Evidence for God from Science

"Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.'"" (2 Samuel 12:11-12)

Try again Jac. Did God do this or not?

I am taking Greek Jac, but it is irrelevant. Are all the above translations bad? Did these translators not know enough Greek to correct this error when bringing it to English.

Here is what I do know. "Touto" is a pronoun. Therefore it has to be describing a noun. I hold, despite the gender difference, that it describes the noun "faith" (and so did all of the translators). Now let me ask you, what noun is touto describing. (Hint: In order for good grammar, it must be a noun that exists in the sentence itself. This is true in any language).

Who's accusing Paul of bad grammar now?

Jac3510 wrote: Faith is an attribute of man. ...Some people don't have faith.

If faith an attribute of all men, or just some?

Jac3510 wrote:As for Absalom, I've already told you: Absalom, not God, did Absalom's sin. When God said He would do it openly, He was referring to the judgment, not the sin itself.

What was the judgment that God did?

"Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.'"" (2 Samuel 12:11-12)

Try again Jac. Did God do this or not?

What is the "this" God will do? It is the raising up evil against David. It is the judgment against David.

Now, how about you answer my question:

Your god can sin, and yet it is not a sin because he is god?

I am taking Greek Jac, but it is irrelevant. Are all the above translations bad? Did these translators not know enough Greek to correct this error when bringing it to English.

Here is what I do know. "Touto" is a pronoun. Therefore it has to be describing a noun. I hold, despite the gender difference, that it describes the noun "faith" (and so did all of the translators). Now let me ask you, what noun is touto describing. (Hint: In order for good grammar, it must be a noun that exists in the sentence itself. This is true in any language).

1) The translations are not bad. Your reading of English grammar into a Greek construction is bad.

2) You argue that in any language, a noun must exist in a sentence for a pronoun to refer to. This is simply untrue. Consider the following English example:

"I say we take John and put him in the outfield, and bring Hank in and put him on second base. What do you think?"
"I think it is a good idea"

What does "it" refer to, PL? How about applying that same rule to Eph. 2:8, which is allowable in English and required by Greek.

3) "Despite the gender differences" . . . you are so not getting this. OK, let's just go right to the authorities on the matter.

Daniel Wallace wrote:The neuter of houtos is routinely used to refer to a phrase or clause. In such cases, the thing referred to is not a specific noun or substantive. The singular is used to refer both to an antecedant and a postcedent on a regular basis, while the plural is almost exclusively shut up to retrospective issues. (Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. p.333)

He then gives several examples, one of which is Eph. 2:8. There,

Wallace wrote:[Eph. 2:8] is the most debated text in terms of the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun touto. The standard interpretations include: (1) "grace" as the antecedent, (2) "faith" as the antecedent, (3)the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation as antecedent, and (4) kai touto having an adverbial force with no antecedent ("and especially").

The first and second options suffer from the fact that touto is neuter while charti and pistews are feminine. Some have argued that the gender shift causes no problem beacuse (a) there are other examples in Greek literature in which a neuter demonstrative refers back to a noun on a different gender, and (b) the touto has been attracted to the gender of dwron, the predicate nominative. These two arguments need to be examined together.

While it is true that on rare occasions there is a gender shift between antecedent and pronoun, the pronoun is almost always caught between two nouns of different genders. One is the antecedant; the other is the predicate noun. In ACts 8:10, for example . . . the pronoun is masculine because its antecedent is masculine, even though the predicate nom. is feminine. In Matt. 13:38 inverse attraction takes place (the prenominal subject is attracted to teh gender of the predicate nom.) . . . The construction in Eph 2:8, however, is not parallel because dwron is not the predciate nom. of touto, but the implied "it" in the following cluase. On a grammatical level, then, it is doubtful that either "faith" or "grace" is the antecedent of touto.

More plausible is the third view, viz., that touto refers to the concept of a grace-by-faith salvation. As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the NT is not addressed by this. (ibid., 334-5)

Now, PL, are you going to admit that you are wrong on this or not? This does not prove that faith is not a gift. It proves that this passage does not comment on the subject.

Who's accusing Paul of bad grammar now?

Since you are the one who is saying that Paul used the pronoun incorrectly, you are. I am saying Paul used it in a perfectly acceptable, and very commonly used, way.

