|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 17:01:06 GMT -5
The link only shows up if the video that was uploaded was filmed in high quality.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 16:44:20 GMT -5
Frank,
The context of 2 Kings 21:16 is children sacrifices. When it talks about shedding "innocent blood" it is talking about sacrificing children upon the altar of Molech.
It says that "he made his son pass through the fire" (2 Kings 21:16). That is, he sacrificed innocent children upon the altar. "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire of Molech..." (Lev. 18:21)
That is why it says that he did "after the abominations of the heathen", whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel" (2 Kings 21:2). That is, he did just like the heathen who used to occupy the land that sacrificed innocent children. "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire..." (Deut. 18:9-10). It was the heathen practice of the former occupants of the land to sacrifice innocent children. "But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, ye, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel." 2 Kings 16:3
Again, since King Manasseh sacrificed children, it says that he "shed" "innocent blood" (2 Kings 24:4). I consider children to be innocent because the Bible calls them innocent. According to the meaning of the Hebrew word used here for "innocent", children are "guiltless". That is because guilt is not hereditary, guilt is derived from personal choices after the age of accountability.
Matt,
I would encourage you to take another look at the context of the passage. It is clearly talking about Molech worship, of sacrificing innocent children, "he made his son pass through the fire".
This is what Albert Barnes said about this topic:
"But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, ye, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel." 2 Kings 16:3
"And made His son to pass through the fire - i. e. Ahaz adopted the Moloch worship of the Ammonites and Moabites 2Ki_3:27; Mic_6:7, and sacrificed at least one son, probably his firstborn, according to the horrid rites of those nations, and the Canaanite tribes Deu_12:31; Psa_106:37-38. Hereto, apparently, the Jews had been guiltless of this abomination. They had been warned against it by Moses (marginal reference; Deu_18:10); and if (as some think) they had practiced it in the wilderness Eze_20:26; Amo_5:26, the sin must have been rare and exceptional; from the date of their entrance into the promised land they had wholly put it away. Now, however, it became so frequent (compare 2Ki_17:17; 2Ki_21:6) as to meet with the strongest protest from Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer_7:31-32; Jer_19:2-6; Jer_32:35; Eze_16:20; Eze_20:26; Eze_23:37, etc.)." Albert Barnes
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 16:21:21 GMT -5
I'd like to bring this thread back to the original topic or issue. Each individual is the cause of their own sin. That is why each individual is responsible and accountable for their own sin. There is nothing back of their will which necessitates their sin. Sinners do not sin because they inherit a nature which necessitates sin. Here is an article I wrote called "The Relation of the Nature and the Will": openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=articles&action=display&thread=1876It explains how our nature is an influence upon our will, but not a causation. Our nature (constitutional conscience) tells us to reject sin, but we sin anyways. Therefore, our nature is an influence but not a causation. Your intelligence (including conscience) and your sensibilities (feelings, lusts) do not force you to do anything, but they can be influences upon your will.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 10:30:13 GMT -5
Matt,
It would be unfair or unjust for an individual to deserve hell for something they didn't do, and it would be unfair or unjust for man to be punished for disobedience if obedience was impossible.
It would be just for a person to deserve hell for their own sinful choices, it would be just for a man to be punished for violating a law that could have been kept. . All men sin for the same reason Adam, Eve, Lucifer, and 1/3 of the angels sin. They set up their own self-gratification as the supreme pursuit or ultimate intention of their life, and in consequence of this motive of their heart, they break the law of God and rebel against His reign.
The devil appeals to our natural desires to tempt us to gratify these desires in a forbidden way. This is what Satan did to Eve in the garden. Sin is a unlawful gratification of some type of desire, either the lust of the eye, lust of the flesh, or the pride of life.
Regarding Adam changing our nature, we are victims of this. A drug baby who inherits a corrupt nature because of the sin of the parent is a victim. We inherit physical death from Adam, not because we are criminals, but because we are victims. Infants who die in infancy are victims, not sinners.
