pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Yes, that's nice, but it isn't what Paul states. EGW isn't the measuring stick of truth. You don't go to her to see what your Bible states. You go to the Bible and then see if she agrees with it not the other way around. It's what Paul meant. Do you not think so? This is certainly the interpretation that lept to my mind. How would you interpret it? Also, do you wish that every time you quote someone that I write something like this? Edited August 12, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 It's what Paul meant. Do you not think so? Come on, please....No, it doesn't say that and you aren't being honest with the Scripture. You are using an external source, EGW, for a commentary. She is not the final word. When I quote someone I can back it up with the Bible and in context. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Come on, please....No, it doesn't say that and you aren't being honest with the Scripture. You are using an external source, EGW, for a commentary. She is not the final word. When I quote someone I can back it up with the Bible and in context. I disagree with everything here. First of all, this is how the text reads to me. What Ellen White wrote is simply an eloquent way of expressing how the text reads to me. Secondly I'm not using EGW any differently than you use Sequeira. Finally, I already said that this is how I interpret the text, and asked you how you interpret it, but, alas, you didn't answer the question. What is your interpretation of the text? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) What Ellen White wrote is simply an eloquent way of expressing how the text reads to me. Secondly I'm not using EGW any differently than you use Sequeira. I doubt it....Most SDA quote Ellen White as a final source. I use Sequeira because I agree with him, Biblically What Ellen White stated about 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is used spiritually, not in context. She is spiritualizing a verse, but out of context. Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 I doubt it....Most SDA quote Ellen White as a final source. I use Sequeira because I agree with him, Biblically What Ellen White stated about 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is used spiritually, not in context. She is spiritualizing a verse, but out of context. You doubt it because you have your own ideas and apply them regardless of the evidence. This thread has 23 pages. The other thread we discussed had something like 37 pages. So you have had plenty of evidence of how I use EGW, and pages of pages of my quoting Sequeira, Waggoner, and many others exactly the same way I quote EGW, so you have no grounds for getting off topic here, which is, what is your interpretation of the text? So often I have to ask you to answer the same question many, many times. Why is this? You are the one who quoted the Scripture text. Why did you quote the Scripture text you quoted? What was your purpose in doing so? What do you think the text means? How does it tie into our conversation? Why do I have to ask all of these questions? Why do you just state at the very beginning whatever your thought is? Does it have anything to do with God's being (in your view) responsible for sin? Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) . What is your interpretation of the text? There's really no interpretation (reading between the lines). What does Paul state? I'll use the NIV (before I used the NKJV): "10 ....they (the lost) refused to love the truth (Jesus) and so be saved." The question is what does God do in response to "the lost" (those who follow the man of sin)? Answer: 11 For this reason (because they reject the truth, Christ) God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (concerning the man of sin). This can be seen elsewhere: "But the Spirit of the LORD (the Holy Spirit) departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him." 1 Sam 16:14 Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert Quote
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) This can be seen elsewhere: "But the Spirit of the LORD (the Holy Spirit) departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him." 1 Sam 16:14 Ex 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go. Who hardened Pharaoh's heart? God states He did. Did He? Yes and no. No, because elsewhere the Bible states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Yes, because God said so....Now explain it! Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) God is frequently said in Scripture to do things which He permits. There are many examples of this, including the text you originally quoted, about God sending strong delusion. I disagree with your assertion that interpreting the text this way is "not being honest with the text." Being honest with the text includes understanding what the words Bible authors use mean *as they use them*. We can't just read the text as we would and assume that this is correct, or "being honest with the text" because the Bible wasn't written in English, and their culture is a different culture than ours. Paul, in particular, many, many times will use texts this way. When it comes to the discussion at hand, regarding if God is responsible for sin, one can say that God graciously assumes responsibility for sin, because God is agape, and it is His nature to be gracious. "I restored that which I did not steal". But the question is not if God assumes responsibility for sin, but if God *is* responsible for sin. The argument I am making is that if one accepts the premise that "God knew Lucifer would sin, but created him anyway", then God would be responsible for sin, which is what you argued. I'm agreeing with your argument, and using it to prove your premise is false, because the conclusion (that God is responsible for sin) is absurd. To put it another way, if God started a process which would inevitably lead to sin, which could have no other outcome other than lead to sin, that would make God responsible for the entrance of sin. What is worse is that God (according to this view of foreknowledge) could have created the universe without sin occurring, but specifically preferred creating a universe with ins as opposed to a universe without sin. Edited August 12, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 God is frequently said in Scripture to do things which He permits. He permitted sin.... Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) He permitted sin.... So? There's no disagreement that God permitted sin; everybody agrees with this. What's your point? Edited August 12, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Robert, I don't know where you're going with the idea that God permitted sin, but I wanted to clarify that what I'm taking issue with, in regards to what you have said, is not the idea that God permitted sin, but that God caused sin to happen by initiating a course of action which could only inevitably result in sin happening. These are two very different things. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 So? There's no disagreement that God permitted sin; everybody agrees with this. What's your point? He is responsible for all the mayhem that's come from allowing sin to progress. So He assumes the blame..... Quote