If faith an attribute of all men, or just some?

All men have the ability to believe/trust.

What was the judgment that God did?

I covered this above.

So, again, is there anything else you want to add to your original verse list, and are we finished with Eph. 2? If so, that only leaves us with Acts 3 and Phil 1.

puritan lad wrote: … you are twisting the biblical meaning of foreknowledge. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about God predestinating a “foreknowledge of choice, faith, works” etc. This is a pipe dream of Arminians, who want God to bow down before their idol of free will and his goddess Contingency. Besides, I've already pointed out that your view of “foreknowledge” is totally incompatible with the idea that God can change His mind. Now in answer to your post, yet again…First, no one said that “God just predestined or prognosis without intelligence”. It doesn't help to put words in people's mouths to bolster your side of the debate.

Then - Why do not you stop doing so?

puritan lad wrote: Second, it is true, for some, that “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”. However, it is a matter of common observation that not all who hear the Word of God have faith (2 Thess. 3:2). So I ask again, where does a person get faith from? What is the root difference between those who accept the gospel and those who reject it? I say election. You say what? What about those who hear the Word and reject it? Is God's purpose fulfilled (See Isaiah 55:11)?

From hearing God's word however God so chooses to do so. PL, what would happen if God did not call? i.e. call out?

B. W. wrote: According to you point of view — they must as God preordained them to sin, rape, molest the young, butcher in God's name but this makes God the author of sin and negates man's responsibility for his own action.

But for your trick question - Yes, God can use the wicked however he wills and for whatever purposes he so chooses. I went over this countless times. Too bad you did not notice this in my post. The manner God acts is consistent with God's nature, character, and wisdom — that is how he can work things for good, etc.

puritan lad wrote: B.W. You, like Jac, did not answer the question. Saying that “God can use the wicked" doesn't answer these questions. We both agree on that. The question is, Does God sovereignly work His will in the sinful acts of wicked men? It is not a trick question, it's only a clear biblical question with a clear biblical answer that, for our modern Christians, is a bombshell to be sure. I'll ask it again, and I would like straightforward answers that are true to the scriptures. There are other examples, but these should suffice. These are not “trick questions”. They are very simple, straightforward questions that anyone who can read should be able to answer. The only “trick” for you is to answer it while remaining true to both the Bible and your own theology. I don't envy your task.

The answers to the questions you ask is that God is in charge; however, we disagree on how he is charge and works things out for his Glory. Jac can answer on his own. I feel sorry that you limit God's sovereignty on what he can and cannot do. You are rejecting God's wisdom on this matter. Fact is God can use the wicked as He so wills. He could have never have spoken and just left all humanity wickedly damned forever.

puritan lad wrote:As far as my definition of Sovereignty, I'll simply use the dictionary definition. Main Entry: sov•er•eign•ty - Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/ -Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural —ties -Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

There it is B.W. Autonomous. Free from external control “like man's free will”. Supreme excellent.

It is shame that such confusion arises over a simple word pro-tasso. (You may want to look that one up as well). Of course God knows everything, but His decrees are not contingent on “foreknowledge”. Your post is a perfect example of just how far apart the Doctrines of Calvinists and Arminians are, and why seeking some middle ground is futile.

Then what are God decrees based on PL? Before being appointed what did God base this appointment on? The bible declares how — John 3:16. God knows who are his because he kaleo, 2564, called aloud, utter in a loud voice to invite, to call. To deny that God can know everything beforehand and to deny God's foreknowing who will believe and who will not believe denies the nature and character and wisdom of our sovereign God. It is not based on man's work of choosing but God's call — without none could be appointed and elected beforehand. He knows everything PL. Even the elect were damned wicked until God's calls. They hear as God foreknew they would and draws them as he wills. Those that refuse to hear are justly damned: Nothing hard about this — very simple to comprehend. God is more wise than you give him credit for.