Frank,
God created us, obviously, with the capacity to know good from evil. But in the beginning, God did not give us this knowledge. Maybe He would have allowed them to eat from the tree of knowledge later on. This was a possibility some in the Early Church considered. I don't know. I do believe God wanted man to be a moral being, and therefore God wanted us to eventually have moral knowledge. Babies arrive at this knowledge once they mature. Possible Adam and Eve, who were mere babes sort of speak, would have also been allowed to eat once they matured. God wanted us to be made in His image. And it wasn't until after we ate that God said, "man has become like one of us". Eventually, I think God wanted us to know good from evil. But not before it's proper time.
Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Nevertheless, it is still God who is the author of our nature. God forms us in the womb. If a person is born blind, it is because God created them as such. If a person is born deaf, it is because God created them as such. This is what God told Moses at the burning bush. "And the Lord said unto him, who has made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11
It is GOD who removed us from the tree of life. You could say that we physically die either because Adam sinned or because God removed Adam from the tree of life. Both are true.
It is GOD who forms our nature in the womb and who gives light to every man who comes into the world. You could say that it is because Adam ate from the tree, or you could say it is because God forms us in the womb. Both are true.
But one thing is sure, a conscience (knowledge of good and evil) is a part of human nature:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by NATURE the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their CONSCIENCE also bearing witness... Rom. 2:14-15
The conscience that we receive is not corrupt until we ourselves corrupt it. The Bible says that through our own sin, our understanding is darkened, our conscience becomes seared. This is not the natural state of man at birth, this is a degenerate state which men enter into through their own sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 9:13:28 GMT -5
1. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. This changed human nature. Now the eyes of mankind have been opened, we inherit a moral conscience. We reach an age of accountability, when we know good from evil. And then we choose to do evil. Adam has put us into the position where we have all chosen to be sinners.
2. Adam was removed from the Garden and the tree of life. This resulted in the deterioration of mankind's physical nature. Now humanity does not have access to the tree of life. In consequence of Adam's sin, we all physically die.
In essence, Adam's sin resulted in mankind receiving or inheriting a moral conscience and also physical death. These are the changes in human nature that Adam's eating has resulted in.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 8:40:48 GMT -5
A lapel mic is definitely worth it. It improves the quality of the videos greatly.
To get the HQ to show up on YouTube, you have to click the "high quality" button.
Right underneath the "views", where it tells you how many have viewed the video, it should say "watch high quality".
It looks like this:
Views: 25 watch in high quality
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 8:32:40 GMT -5
By "nature" I mean constitution. It is the structure, composition, or makeup of humanity. Human nature and the human constitution are the same thing.
Human nature, or constitution, is spirit - soul - body. We inherit a spirit, a soul, and a body. That is human nature.
Human nature also consists in intelligence, sensibilities, and free will. That is the constitution of our personality.
Within the intelligence there is also intuition, reason, conscience, etc.
Within the sensibilities there is touch, taste, sight, smell, and emotions.
All these things make up human nature.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 8:09:37 GMT -5
Here is a video where I preached about how human nature condemns sin and rejects sin, but sinners corrupt themselves and choose it anyways. I explain how sin is a misuse or abuse of human nature.
SINNERS ABUSE HUMAN NATURE
PLEASE IGNORE THE GOOGLE ADD NEXT TO THE VIDEO
===========================
Consider also these points from an outline I made:
III. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUMAN NATURE (Rom. 1:26; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7):
“Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 39, published by The Boydell Press).
“Obedience [and disobedience] results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body.” Pelagius (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, p. 90, published by The Boydell Press)
1. God is the author of our metaphysical nature (Gen. 4:1; Ex. 4:11; Isa. 27:11; 43:7; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 95:6; 139:13-14, 16; Ecc. 7:29; Job 10:8-11; 31:15; 35:10; Jn. 1:3).
-----A. Our metaphysical nature is fallen (physical depravity) but not sinful (moral depravity).
-----------(1.) God creates some with physical depravities and deformities (Ex. 4:11). But it is not sinful to be born blind, deaf, or lame. This is physical, not moral depravity.
