Time for a little disclaimer: I am about to counter every single one of the Bible verses you quote with another Bible verse. This doesn't suggest that I accept the Bible - I do not. You, however, do. I am using these quotes to highlight that the book that you rely on is inconsistent and logically flawed.
That’s fine….I figured as much LOL! Again I’m entering this discussion with Christian love so I’ll do my level best not to come across or be insulting because that isn’t my intention.
Not necessarily and that's not the way I used it. I don't think you're dishonest; in fact, I know that your beliefs are genuine even if you cannot rationally justify them. That's all fine and dandy. The problem is that you try to justify your beliefs by assertion. That's what I'm challenging.
I appreciate that you don’t consider me dishonest.
My beliefs are grounded in Jesus Christ and scripture.
If I speak confidently it’s because I boast only in Christ. That doesn’t mean that I don’t make mistakes or learn new things though.
And yet, he does. See Exodus 32:14: "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Even if you want the King James version, the change is still there - God repents. In the New King James version God relents. So clearly, God changes. And this is but one example.
No worries, I am unconcerned about the translation.
There are several verses that note the idea of God changing his mind, but this doesn’t negate the immutability of his nature….he remains who he is.
Those that belief in God and live for him are also in a relationship with him. When the Lord “changes his mind” in scripture he does this for the sake of relationship with his body of believers. He demonstrates that he acknowledges their will and choices. God “changes his mind” within the scope of our finite existence so that we may grow in knowledge of him and increase in fellowship and relationship with him. Was he already aware of this situation from his position of infinity? Yes he was.
Jeremiah 18:8 – “ if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.”
God will do what is just and correct and merciful and gracious. Within scripture he has demonstrated that he will “change his mind” once we first come to him in repentance.
You are defining divine to mean to have the quality of God or to be God, but we don't know what God is, so we have no idea of what that quality is.
Merriam-Webster dictionary: Divine - 1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine>
b : heavenly, godlike
— di•vine•ly adverb
So the nature of God is divinity….deity….supreme being….to be God.
God expresses that divine nature in a trinity of coequal, coeternal persons in Father, Son and Holy Spirit that serve different purposes. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are divine in nature and are without flesh and bone (they are spirit), while God the Son in Jesus Christ has a dual nature of both divinity and humanity. Humanity is the highest in God's creation and created with the image or qualities of God in that we can exhibit his love, grace, mercy, peace and judgment to one another. Christ left the divine and entered into humanity and gave us the perfect example of God's image imprinted upon humanity.
So for me to understand how we're created in God's image we must look to Christ first and examine how he lived his life.
Hebrews 1:1-3
1 Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. 2 And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. 3 The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command.
How does God’s nature function in a trinity? I can’t comprehend it fully.
The “I am who I am” bit is a tautology and it's meaningless. You are you who you are. A rock is what it is is. It tells us nothing. You cite this is as having to do with divinity, but it tells us nothing.
So we’ve defined “divine” above….great….a god.
“I am” is not tautology…..it is God’s eternal name as given to Moses. God’s church has given many names to God.
So again, God’s nature is divine…..he’s a god. So picking up where you left off in Exodus 3:14-15, God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: Yahweh, the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my eternal name, my name to remember for all generations.“
Again, you are using circular reasoning: The Bible is true because it's the word of God, and it tells us that God's years shall have no end. But even if you ignore the circular reasoning, this tells us little.
The bible is true because it demonstrates the fulfillment of prophecy written hundreds and hundreds of years prior to the occurring of the prophetic event.
The bible is true because the risen Christ was attested to by many people and the apostles of Christ went to their deaths for him and today the Holy Spirit of God indwells believers.
In seeking to know God in my own life I have followed through according to God’s terms as outlined in scripture and in doing so have experienced the reality of him in my life. As I stated previously (, the promises of scripture continue to be fulfilled in me through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the process of sanctification, the process of becoming a new creature in Christ, the complete change of perception, the joy of fellowship and worship experienced by believers. I’ve experienced the love and goodness and God in my life. Because of these things I have faith that his promises for the future will also be fulfilled.