puritan lad wrote: You believe that God can change His mind. I believe that “The counsel of the Lord shall stand forever, and the thoughts of his heart throughout all ages” (Psalm 33:11). You believe that God's predestination is contingent on our choices. I believe that “Jehovah bringeth the counsel of the nations to nought; He maketh the thoughts of the peoples to be of no effect.” (Psalm 33:10) and that He has "declared the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying 'My Counsel will stand and I will do all my pleasure'” (Isaiah 46:10). You believe that God by His own description, is a “thoughtless dictator”. I believe that “He works His will among the armies of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of earth. No one can stay His hand, or say to Him, 'What are you doing?”. You believe that God “knew the correct course” by “changing His mind” and “chose to destroy the world by a flood”. (I'm glad He finally wised up, Eh? So much for “foreknowledge”.) You believe that God's call allows people the chance to be saved. I believe that God “seeks and saves”. (Luke 19:10). You believe that God allows the universe to run by pre-established laws and “intervenes often”. I believe in a God who “works His will among the armies of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of earth”, who “works all things according to the counsel of His will”, and “upholds all things by the word of his power”. In short, B.W., aside from the fact that we are both Christians, we are miles apart. I have no need for a temporary, human initiated salvation, nor to I worship a god of ever changing decrees and frustrated purposes. And as to what secret force can enable a man to obtain the very belief that the Armenian God “foreknows”, I know not. God Bless, PL

PL - God can and does change his mind - if not - then you can control him. Satan tried this. When God changes his mind - it reveals something of God's character, nature and wisdom — it reveals he is God and sovereign. So from what I see, you are a supporter of controlling God by use of God's rigidity in denying God the complete freedom for God to change his mind! Satan himself fell into that trap.

God's counsel will stand and again it is according to His good pleasure that reveals himself supreme. What manner does he prove this? By working things out amongst liberty minded people. If God knows all things — he knows who are his and seeks and saves that which is lost. No-problem here — only your narrow minded view misrepresents what I have said. Salvation comes form God: If he did not offer it — what then? The prognosis is not good.

Prognosis is used in everyday language with its Greek meaning intact. The great all powerful physician prognosis's for humanity was death as Genesis 2:17 states. All would sin and fall short of the Glory of God. Not a good prognosis's is it?

God sent the cure, the medicine to humanity, thus has the prognosis changed as God intended it, planned it, and carried it out. He knows who will come to him and who will not as he knows all things. That is why Jesus stated that the Father will draw them to himself and also stated in John 3:18-21.

That is an act of Sovereignty in action — God decided to save humanity. Not all will accept his medicine and their prognosis is death John 3:13-16 Those that accept: their prognosis is life. This is an act of a truly sovereign God - Autonomous. Free from external control.

I never stated that God was a slave to free will, nor a slave to man's choice. It is you who believe that, not I. God offered up his Son so those that believe will believe and those that will not — will not: All as God foreseen. It remains a work of God. Too bad you have so much hate in your heart — but oh well God ordained it — rejoice!

Main Entry: sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Anglo-French sovereinté, from soverein
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Sovereignty: Autonomous. Free from external control. Supreme excellence! God shows his supreme excellence by revealing his nature, character, and wisdom to all proving that He is God worthy of renown and praise. Too bad PL you reject God's real sovereignty and exchange this for man's ideas.

Woe to them that reject such salvation's cure! God holds them accountable for their sins. Truly, such rejection of God's mercy is an act of extreme hubris that God will never allow to inhabit heaven again. He did not predestine this hubris. This came from the creature and not the creator. To say otherwise as you do based on fear, joins Satan and his dictatorship laughing at God for “making me thus!”

The prognosis of hubris is death. Unless God offered a cure, none-could be saved. God knows who are his as they will believe. To say God cannot know who will believe and who will not beforehand robs God of supreme power especially over a body politic and robs God of freedom from external control and also robs God of his AUTONOMY - God's controlling influence.

This influence is how dross is removed so the pure remains.

You reject this process completely. Your view point proves the bible to be full of contradictions and thus disproves the bible itself. It gives aid and ammunition to those inclined to stain God's name and attack Christianity. God is wiser than you and his ways are not yours. Praise God!

God says to repent but you can't because God says you can't so why tell one to repent knowing that they can't? God says he knows who are his and those who are not. He offers choice but is not a slave to that choice. How could he when he already knows the answer and justly orchestrates all things to the counsel of his will? You cannot see the hand of God at work in all this and how he operates according to his nature, character, and wisdom proving it everyday. That is a tragic shame.