-----------(2.) God has subjected human nature to physical death (Gen. 3:22-24; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Being subjected to death is a physical depravity, not a moral depravity. Infants, animals, and even Jesus Christ were subjected to physical death, yet these are sinless.
-----------(3.) Physical depravity is hereditary (Gen. 1:21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 38-39; Heb. 2:14) but moral depravity is not hereditary (Deut. 24:16; 2 Kng. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-4, 19-20; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6, 8-9; 9:11; 2 Cor. 5:10; 11:15; Jas. 4:17; Rev. 22:12). Moral depravity is developed by moral choices.
-----------(4.) Infants may be born “drug babies”, that is, their bodies have an unnatural craving for drugs. The infant inherits temptation, not sin. It is a blemish upon his metaphysical constitution, but not a blemish upon his moral character.
-----------(5.) The body in and of itself is amoral. It is good or bad depending on how free will decide to use it (Rom. 6:13, 19; 12:1; 1 Thes. 4:4, 5:23; 1 Tim. 2:8). Flesh, blood, bones, skin, are all amoral just like rocks, sticks, dirt, etc are. In fact, God made us out of the dirt (Gen. 2:7). Our bodies are only as sinful as dirt is sinful, and dirt is not sinful. You could use a rock in an evil way, but the rock itself is not evil. You could use your body in an evil way, but your body itself is not sinful. Sin is not physical. Sin is a choice of the heart.
-----------(6.) Jesus had the same flesh and blood that we have (Rom. 8:3 with Php. 2:7-8; Heb. 2:14, 16-18 with 4:15; Rom. 1:3 with 2 Tim. 2:8).
-----------(7.) The Gnostic heretics denied Jesus came in the flesh (1 Jn. 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7) because they said the physical body was in and of itself sinful.
-----------(8.) When the Bible says that Jesus was made in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) it simply means he was “made in the likeness of men” (Php. 2:7-8). “Flesh” is a term used for men in the Bible (Gen. 6:12; Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16).
-----B. We are still wonderfully made (Ps. 139:14).
-----------(1.) The functionality and intricate complications of the body are amazing and awesome to contemplate. If our bodies, natures, or constitutions were totally depraved, we wouldn’t be able to think, feel, decide, walk, talk, smell, see, digest, or reproduce.
-----------(2.) The moral and intellectual abilities God has given mankind is wonderful (Gen. 4:6-7; Isa. 1:18). We have the ability to think, feel, and decide the same way God does (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; Jas 3:9).
-----C. We are still made upright (Ecc. 7:29). Our developed constitution inclines us towards obedience to God’s moral law.
-----------(1.) Because of our constitutional conscience.
-----------(2.) Because of the physical destructiveness of many sins.
-----D. We are still made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas 3:9).
-----------(1.) We are free moral beings like God is, with a free will, emotions, and intelligence.
“Man in his spiritual essence is a tiny replica of the great God and possesses in finite miniature the abilities and qualifies of being that God possesses in His infinite realm.” Gordon Olson (The Moral Government of God, pg 22).
2. Homosexuality is condemned by our God given nature or constitution (Rom. 2:14-15).
“Sin is never natural. It is horribly un-natural. Sin is never ‘human’. It is horribly in-human. Sin creates remorse, guilt, and shame; every time a man feels these three witnesses in his soul, they tell him sin is not natural. Even the simple lie-detector can tell us this. The whole body reacts adversely when a man sins… God never planned sin for man. It is the most un-natural thing in the moral Universe… Do not dare say sin is ‘natural’! God hates sin with perfect hatred; He loves humanity.” Winkie Pratney (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).
“The nature we are born with teaches us to reject evil and choose good…. Men must go against their nature to sin.” Alfred T. Overstreet (Over One Hundred Texts From The Bible That Show That Babies Are Not Born Sinners, pg. 6-7).
-----A. We are so constituted by God that our conscience condemns sin (Rom. 2:14-15).
-----B. Sin is always contrary to our reason, so it is unreasonable (Ecc. 9:3; Mat. 7:26; Rom. 7:16, 22, 25).