Really? He was weary enough that he had to take a day off (Ex. 31:17).
What is the greater context of that passage?
God expresses his desire for how man should work and used his creative efforts as the platform to describe that……6 days work and 1 day for rest and worship.
Did God actually “rest” or “become weary”? No. He merely ceased his creative efforts. The notion of “rest” is applied so that man can understand and relate. The language ascribes this action to God for that purpose.
Really? Exodus 15:11: "“Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?" Also, Psalm 86:8: "Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord."
These verses are actually affirmations of his uniqueness. They don’t affirm the existence of other gods though. Now, did man create all sorts of other gods? Yes….Baal, Molech, Asherah are examples. We already know this though.
Except when one is also three: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." How is that possible? Who knows. But clearly there's more than one.
So now we’re diving into how God expresses his divine nature. As noted above this expression is also quantified with a count of three or a trinity in Father, Son and Spirit. Three expressions of his nature forming one God.
Clouds don't balance - that statement is meaningless.
The descriptive language can often be poetic in form. Although calling it meaningless doesn’t make it so.
This entire thing tells us nothing about omniscience. What's "perfect knowledge"? What does that even mean? I've asked you this before.
It’s total knowledge….all knowledge….complete knowledge.
Clearly it can't mean omniscience: Otherwise, why would God need to come down to Sodom and Gomorrah himself to see and know what was going on. (Gen. 18:20-21)? Or not know what the Israelites were up to when they "made princes" (Hos. 8:4)?
God engages with us for our benefit. Again the moment we ask why “God needs” we are in error. God interacts with his creation for the sake of the creation.
God often acts like a parent does with his child and helps lead that child to a specific conclusion or to teach a life lesson.
As far as Hosea 8:4 goes I’ve read the passage before of course, but honestly I neither remember the verse nor do I remember the surrounding context. I belief the crux will be the word “know”. I’ve learned about the use of “know” from the Greek, but don’t know if that is appropriate here. Gotta study that out a bit.
As far as Genesis 18:20-21, this is an unusual literary device used by Moses to setup up the exchange between God and Abraham. I hesitate to call it anthropomorphic language though, but it does still humanize God. It establishes God’s purposes for making a face-to-face encounter with Abraham (via the pre-incarnate Christ). We understand that God already knew because of verse 20 in which he states “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” It’s the actual exchange between Abraham and God that follows which is the heart of the passage. Man pleads with God to show mercy and God responds in kind.
It's a pity you have things like Jude 4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation."
And let's not forget 2 Thes. 2:11-12: "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
So much for free will...
These passages don’t speak of a denial of free will. They speak of condemnation and punishment of the wicked.
Ok, so Jude 1:4, this verse and surrounding scripture deals with false teachers of the gospel. It’s actually more of a fulfillment of prophetic scripture. Christ warned of this behavior during his ministry in Matthew 7 when he spoke of the coming of false prophets. Even further back we see mention of false teachers outlined in Isaiah 8 written hundreds and hundreds of years before the gospel came to fruition. So the passage “of old ordained to this condemnation” does not speak of God predetermining (or forcing) these folks to engage in such behavior before time began, but it does reference that God has already condemned such actions in much earlier scripture.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, deals with the coming of the anti-Christ and those whom will follow him in lawlessness and direct defiance of God. You quote the verses 11 and 12 with no context and a text without a context is a just a pretext. Verses 11 and 12 deal with the judgment and punishment for those who align themselves with this “deception of wickedness”. As punishment for ignoring the truth of God and aligning themselves with the demonic, God gives them over to their wicked desires permanently. We already know that the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and the example given in scripture was attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the demonic. That said there can be no alignment between God’s goodness and the evil of the demonic. What we see repeated in scripture is that once people have willfully chosen to align themselves with evil and the demonic (thereby coming into the fullness of their sin) that God pronounces judgment upon them in scripture.