To you — God is a dictator forcing demands of obedience. For those touched by the gospel as God wills, God is a liberator from such tyranny. Which God does the reader wish to follow? God is calling you to that point of faith to believe or not. What will it be?
-
-
-

Jac3510 wrote:What is the "this" God will do? It is the raising up evil against David. It is the judgment against David.

SIGH!!! You're sidestepping the question Jac.

OK. What evil did God raise up against David?

My Bible says that God will take David's wives and give them to his neighbor. Did God do that?

Jac3510 wrote:Your god can sin, and yet it is not a sin because he is god?

I already dealt with that. God did not "force" Absalom's incest. He simply move in Absalom's will to do this. Do you object to God doing this? He did so Jac. He also sent Joseph to Egypt, brought calamity upon Job, and crucifies His own Son. God performed these acts Jac. The Bible clearly says so.

Jac3510 wrote:1) The translations are not bad. Your reading of English grammar into a Greek construction is bad.

Poppycock...

If the translations are good, then faith is not of yourselves, but it is a gift from God. If you disagree, then the translation must be bad. Which is it?

Jac3510 wrote:2) You argue that in any language, a noun must exist in a sentence for a pronoun to refer to. This is simply untrue. Consider the following English example:

"I say we take John and put him in the outfield, and bring Hank in and put him on second base. What do you think?"
"I think it is a good idea"

What does "it" refer to, PL?

That's easy. "idea" (although this is bad grammar as well). It should read "I think that idea is a good one". See http://www.lynchburg.edu/public/x2390.xml and look under section F about proper pronoun usage.

Jac3510 wrote:How about applying that same rule to Eph. 2:8, which is allowable in English and required by Greek.

See above. It is bad Grammar, in any language, to have a pronoun without a clear antecedent.

Jac3510 wrote:

If faith an attribute of all men, or just some?

All men have the ability to believe/trust.

Ah, someone finally said so. Now we are getting somewhere. So think that faith (or at least the ability to exercise faith) is an inherent property in all mankind.

So the next obvious question is, why do some believe and some do not, since "All men have the ability to believe/trust"? What makes the difference?

Jac3510 wrote:

What was the judgment that God did?

I covered this above.

So...God raised up evil against David, but left it up to Absalom's free will to decide whether to carry it out or not?

Jac3510 wrote:[So, again, is there anything else you want to add to your original verse list, and are we finished with Eph. 2? If so, that only leaves us with Acts 3 and Phil 1.

That's OK Jac. It's obvious that you know far more Greek than anyone else. Eph. 2:8 is clear to me. However, since you disagree, I just want to focus on the above question about where faith comes from.

PL

B.W.

Your last two posts have nothing of substance whatsoever. They are as inconsistent as every stand you have made so far. (ie. God can change His Mind, and God's Counsel will stand forever). Which is it?

God cannot change His mind. That, my friend, is a doctrine of man unsupported by Scripture, (and would mean that God didn't foreknow all events. ie. the flood was God's "Plan B".)

I get my "rigid' views of God from the Bible. You are forcing God to give us the ability to choose our own destiny, which God Himself has denied over and over again in His Word.

And you still haven't answered my questions.

God said that He would will raise up evil against David out of his own house, and take his wives and give them to his neighbour, and that He will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12).

Did God do that? Was Absalom predestined to do this? I hold that God sovereignly works in the sinful acts of wicked men. What say ye?

Sorry, I just love watching "free-willers" squirm over this and like passages.

SIGH!!! You're sidestepping the question Jac.

OK. What evil did God raise up against David?

My Bible says that God will take David's wives and give them to his neighbor. Did God do that?

God gave David's wives to Absalom. I don't have any problem with that. Was it wrong for God to do so? Of course not. Was it wrong for Absalm to commit incest? Yes. Did God cause Absalom to do that? No. Now, I say it AGAIN:

True or false: Your god can sin, and yet it is not a sin because he is god.

I already dealt with that. God did not "force" Absalom's incest. He simply move in Absalom's will to do this. Do you object to God doing this? He did so Jac. He also sent Joseph to Egypt, brought calamity upon Job, and crucifies His own Son. God performed these acts Jac. The Bible clearly says so.

You say God moved Absalom's will do commit incest. You asked earlier: "Did God do Absalom's incest openly before all Israel?" Which is it? Did God do it or didn't he, PL? What is the difference in "moving Absalom's will" to commit incest and making him do it? Is it only true that you make someone do something when they don't want to?