Gordon Olson said, “Rebellion against the kind and loving God is… madness.” (The Entrance of Sin into the World, pg. 21).
3. Homosexuality is against our God given nature or design (Rom. 1:26-27; 1:31; 1 Cor. 6:9; 2 Tim. 3:3; Jude 1:7)
-----A. The body or human nature has a natural design and function.
-----------(1.) You have to corrupt your nature to enjoy cigarettes. Your mind, tastes, and lungs naturally reject it.
-----------(2.) You have to corrupt your nature to enjoy alcohol. Your mind, tastes, and stomach naturally reject it.
-----------(3.) Homosexuality is a state that a person degenerates into (Romans 1:18-32). They are abusing their natures, misusing their bodies (1 Cor. 6:9).
-----------(4.) In this sense, a corrupt nature is the effect of our sin, not the cause of our sin.
-----B. God had a purpose or intention in creation (Gen. 6:5-6).
-----------(1.) The will of God is to have a sinless universe (Gen. 17:1; Deut. 18:13; 1 Chro. 28:9; 2 Chro. 19:9; Ps. 4:4; Isa. 1:16; Matt. 5:48; Jn. 5:14; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:26-28; 1 Tim. 5:7; Rev. 3:2).
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 3, 2008 7:57:30 GMT -5
If man is born, without the ability to obey the moral law, then man is not at fault for his disobedience. If God should require me to fly to mars by flapping my arms, but I am not able to do this, it is not my fault because I do not have the ability to do it.
All men are born with a free will and are therefore born with the ability to obey God. God's law is not impossible, God is not a tyrant. Sinners deserve hell for disobeying God when it was in their power to obey Him.
Disobedience is not misfortune. Disobedience is misconduct.
Sinners are not disabled cripples, sinners are deliberate criminals.
Sinners are at fault for their sin because their sin is their own free choice. They are sinners by choice:
“And God looked upon the earth and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Gen. 6:12
“…they have corrupted themselves” Exo. 32:7, Deut. 9:12, Deut. 32:5, Jdg. 2:19, Hos. 9:9
“The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no not one.” Ps. 14:2-3
“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way…” Isa. 53:6 “God hath made man upright: but they have sought out many inventions.” Ecc. 7:29
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 2, 2008 22:09:06 GMT -5
If we inherit temptation that influences us to sin, but does not force us to sin, then sin is still our fault because it is still our choice.
But if we inherit sin, and this sin causes us to sin, then sin is not our fault is it our misfortune.
Sin is a choice. It cannot be inherited. But a corrupted flesh can be inherited. This corrupted flesh is not sin, this corrupted flesh is temptation. We do not have to obey it, that is our free will choice.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 2, 2008 10:10:43 GMT -5
If original sin is true:
- Sin is not the fault of each individual sinner
- If sin is not the fault of the sinner, the sinner does not deserve hell
- If the sinner does not deserve hell, the sinner does not need the atonement of Jesus Christ
Deliberate criminals need forgiveness through a blood atonement, but disabled cripples do not need pardon at all. A sinner needs pardon for his sin because his sin is his own fault.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 1, 2008 17:21:44 GMT -5
Debonnaire,
It does not take away from the perfection of God to say that God knows reality as it is.
If the future was entirely determined, settled, or certain, God would have to know it as such since He is omniscient. If He didn't know reality as it is, He would not be perfect.
But if the future is only partly determined, settled, and certain, but also partly open, contingent, or unsure, then God would have to know it as such since He is omniscient. If the future was partly open, but God didn't know the future as it is, then God would not be perfect.