What I’ve repeatedly asked others critical of God’s judgments (and who never answer) is why they feel so much compassion for the reprobate, the twisted evil of pharaoh, the pagan nations who sacrificed live babies and those who willfully aligned themselves with the evil of the demonic? They engage in this evil behavior and God pronounces judgment upon them and suddenly these critics begin shaking their fists at God and seemingly forget the horrific acts of these people.
Why is that?
Your definitions were flawed or insufficient.
I already knew you were aware of them and they aren’t changing so I didn’t bother posting them.
In the end it’s just your opinion and you have every right to it. Although calling something “flawed or insufficient” doesn’t make it so.
Sure - a substitution of words. But why is it irrational or impossible when the word is "pink unicorn" but somehow possible when the word is "god"? I'll tell you why: because you are allowing your belief to cloud your rational judgement.
I can lead you to God, but you can’t lead me to the pink unicorn.
You speak so confidently and often in absolutes on matters of faith and God yet have no experience whatsoever.
What makes your opinions on such matters so valuable? Your tone of voice? Your handwaving?
Foreknowledge can be bening - there's nothing bad with foreknowledge. The problem - which you're failing to address - is how does inerrant foreknowledge co-exist with free will. The answer is that it does not. You can have one or the other. You CANNOT have both.
You’re inventing a concept that isn’t there. Foreknowledge is a facet of total knowledge (omniscience). I know you’re clinging valiantly to the notion that it’s impossible to for God to already know everything including our free choices because if our choices are truly free God can’t be allowed to know about them. You need this notion to be correct for the sake of the argument…I get that. Further, you want to be completely self-governed….to be completely autonomous with no influence from God whatsoever. Yet you are still subject to God’s law and his divine attributes and because of that you claim “incompatibility” between total knowledge and free will and claim that what humanity has is an “illusion of free will”. I get the argument.
I respectfully disagree. And as I’ve noted total knowledge is just total knowledge…it’s benign. Total knowledge is not total knowledge less knowledge of humanity’s choices…..that would be less than total knowledge. You insert “incompatibility” into the discussion so you can arrive at the “illusion of free will”. If you want to stick with that then by all means do so. I can’t counter it because it’s your opinion and you can adjust it as necessary for the sake of the argument.
No, rationality is not subjective. If your presupposition is that God is real, that doesn't make God rational or real.
So what is rationality? A state of reasonableness or ability to reason. It’s also defined as a rational opinion or belief.
How do we reason? Using the available data and our experiences is the typical method.
We like to pretend that rationality is completely objective, but it is only from within our individual worldviews that we rationalize.
What if worldviews conflict? Am I irrational and you’re rational?
It's not benign to my choice. If God knows I'm going to choose to have pizza tonight and that knowledge is inerrant, I don't have any choice: it's pizza. I only have the illusion of choice.
Again, God’s knowledge is complete although honestly I haven’t seen the term inerrant inconjunction with omniscience. I’m not saying it’s never been stated as such I just don’t recall seeing that.
Now, God knows all things past, present and future. His foreknowledge is not “force”knowledge….it doesn’t force your choices or his will upon you. If you want pizza ,then you eat pizza. His foreknowledge is inerrant only because he’s aware of the definite choices you will make. Above you said foreknowledge can be benign and now you’re saying it can’t be benign to your choice. It’s the notion of inerrancy that appears to force your choice. Problem is that inerrancy is a concept, not an action.
Explain to me how God knowing you’ll eat pizza and only pizza because he knows you made the choice to eat pizza is forcing you to eat pizza? Where did God exercise his power to control your choice?
I'm open to his will, if I can be convinced that (a) he exists and (b) that his will is what you claim it is.
Now you’ve made it clear you won’t engage in faith or according to his terms as outlined in scripture.
You reduce my testimony to delusion. You deny scripture. And an act of prayer would initially be an act of faith.
As much as I’d like for you to know God you refuse his requirements and demand your own instead. God don’t do demands.