Now, I thought that God does not tempt anyone to sin. Is tempting someone not a matter of making someone want to do something? How did your god not tempt Absalom to sin? Or is it only temptation when it is unsuccessful?

That's OK Jac. It's obvious that you know far more Greek than anyone else. Eph. 2:8 is clear to me. However, since you disagree, I just want to focus on the above question about where faith comes from.

No, sir. You aren't going to go running away when I've provided Greek Grammar references that prove your position is wrong.

As for your source, if you want to debate English grammar, then here's a counter source.

I will say that my example was grammatically incorrect in my usage of "it." I should have used a demonstrative pronoun rather than a personal pronoun. This sentence should have read, "That is a good idea." And that is perfectly acceptable grammar, in which "that" refers to the idea expressed in the previous sentence. The idea is further expressed by these four examples:

• I can't afford it. That's the problem.
  
  The room is really big. I don't think the heater's working. That's why it's so cold.
  
  The main problem is this. Anna wants to buy a car but can't really afford it.
  
  Listen carefully and I'll explain. This is what you do… (Source)

Therefore, your claim that all pronouns require a strictly defined antecedent is simply wrong.

Further, even if I were to concede that point (and I obviously don't), here's the bigger issue: we are dealing with Greek, not English grammar!!! Did you even read the Wallace quote? The most important line is in the last paragraph:

Wallace wrote:As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent.

This is a very common way the word is used, PL. You have to accept that. This isn't a matter of intepretation. It's a matter of grammatical fact. As a matter of example, consider the following verses:

• Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26, NIV)
  
  but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, (Phil 1:24-25, NIV)
  
  Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. (Phil 1:27-28, NIV)
  
  I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. (Col. 2:4)

What are the antecedents for each of these, PL?

Again, are you, or are you not, accusing Paul of bad grammar?

"Faith" in this verse is not the grammatical antecedent. A regular usage of the demonstrative neuter pronoun is to use concepts as antecedents. You are taking Greek you say. Ask your Greek professor. Or are you going to say that Wallace is wrong? How about A. T. Robertson? Should I quote him? Mounce? I have them here at the library. What grammar would you like me to use, PL?

Now, are you going to interact with the references provided or not?

So the next obvious question is, why do some believe and some do not, since "All men have the ability to believe/trust"? What makes the difference?

It's a shame I have to negotiate with you. I'll answer this when you answer my questions relating to Acts and Phillipians. You gave an original verse list of which only three are left, including Ephesians. Even if you don't agree that Eph. 2:8 teaches that salvation-by-grace-through-faith is the gift, you should at least be able to admit (unless you are too proud) that you are relying very heavily on an interpretation, as I am simply relying on straight grammar.

Now, of your original verses, I see only those two left. Are there any others, or are you going to retract the original argument?

puritan lad wrote:B.W.

Your last two posts have nothing of substance whatsoever. They are as inconsistent as every stand you have made so far. (ie. God can change His Mind, and God's Counsel will stand forever). Which is it?

God cannot change His mind. That, my friend, is a doctrine of man unsupported by Scripture, (and would mean that God didn't foreknow all events. ie. the flood was God's "Plan B".)

I get my "rigid' views of God from the Bible. You are forcing God to give us the ability to choose our own destiny, which God Himself has denied over and over again in His Word...

Sorry I am not squirming. This is a great post to interject something for those inclined to read and follow this thread. Never string scriptures together to build a doctrine that discount other scriptures that clarify what truth the bible conveys. PL, your view point does just that. It stings scriptures to build a case for something that is not truth.

How so? You state that God cannot change his mind because that makes God a slave to human free will. I never stated this in any of my discourses. God changes his mind is a fact: he can or he would not be God. So in the defense of PL's doctrine of sovereignty, PL states that God cannot change his mind due to the following scriptures:

Malachi 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

Notes from E-sword — Barnes: So the Psalmist says Psalm 102:27, “As a vesture, Thou shalt change them and they shall be changed, but Thou art the Same, and Thy years shall not fail;” and Balaam, controlled by God Numbers 23:19. “God is not a man, that He should lie, or the son of man, that He should repent;” and James 1:17, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

What does it mean — that God cannot change his mind or that God does not change his ways, promises, word, plans?