God's perfection is not in question here. The nature of the future is in point of debate. God is perfect so He knows the future as it is. The real question is whether or not the future is exhaustively settled, certain, or determined, or if it is partly open, contingent, or undecided.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 1, 2008 14:42:00 GMT -5
GREAT BANNER!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 1, 2008 14:24:40 GMT -5
Yea, we lost two sandwich boards in this battle. But they can be repaired.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 23:58:32 GMT -5
Newly Discovered Open Theists in Church HistoryAugust 24th, 2008Hello bloggers, For the last several decades Thomas and Christine Lukashow have been discovering orthodox Christians from the 17th through the 19th centuries who were open theists and who, so far as I’m aware, no one else knew about. Over the last year they’ve been gracious enough to not only keep me informed about their on-going research but to also send me photocopies (and even a few original works) of the material they’ve retrieved. (Thank you Tom and Christine!). To date, defenders of Open Theism have usually appealed to Calcidius in the 4th century and a number of 18th and 19th century theologians and preachers, including Adam Clark, Lorenzo McCabe, Billy Hibbert, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, Isaac Dorner and the renowned 19th century Bible commentator Adam Clark. In light of Tom and Christine’s research, it’s now beginning to appear that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. The open view seems to have been espoused and discussed much more frequently than we previously thought. Of particular interest is an 18th century minister named Samuel Fancourt (1678-1786). He wrote several works in the early 18th century defending the view that the future is partly open, including Free Agency of Accountable Creatures Examined, Liberty, Grace and Prescience and The Greatness of Divine Love. These book generated a lot of discussion, as evidenced by the dozens of books, journal articles, pamphlets and letters published at the time which the Lukashows have uncovered. Other 18th and 19th century orthodox Open Theists I was unaware of are J. Jones, J. Greenrup, W. Taylor, and D. U. Simon. The Luckashows have also recovered a number of 18th century anonymous booklets espousing Open Theism, and Tom has recently uncovered some evidence of Open Theism being espoused by 17th century Arminians. It seems to me that these discoveries are significant in as much as critics of Open Theism have often alleged that it is an entirely new teaching and even made the [entirely baseless] charge that it derived from Process Philosophy (a 20th century school of thought). I haven’t worked through this material yet, and, frankly, it’s not the easiest stuff in the word to read because most of it is in very old English. (Tom tells me he and Christine are in the process of “updating” some of it). But from my initial cursory review of the material, it seems that these folks based their Open Theism primarily on Scripture, using many of the same arguments Open Theists use today. It’s also significant that, while these debates were sometimes passionate, I haven’t yet found anyone accusing anyone of “heresy” for holding the open view (though again, I’ve only skimmed this material). Hats off to Tom and Christine for the tireless work in this area. One of these days, somebody needs to thoroughly digest this material and write a monograph on the history of Open Theism in the orthodox Christian tradition. (Anyone out there looking for a great doctoral dissertation topic?). It’s definitely a story worth telling. Blessings, Gregory Boyd www.gregboyd.org/blog/newly-discovered-open-theists-in-church-history/
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 23:54:31 GMT -5
The concept that God can have a "Plan A & B" is also Open Theism. It presupposes the open view concept or understanding of foreknowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 23:45:20 GMT -5
I am going to be uploading the video of this night soon. I think it will be called "Wicked Punks Destroy Bible Signs" or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 21:24:10 GMT -5
That picture is creepy.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 14:07:05 GMT -5
Yes, God has plan A, plan B, and even Plan C.
I have always said it like this:
Plan A: Nobody Ever Sin
Plan B: Those who sin can repent and be forgiven through Jesus
Plan C: Those who refuse to repent and are not forgiven through Jesus go to hell
Hell is God's last resort. God did not create hell for man and God did not create man for hell. God always ultimately wanted a sinless universe.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 12:52:43 GMT -5
That is a great sign! Praise God!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 28, 2008 21:40:28 GMT -5
Amen.
I use the same line of reasoning.
- If man is born a sinner, it is not his fault.
- If God took away man's free will, disobedience is not man's fault.
- If man's nature is incapable of obedience, disobedience is not his fault.
- If man has a sinful nature that makes him sin, sin is not his fault.
- If God forms us in the womb as sinners, if God took away man's free will, if God changed man's nature and made it sinful, then sin is not man's fault, sin would be God's fault.
But the truth is, sin is a choice of man's own will. Each individual originates their own sin, therefore each individual is responsible and accountable for their sin. Sin is an avoidable choice, and for that reason, sin is a punishable choice.