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 ....God caused sin to happen by initiating a course of action which could only inevitably result in sin happening. These are two very different things. He knew Lucifer world rebel against His agape....Otherwise He was caught by surprise.... Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) He knew Lucifer world rebel against His agape....Otherwise He was caught by surprise.... These aren't the only possibilities. One can know there is a small possibility of something happening, and not be "caught by surprise" when it happens. "Caught by surprise" suggests that one does not know of the possibility of the thing happening, and not being prepared for it. God knew of the possibility, had a plan in case it did happen, but God did not act in such a way that sin was inevitable. Edited August 12, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 God knew of the possibility, had a plan in case it did happen, but God did not act in such a way that sin was inevitable. You are back to God didn't know that Lucifer would rebel before He created him. That means He can't see the future and therefore Daniel and Revelation are mere speculation. Quote
Robert Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) John 13:19 I tell you this beforehand, so that when it happens you will believe that I AM the Messiah..... “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me!” 22The disciples looked at each other, wondering whom he could mean. 23The disciple Jesus loved was sitting next to Jesus at the table.g 24Simon Peter motioned to him to ask, “Who’s he talking about?” 25So that disciple leaned over to Jesus and asked, “Lord, who is it?” 26Jesus responded, “It is the one to whom I give the bread I dip in the bowl.” And when he had dipped it, he gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. 27When Judas had eaten the bread, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus told him, “Hurry and do what you’re going to do.” Now let me guess, "These aren't the only possibilities"? Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 You are back to God didn't know that Lucifer would rebel before He created him. That means He can't see the future and therefore Daniel and Revelation are mere speculation. No, it doesn't mean this. There are other possibilities besides the one you are currently thinking. In regards to foreknowledge, there are many, many ideas that have been suggested, not just simple foreknowledge, which appears to be the idea you have. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) John 13:19 I tell you this beforehand, so that when it happens you will believe that I AM the Messiah..... “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me!” 22The disciples looked at each other, wondering whom he could mean. 23The disciple Jesus loved was sitting next to Jesus at the table.g 24Simon Peter motioned to him to ask, “Who’s he talking about?” 25So that disciple leaned over to Jesus and asked, “Lord, who is it?” 26Jesus responded, “It is the one to whom I give the bread I dip in the bowl.” And when he had dipped it, he gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. 27When Judas had eaten the bread, Satan entered into him. Then Jesus told him, “Hurry and do what you’re going to do.” Now let me guess, "These aren't the only possibilities"? Please leave out the icons. This was minutes before this happened. Jesus knew Judas' character. If you know someone well, you can know what they will do before they do it, without even being God. This was a certainty, not a possibility, but not because of foreknowledge, but because Judas had fixed his character. If you take the position that Judas' actions were certain because of *foreknowledge*, that has implications. Namely, if Judas' actions were determined ahead of time, not because of anything Judas decided himself, then Judas could not have had (libertarian) free will. Edited August 12, 2015 by pnattmbtc Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 You are back to God didn't know that Lucifer would rebel before He created him. That means He can't see the future and therefore Daniel and Revelation are mere speculation. What I'm suggesting is that God sees the future perfectly, but the future is not just one thing, but a collection of things, namely a collection of possibilities. Say in all of these possibilities, you have these 4 kingdoms emerging. Then God can be certain these kingdoms without there only having to be just one possible future. The issue here is not if God can see the future, but what is the content of the future God sees. I am saying God sees the content of the future not as a single already determined thing, but God sees everything which can happen. Things which have not been determined are only possibilities until they have been determined. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
pnattmbtc Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 By the way, to the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to what I have pointed out as the weakness of your position, which is that you would have God making a choice to create the Universe in such a way that sin was certain to occur. Why would God do that? Why wouldn't He instead create a universe where sin would not exist? Notice there's no question of free will here, because it would simply have been a matter of God's creating beings He knew wouldn't sin. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 By the way, to the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to what I have pointed out as the weakness of your position, which is that you would have God making a choice to create the Universe in such a way that sin was certain to occur. You are blurring the subject. The subject is God knew that Lucifer would sin before He created him. Quote
pnattmbtc Posted August 13, 2015 Posted August 13, 2015 By the way, to the best of my knowledge, you have not responded to what I have pointed out as the weakness of your position, which is that you would have God making a choice to create the Universe in such a way that sin was certain to occur. Robert: You are blurring the subject. The subject is God knew that Lucifer would sin before He created him. Why would God do that? What you're saying doesn't make sense (that this is blurring the subject). If God did what you're suggesting, there would have to be a reason. If you can't answer a question as to why God would do something that you think He did, that should be alarm bells going off that there may be something wrong with the idea you have about what you think God is doing. This principle applies to anything we think God did. There is no more important subject than the subject of God's character. What we think God is like influences our ethics and morality. Quote Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.
Robert Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 Gen 15:13 Then the LORD said to him (Abraham), "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. How did God know that Abraham's descendants would be enslaved by the Egyptians? Isn't the will involved here? Quote
Robert Posted August 13, 2015 Author Posted August 13, 2015 Why would God do that? What you're saying doesn't make sense.... Well, you aren't God...you can't think at His level and your tainted with sin. So stop asking questions that cant' be answered. Apparently God had a reason. I can speculate, but that's all it would be. Is 55:8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.