If you believe Malachi 3:6, Psalms102:27, Numbers 23:19, and James 1:17 means that it is impossible for God to change his mind you have proved the verity of the Holy Bible is in error. Congrats on this analogy! PL - You successfully disproved the bible by proving an irreconcilable contradiction! Hats off to you PL! You disproved the bible!

Fact is the bible does teach God does change his mind as FCC pointed out:

FFC wrote: Does God ever change his mind?

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exd 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not.

1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

1Ch 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Amo 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

I thank God that He changes His mind sometimes.

Malachi 3:6, Psalms102:27, Numbers 23:19 and James 1:17 are not teaching that God cannot change his mind but rather that God keeps his word and does not change what he says and will keep his word and keep all his promises.

Ezekiel 18:23-27, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. KJV

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not!

Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” KJV. Quoted from Joel 2:32 and quoted in Acts 2:21 obvious relevance to Christ and His promise.

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not!

John 3:16, “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.”

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not!

Now read Malachi 3:6-7 from the CEV version of the bible,

Malachi 3:6-7, “Descendants of Jacob, I am the LORD All-Powerful, and I never change. That's why you haven't been wiped out, 7 even though you have ignored and disobeyed my laws ever since the time of your ancestors. But if you return to me, I will return to you. And yet you ask, "How can we return?" CEV

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not! And told us how to return so we can! God even offers a choice to return in the condition of “if” you do this “I” will do that.. God truly changes not! God can change his mind. If not we all would have been wiped out long ago! Genesis 6:5-7

God had a plan as stated in Genesis 3:15. God will carry out his plan and changes not — God keeps his word! This proves what about God? He is all powerful, merciful, wise, just, fair, righteous and worthy of praise! Far beyond what PL's current point of view can ever comprehend!

God is truly who he is and all that He is as it is written:

Deuteronomy 32:4, “He is the Rock; His work is perfect. For all His ways are just, a God of faithfulness, and without evil; just and upright is He.” KJV

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not! Are not you?

You see, there is no contradiction in the bible regarding God changing his mind or not as PL suggest there is. PL, too bad you cannot balance scripture with scripture to get the true picture of what God is really like.
-
-
-

OK. Let's breathe a little. We are getting nowhere.

Jac3510 wrote:God gave David's wives to Absalom. I don't have any problem with that. Was it wrong for God to do so? Of course not. Was it wrong for Absalm to commit incest? Yes. Did God cause Absalom to do that? No. Now, I say it AGAIN:

True or false: Your god can sin, and yet it is not a sin because he is god.

False: God cannot sin, for in Him there is no darkness. But that doesn't answer the question. I agree that Absalom's sin was his own, and that he "freely" committed the act (No one put a gun to his head and forced him to). You agree that "God gave David's wives to Absalom". OK? Why? After all, didn't God say that He would raise up evil in David's own house? Did God raise up that evil? What was that evil?

Let's try a different angle.

When God pronounced this curse on David, was Absalom's incest inevitable? If so, why?

Does God send evil Spirits? Lying Spirits? Strong Delusions?

God clearly works sovereignly in the sinful acts of wicked men. He decrees them, and He works to bring them to pass. God has no “Plan B”.

And I will not retract the original argument unless..

1.) You can adequately identify another clear antecedent in Ephesians 2:8 without making one up out of thin air.
2.) You can adequately explain, outside of election, why some men have faith and others do not.

Regarding the proper use of pronouns, there are huge difference between Eph. 2:8 and your examples. ie.

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26, NIV)

(This) clearly refers to Jesus entire statement. While this is acceptable in this case, a more direct, correct question would read, "Do you believe this statement?" In this case, the pronoun has a clear antecedent.

In Ephesians 2:8, I hold that, despite the gender difference, the pronoun "that" has a clear antecedent as well, "faith". In your view, there is no clear antecedent, which would be bad grammar at best, and a totally confused statement at worst.

And you did not deal at all with Phil. 1:26. I agree that Paul mention belief only in passing, but he still mentioned it, and said that it was granted to us on behalf of Christ. Did Paul make a mistake?

While we are at it, I'll introduce Isaiah 43:10, where God chose Israel, so that they may believe (not because they did believe). BTW, How is your Aramaic? This one is pretty clear as well.