Sin is man's fault because sin is man's choice.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 28, 2008 17:07:11 GMT -5
Let's not forget at how much good atheism has done for the world, the Soviet Union being a good example.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 28, 2008 10:16:56 GMT -5
An atheist on campus recently said to me, "Let's talk abut this free will issue. Is God omnipotent?" I said, "God can do all things that can be done". He said, "Can God know the future?" I knew where he was going with that question. If God foreknows the entire future, there is no "may or may not" free will choice, because everything is already settled and certain. You cannot choose contrary to God's eternal foreknowledge. And since God's eternal foreknowledge would cover all events, then all events are eternally settled and certain, they are unavoidable, there can be no contrary choice. Since I knew this would be his argument against free will, I responded with, "God knows all that can be known. But because of free will, the future hasn't been entirely determined. So God knows that the future is partly open. God knows that the future is not exhaustively settled yet." (This is the basic conversation, not word for word).
I uploaded this conversion to youtube and someone recently asked me this:
These are great questions that I want to address.
The fall of mankind was not foreknown by God as a certainty (Gen. 6:5-6). If God knew that they were going to sin, the Bible says He would not have created them. He repented of creating them when He saw that they were using their will for sin.
Christ was ordained to be the Savior BEFORE the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20) because God knew that the fall was a possibility. God was preparing by ordaining a Savior, just in case mankind did rebel. But it was not settled that Christ would actually die UNTIL the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8) which was when the fall of Adam and Eve actually occurred. God prepared for this possibility before the foundation of the world, before the fall, but it was not settled that Christ actually would be slain until the foundation of the world, when the fall actually occurred. Again, Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20), but Christ was slain at the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8).
“As has been said, there is no doubt that God did before the foundation of the world determine provisionally on the atonement; in other words, that he determined that if man should fall the atonement should be made”. Joel Hayes (Foreknowledge of God, pg. 85)
“In the case of man, the Trinity had devised a possible atonement, in the event man should sin, that would lead to the avoidance of an infinite amount of suffering and bring good out of possible ruin”. Gordon Olson (Foreknowledge of God, pg. 37)
Here are some Scriptures to consider:
* God speaks of the future in terms of what may or may not be: Ex. 3:18, 4:9, 13:17; Eze. 12:3
* God changes His plans in response to changing circumstances: Ex. 32:10-14, Jer. 18:1-10
* God's willingness to change His plans is considered one of His glorious attributes: Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12-13
* God tests people to see what types of decisions they will make: Gen. 22:12; Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 13:1-3; 2 Chron. 32:31
* God has had disappointments and has regretted how things turned out: Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:10, 15:35
* God has expected things to happen that didn't come to pass: Isa. 5:1-5; Jer. 3:6-7, 3:19-20
* God gets frustrated and grieved when he attempts to bring individuals into alignment with his will and they resist: Eze. 22:29-31; Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; cf. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7; Acts 7:51
* The prayers of men have changed the plans of God: Ex. 32:10-14; Num. 11:1-2, 14:12-20, 16:16:20-35; Deut. 9:13-14, 9:18-20, 9:25; 2 Sam. 24:17-25; 1 Kin. 21:27-29; 2 Chron. 12:5-8; Jer. 26:19
* God is said to have repented (changed His mind) multiple times in the Bible: Gen. 6:6-7; Ex. 32:12-14; Num. 23:19; Deut. 32:36; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 15:29, 15:35; 2 Sam. 24:16; Ps. 90:13, 106:45, 110:4, 135:14; Jer. 4:28, 15:6, 18:8, 18:10, 20:16, 26:3, 26:13, 26:19, 42:10, Eze. 24:14, Hos. 11:8, 13:14; Joel 1:13-14; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2; Zach. 8:14
* Prophecies are sometimes God foretelling what He Himself will later bring to pass. So they have to do more with God's omnipotence then His omniscience: Gen. 3:15; 1 Kin. 8:15, 8:20, 8:24, 13:32 (with 2 Kin. 23:1-3, 15-18); 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 1:9 (1 Chron. 6:4; 10, 15); 2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Isa. 5:19, 25:1-2, 37:26, 42:9 (with vs. 16); Jer. 29:10, 32:24, 32:28, 33:14-15, Lam. 3:37; Eze. 12:25, 17:24, 33:29, 33:33; Dan. 4:33, 4:37; Acts 3:18, 27:32-35; Rev. 17:17