God reveals himself to folks that humbly come unto him first.
You understand tautologies? If that's true, why say: "Total knowledge is total knowledge." That's a meaningless and completely vacuous statement. And, with respect, it's not something we're both doing.
If total knowledge is 100% knowledge can it still be total knowledge if it’s 99% knowledge? Can total knowledge be 110%? Don’t know how it could be greater than or less than the 100%.
Of course not, only the theist is ever in error LOL!!
Through the scripture - so how's that different from the previous point.
Not really different, just indicates that Christ attests to it specifically in scripture.
When you can provide observable, quantifiable evidence that the Holy Spirit spirit exists and indwells believes me know.
The Holy Spirit manifests himself to those who belief, not those who do not.
You have my testimony to consider. You have the testimony of others believers to consider as well.
Great - there's not argument there. You have had a direct, personal revelation. That's perfectly fine and, in fact, logically unassailable. But only when it comes to your belief; that direct personal revelation you had is meaningless to anyone other than you. For all we know, you're hearing voices.
Well, it’s meaningless to you, but not to other people who have been lead to Christ.
Tell that to children slaughtered for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). And to Eli's descendants (1 Samuel 3:12-13).
So once again, as noted above, in Isaiah and Samuel we see God pronouncing judgment upon “evildoers” and “workers of iniquity” and critics of God shake their fists at him when he punishes evil.
We already have specific examples from the Amalakites, Canaanites and the pre-deluge world that indulged in horrific, reprobate behavior. Older generations corrupting the next generation and so forth…….slowly generation after generation becomes steeped in sin and falls away from God. In the fullness of sin God steps forth and says enough. “They must not arise and take possession of the earth and fill the face of the world with cities.”
He gave these pagan nations hundreds of years to engage in repentance, but instead they chose defiance and evil. They lead their children out of innocence and taught them evil. They removed God’s law and promises from their children and replaced it with evil. And yet, we complain about God.
There are no innocents according to the Bible. Your warm and fuzzy feelings about reunions in heaven aside.
Already proved this out in scripture……sorry, you are wrong.
Except the little children that are cursed in the name of God (2 Kings 2:23-24).
It’s been awhile since I’ve discussed this infamous verse. Elisha and the little children that were destroyed by bears for simply teasing Elisha. The “little children” of this passage are also translated as “youths”, “young men” and “young lads”.
This was a gang of 42 youths anywhere from ages 12-20 (based on previous readings I’ve done) that exclaimed “go up Baldy!” to Elisha. Elisha’s predecessor Elijah had just “gone up” via the flaming chariot and they wanted Elisha “gone up” too (which from my previous reading can indicate wanting him “cast out” or “to die”). This gang was organized with bad intentions and their exclamation although seemingly harmless in our culture today meant something more threatening then.
The KJV translation states “little children” to which readers today immediately associate with a “happy daycare class of 42 5-year olds playfully teasing Elisha calling him ‘baldy’ . Then wicked ole Elisha cursed the blessed little ones and they were destroyed by bears.” The bears were sent to protect God’s messenger from impending harm by a organized gang of youths set on bad intentions.
Let me remind Jesus of Psalm 137:9: "Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"
Oh yes, the infamous “dashing babies against the rocks” psalm. Sounds horrific and it is. So what’s the context of the psalm?
The context is captivity of God’s chosen people by Babylon. The Israelites were again enslaved and tortured…..the psalmist notes that they were “tormented”.
Within this psalm the psalmist is expressing tremendous anger towards Babylon and hopes for an equally horrific end to the Babylonian people.
Because these feelings are included in scripture does that mean the idea of dashing/smashing babies on rocks is approved by God? Not at all.
Is the psalmist angry? You bet. Is the psalmist justified in his anger? You bet. Are the desired acts of vengeance justified? Nope.
We already discussed scripture that outlines how cherished children are to Christ and their placement in his kingdom….they are deemed the greatest.
The moment we entertain the notion of what “God needs” we’re in error.
Huh?