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)

In any case, I hold faith to be a gift from God. If you disagree, you still need to explain where it comes from. You say that it is an attribute of man. So please answer the question.

Why do some believe and some do not, since "All men have the ability to believe/trust"? What makes the difference?

When you have adequately dealt with these issues, than I'll retract my statement that faith is a gift from God.

PL

B.W.

God CANNOT change His Mind, and none of the verses you showed above support this. Even an Arminian would have to agree to this if he wants to promote his “foreknowledge” stuff. Afterall, if God “foreknew” He would change His mind, He never really changed it.

B.W.:God can change His mind????

Sola Scriptura:
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” (Acts 15:18).

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isaiah 46:10).

“As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” (Isaiah 14:24).

“The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Psalms 33:11).

“I am the LORD, I change not,” (Malachi 3:6).

“For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27).

“But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does.” (Job 23:13).

“Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89).

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)

God is “"the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

Do you believe these verses B.W.? It is you who are stringing together verses, wrenching them from their contexts, and promoting a false god who has everchanging decrees. Your god changes his mind? He makes mistakes and has to correct them (ie. with the flood)? I do not know this god you are speaking of, nor do I wish to. I'll worship the God who sits on His throne, governs His creation Himself, has established the end from the beginning, purposes the end, and works sovereignly to bring about that end. The god of changing decrees, blind chance, frustrated purposes, and wishful thinking is foreign to the Bible.

Again, I you can now plainly see, there is no middle ground.

PL

puritan lad wrote:B.W.

And you still haven't answered my questions.

God said that He would will raise up evil against David out of his own house, and take his wives and give them to his neighbor, and that He will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:11-12).

Did God do that? Was Absalom predestined to do this? I hold that God sovereignly works in the sinful acts of wicked men. What say ye?

Sorry, I just love watching "free-willers" squirm over this and like passages.

Sorry not squirming — Was going to submit this last night but decided to wait till morning to answer this...

PL Question: did God cause David to break four of the Ten Commandments in one rash sin?

Thou shall not murder, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife?

What say ye?
-
-
-

puritan lad wrote:B.W.

God CANNOT change His Mind, and none of the verses you showed above support this. Even an Arminian would have to agree to this if he wants to promote his “foreknowledge” stuff. Afterall, if God “foreknew” He would change His mind, He never really changed it.

B.W.:God can change His mind????

Sola Scriptura:
“Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world,” (Acts 15:18).

“Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, swing, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure,” (Isaiah 46:10).

“As I have purposed, so shall it stand,” (Isaiah 14:24).

“The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations,” (Psalms 33:11).

“I am the LORD, I change not,” (Malachi 3:6).

“For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” (Isaiah 14:27).

“But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does.” (Job 23:13).

“Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89).

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Numbers 23:19)

God is “"the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).

Do you believe these verses B.W.? It is you who are stringing together verses, wrenching them from their contexts, and promoting a false god who has everchanging decrees. Your god changes his mind? He makes mistakes and has to correct them (ie. with the flood)? I do not know this god you are speaking of, nor do I wish to. I'll worship the God who sits on His throne, governs His creation Himself, has established the end from the beginning, purposes the end, and works sovereignly to bring about that end. The god of changing decrees, blind chance, frustrated purposes, and wishful thinking is foreign to the Bible.

Again, I you can now plainly see, there is no middle ground.

PL

If you believe Malachi 3:6, Psalms102:27, Numbers 23:19, and James 1:17 and all scriptures you cited proves that it is impossible for God to change his mind you have proved the verity of the Holy Bible is in error. Congrats on this analogy! PL - You successfully disproved the bible by proving an irreconcilable contradiction! Hats off to you PL! You disproved the bible!

So you know the mind of the Lord? Satan thought so too and twists scriptures to trap people — you are in good company I see.

Fact is the bible does teach God does change his mind as FCC pointed out:

FFC wrote: Does God ever change his mind?

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exd 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not.

1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

1Ch 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Amos 7:6 The LORD repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

I thank God that He changes His mind sometimes.

Malachi 3:6, Psalms102:27, Numbers 23:19 and James 1:17 and scriptures you cited are not teaching that God cannot change his mind but rather that God keeps his word and does not change what he says and will keep his word and keep all his promises.