* Scriptures that say God has a past, present, and a future: Rev. 1:4, 1:8, 4:8
* Scriptures that say God’s eternity is endless time, that is, time without beginning or end: Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14;
* Scriptures that say man's eternity is endless time: Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11;
* Scriptures that say eternity is endless time for Heavenly creatures: Rev. 4:8
* Eternity is time without end (endless time instead of timelessness): Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 43:10; Isa. 57:15; Job 36:26; Dan. 4:34; Hab. 1:12 Ps. 23:2; Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:24; Ps. 102:27; Lk. 1:33; Heb 1:12; Rev 1:4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 4:8; Rev. 5:14; Isa. 45:17; Eph. 3:21; Rev. 14:11
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 27, 2008 21:10:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 27, 2008 21:08:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 26, 2008 18:25:46 GMT -5
"And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or fathers, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands with persecutions; and in the time to come eternal life." Mk 10:29-30
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 26, 2008 11:05:33 GMT -5
Great message on Total Depravity! Such an important issue.
I just read this morning in my Bible that God is the former of all things - Jer. 51:19. Why would God form us with a constitution or nature incapable of obedience? Or even worse, why would God form us with a nature or constitution that was sinful in and of itself? It doesn't make any sense. God formed us with a nature that is capable of obedience or disobedience, with a constitutional conscience that condemns sin.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 24, 2008 15:32:16 GMT -5
There is a big problem today with antinomianism a.k.a. lawlessness. The moral law of God is good, God gave it to us to obey it. The law of love promotes the highest well-being of all. That is a good thing. Obeying the moral law is a good thing! Consider how repentance is a change of mind about sinning. Sin is violating or transgressing God's law. Therefore, repentance is a change of mind about breaking God's law, it is when you make up your mind to keep His commandments. Unless sinners repent, they will perish under the wrath of God. God will punish all disobedience. Men must return to obedience, they must turn from their sin. Sinners are lawless. Unless they forsake their lawlessness, they cannot be pardoned by the grace and mercy of God. It deeply saddens me and grieves me that many in the Church misunderstand this and even outright deny this. I have heard repentance preaching being called "legalism" and even "salvation by by works." What terrible misunderstand and misrepresentation! I have heard very few in the Church talk respectfully towards the law of God, but I have heard many speak of the law in a very negative and derogatory manner. If a person hates the law of God, or speaks badly about the law, they are in fact in hostility towards God Himself and are slandering His heart / character. To despise the law of love is to despise the God of love. The law of God is a reflection of the heart of God. You cannot love God without obeying His law. Those who disobey God's law are in hostility towards God Himself. Here is a video of me preaching about the goodness of the moral law in the open air: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z37X3o2qnSI
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 24, 2008 15:28:13 GMT -5
I was also amazed to see the rejection of the Trinity on these boards.
As a new convert, I throughly studied the topic of the Trinity because I was debating Jehovah Witnesses who came to my house once a week. I was able to examine the Scriptures for the deity of Jesus and the personality of the Holy Spirit, both of which the Jehovah Witnesses denied.
The Trinity, as I understand it, is three Divine Persons who are in perfect unity. It is a tri-unity. These three Divine Persons, Father - Son - Holy Spirit, are one in essence and one in purpose. They are distinct but not separate.
The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Son is not the Spirit or the Father. The Father is not the Spirit or the Son. Etc.
Within God, there is a plurality of personalities but a oneness of essence and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 23, 2008 18:10:00 GMT -5
A major problem I have seen is the bitterness, hostility, and lack of love Calvinists often show towards those who disagree with, challenge, or question their theology.
|
|