am not speaking of my view, rather I am trying to show the consequence of your belief. And no, I am not saying that the things God knows is God too. Rather think of how a materialist argue that the mind and the brain are the same. Reality, in your view, is fixed and finite in the "eternal now." The consequence would be that whatever existed is become whole in the "eternal now," making it a part rather than imagined, or constructed, or proceeded, from God.
                            The consequence you suppose is not true. God's omniscience is not affected by our thinking of it as a "eternal now." Do not conflate the things God knows with what will be.


                            When we conceive of things in an "eternal now," then God's mind cannot be changed.
                            Two things here. One our conceiving of things in an "eternal now" has no effect on God's knowing. Two, God does not change. Events change, and the outcome changes as it comes from God because of that change. Not that God changed. God's temporal agent, changes His actions as God. The Son of God is the God of the OT in thought and deed. God does not change. The Son of God as God's agent does.
                            . . . And more, everything that is to be known is coexisting with God. This is the consequence of your belief of omniscience. Just like metamorphosis is part of the butterfly, the same can be conceived of every event becomes part of God. The caterpillar and cocoon are parts the existence of the butterfly, in like wise every event that exists in the eternal now is part of the existence of God.
                            The only "thing" which always co-existed with God is the Logos who we know to be the Son of God (John 1:1, 2, 3). Everything else was made (v.3).


                            Finite and infinite are contradictory. When you put all things that can be known in an “eternal now” you have already set God’s mind as finite; which will fall into the problem that all that exists is but all of what God’s mind is all about.
                            No. God's mind is not affected by our concept of "eternal now." God is infinite. The Logos (John 1:1, 2) who faces God eternally is both infinite and finite. The trinity explanation of the God, being the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit - is a finite, temporal face of the infinite eternal God to us. They always were. God does not change.


                            Unfortunately, in accepting your view of omniscience, there is not a difference in holding to a pantheistic view.
                            That is a misconception. It is your contention. I deny this. It is simply not true since in pantheism everything is God. That is not my view. It is your argument which conflates God's omniscience with every created thing. They are not the same.

                            If the reality is known and fixed in God’s omniscience, what is the difference of the reality to be understood as God’s being? None.
                            Your argument is from a finite mind's point of view. And it is false. God knows the end from the beginning, and cannot not know. ". . . Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: . . ." -- Isaiah 46:10. And "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. " -- Psalm 33:11.




                            The problem is you are isolating the Son in God’s omniscience, instead of taking the whole of “eternal now.” How about us in that whole eternal now, don’t we also fall as part of the Godhead?
                            Again, that by explanation of God's omniscience using the "eternal now" to illustrate it, does not limit God by the illustration.





                            I did not say that infinite is a number. What I am implying is that you cannot set the nature of mind to what is being thought, or been thought.
                            Then what are you talking about? You are not making any sense. What do you think you are doing? You are doing what you said cannot be done, are you not?



                            The point of taking the concept of eternal now is that there is no “first cause,” isn’t it? And I wonder why would you simply isolate the Son in the eternal now instead of taking everything of it.
                            They are not the same things. For example, the things in a box are not the box.

                            Whether there be a "first cause" Genesis 1:1 being God's sole creation or not. It does not matter to the question.




                            From the way I see your POV is that every event comes to pass in time because it is part of God’s being.
                            No. That is not my view. Things which come to pass are NOT part of God. God is both omniscient and omnipresent regarding the things which come to pass and are. They are not God nor part of God. Do you think the Apostle Paul taught we are God, saying, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being?"

                            And so, God created human beings for it is part of God’s being. And that there is no other way would God have created except the way it is in the “eternal now.”
                            Who actually teaches this, besides you?

                            Whom God loved “first” were actually the one who will be saved. Not because we loved God. Those whom God loved were the ones elected since the beginning and were predestined to eternal life. The significance of pointing the saved as referring to those whom God loved first is because some men love God, and yet were not saved(read Rom 10:1-3). My point in this is that that the love of God is different to that of the human love. I was actually meaning that God’s mercy is not an act of love as of how humans understood what love is. God cannot love man because of its fallenness. But through God’s mercy, it is God himself who makes us worthy to be the subject of His love.
                            Through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2).

                            But I think you still have it wrong about God's love.

                            ". . . For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . . " -- John 3:16.

                            It is just that we are not to love this world, ". . . Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. . . ." -- 1 John 2:15.

                            So God's love is explained this way, " . . . But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8.
                            Last edited by 37818; 07-06-2014, 12:38 AM.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Jesus is a man , an immortal man in God's presence for us.

                              "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . . " -- 1 Timothy 2:5.[1]

                              "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . _ . . . and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Isaiah 53:6, 12. [2]

                              They are not the same Person,

                              ". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . . _ . . . if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also." -- John 8:17 - 19. [3]

                              ". . . And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. . . _ . . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:. . . 32. [4]

                              ". . . Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:6, 7. [5]

                              They are the same God. [6]

                              ". . . the kingdom of the Christ and God." -- Ephesians 5:5. John Darby Translation.
                              They are the same God, indeed.

                              [1] Timothy called Christ "God our Saviour" (II Tim 2:3).

                              [2] Isaiah called Jesus "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

                              [3] John called the Savior "The Word" (was God, John 1:1).

                              [4] Mark called Immanuel "The Lord" (Mark 16:19).

                              [5] (Luke) called Him the "Right Hand of God" (Acts 7:55).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by NoBibleEqualsSinner View Post
                                They are the same God, indeed.

                                [1] Timothy called Christ "God our Saviour" (II Tim 2:3).
                                Yes, but the Jesus' humanity is not mixed with His deity. Two separate natures. One Person who is both now God and a man.
                                [2] Isaiah called Jesus "Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).
                                Again, refers to this man's divine nature, being both God and a man.
                                [3] John called the Savior "The Word" (was God, John 1:1).
                                Interestingly in John 1:1 and 2, the Word facing God, being someone other than God and at the same time being God (v.3). Two natures before the incarnation! It was the Word's nature facing God [with God] which changed, as in the incarnation (v.14). His deity [was God] never changed.
                                [4] Mark called Immanuel "The Lord" (Mark 16:19).
                                Being called Lord there is not referring to His deity, but to His humanity, having bought us is placed over us all. Remember Thomas called Him both Lord and God.

                                " But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6.
                                ". . . One Lord, . . . One God and Father . . . ." -- Ephesians 4:5, 6.

                                In the NT the title "Lord" is often used to refer to Christ's humanity (Matthew 22:44). But also to refer to Christ's deity (Romans 10:13). See also Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43; Isaiah 43:11. Christ's deity is not in question.
                                [5] (Luke) called Him the "Right Hand of God" (Acts 7:55).
                                I agree with that concept. But what translation are you referencing?
                                ". . . Jesus standing on the right hand of God, . . ." - KJV
                                ". . . Jesus standing on the right hand of God, . . . " - ASV
                                ". . . Jesus standing at the right hand of God, . . . " -- John Darby translation.
                                ". . . Jesus standing at the right side of God. . . . " - Good News Bible, American Bible Society.
                                ". . . ιησουν εστωτα εκ δεξιων του θεου . . . " The New Testament Greek.
                                Last edited by 37818; 07-07-2014, 09:36 PM.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X