Jeremiah 18 8, “If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

Well the prophets do not agree with your interpretations PL. If what you say is true — you have just successfully destroyed the Bible as the foundation of truth — again Congrats! You have succeeded where many have failed before!

Ezekiel 18:23-27, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? .... Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. KJV

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not!

Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” KJV. Quoted from Joel 2:32 and quoted in Acts 2:21 obvious relevance to Christ and His promise.

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not!

John 3:16, “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.”

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not!

Now read Malachi 3:6-7 from the CEV version of the bible,

Malachi 3:6-7, “Descendants of Jacob, I am the LORD All-Powerful, and I never change. That's why you haven't been wiped out, 7 even though you have ignored and disobeyed my laws ever since the time of your ancestors. But if you return to me, I will return to you. And yet you ask, "How can we return?" CEV

I am glad the Lord spoke this and changes not! And told us how to return so we can! God even offers a choice to return in the condition of “if” you do this “I” will do that.. God truly changes not! God can change his mind. If not we all would have been wiped out long ago! Genesis 6:5-7

God had a plan as stated in Genesis 3:15. God will carry out his plan and changes not — God keeps his word! This proves what about God? He is all powerful, merciful, wise, just, fair, righteous and worthy of praise! Far beyond what PL's current point of view can ever comprehend!

PL it is hard to comprehend that you twist the scriptures you cite to back a doctrine derived from man? If what you say is true - then you have proved an irreconcilable contradiction in the bible and destoryed it.

Satan has been at that business for years.
-
-
-

I'd like to make a suggestion.

The volume and quality of the posting going on lately in terms of the different views primarily represented in Calvinism and Arminianism has, in my opinion, been of very strong quality. I've personally found it to be very encouraging and enlightening and it has broadened my appreciation for the importance of the issue. I commend all, from both positions or hybrid thereof for their performance in this regard.

It would be a shame, having engaged in such a high level conversation, which is being observed by many, who are not necessarily posting themselves and will be observed by many in the future, for either "side" to damage their position by ceasing to deal with the issues and beginning to attack the persons who disagree with them.

Please take a moment to view these guidelines, take a deep breath and if necessary, consider returning to anything you may have written and rewording it to address the issue, rather than the person.

Mannerism

Within discussions, please be civil and courteous and do not resort to personal attacks. If you feel inappropriately attacked, please bring such cases privately to a moderator who can then intervene as necessary. While these instructions are likely unnecessary for the vast majority of participants, here is some biblical advice to help serve as a guide for conversations:

Write in a manner that you would want others to write to you - "in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12).

"But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)

"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6)

"In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 2:7-8)

Constructive Discussions

To have a constructive discussion, there are at least four main requirements:

At Least Two People: This point should be obvious.

A Specific Topic: All conversations should have one specific topic, and as such should remain on that topic. Any new topic that forks out and is too far removed, should be started as a new thread or brought to a moderator's attention.

Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.

Self-control: Chances are you will disagree with someone, and it is at this point discussions can turn nasty. Please remember to be respectful to others and keep to the topic rather than resorting to personal attacks.

You do not have to compromise your beliefs and conviction and it is obvious that these issues are very significant for Christians. It's good to be passionate and motivated to speak the truth. It's always important however, to temper that speaking with love and respect for the person engaged.

I have great confidence, based upon the maturity and depth presented by all involved that this issue can be resolved without further involvement by moderators. If it can't then such involvement may be forthcoming.

B.W.,

You have been telling me that God "predestines" based on His "deep foreknowledge". And then you tell me He can change His mind?

Which is it?

Does God foreknow that He will change his judgement upon a nation?

Does He foreknow that that nation will repent?

If so, then he cannot change His mind. If their repentance causes God to change His mind, then He must not have "foreknown" their repentance, which in turn destroys Arminian "predestination", more accurately called "ratification".

How does a God who "knows all of His works" from the beginning change His mind? Does He get smarter? Can He now make better decisions as He learns about His creation? What did He foreknow? If God can change His mind, then His "foreknowledge" isn't very deep. Something in history must have caught Him by surprise, and made Him revert to "Plan B".

Keep worshipping this everchanging God B.W. I'll stick with the God of the Bible.

PL