Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Universalism: Second Debate


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:07 AM

Fortigurn,

I have decided against the debate format that I had previously proposed. I'd rather like for us to wade our way through a slow-moving discussion, if that's possible. I will begin by proposing two syllogisms.




-Any person who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:9).

-Every person shall confess that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11).

-Therefore, every person shall be saved.


and


-It is God’s intention to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)
-All of God’s intentions will be accomplished in the end (Isaiah 46:10,
Job 42:2)

-Therefore, God will save all mankind.

Edited by gabe, 23 March 2005 - 12:07 AM.


#2 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 25 March 2005 - 04:03 AM

Fort,

Perhaps it would be fair if you made the opening statements?

#3 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:37 AM

-Any person who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:9).

-Every person shall confess that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11).

-Therefore, every person shall be saved.

This is a non sequitur, because Philippians 2:9-11 does not state that all people who have ever lived will confess that Jesus is Lord.

-It is God’s intention to save all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)
-All of God’s intentions will be accomplished in the end (Isaiah 46:10,
Job 42:2)

-Therefore, God will save all mankind.


This is a non sequitor because neither 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 say that it is God's intention to save all mankind.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#4 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 28 March 2005 - 06:26 PM

This is a non sequitur, because Philippians 2:9-11 does not state that all people who have ever lived will confess that Jesus is Lord.


You reduce these verses to a miserable redundancy. Christ is victorious over all except those who he could not win over?


This is a non sequitor because neither 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 say that it is God's intention to save all mankind.


So who are the "all men" in both verses?

#5 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 29 March 2005 - 12:10 AM

This is a non sequitur, because Philippians 2:9-11 does not state that all people who have ever lived will confess that Jesus is Lord.


You reduce these verses to a miserable redundancy. Christ is victorious over all except those who he could not win over?

I'm sorry Gabe, that's just your personal opinion.

This is a non sequitor because neither 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 say that it is God's intention to save all mankind.


So who are the "all men" in both verses?


The 'all men' are 'all men'. But neither of these verses say that it is God's intention to save 'all men'.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#6 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 30 March 2005 - 04:22 PM

Fort,

Your reading of Philippians 2:9-11 disregards the obvious universality of Christ's victory as described in the passage. You effectively change "every knee" to "every knee except."

As for 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4, doesn't the Bible declare that God does all that HE desires?

Edited by gabe, 30 March 2005 - 04:38 PM.


#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 05 April 2005 - 06:23 AM

Fort,

Your reading of Philippians 2:9-11 disregards the obvious universality of Christ's victory as described in the passage. You effectively change "every knee" to "every knee except."

I'm afraid that's just your opinion. You know as well as I do that 'all' rarely means 'all'.

As for 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4, doesn't the Bible declare that God does all that HE desires?


If you mean that what God does is always what He desires to do, then the answer is no.

If you mean that what God desires is what He ensures is always done, then the answer is also no.

The Bible makes both of these facts clear.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#8 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 08 April 2005 - 08:34 PM

Whether or not PAS rarely means "all" or not is irrelevant. Seeing that your reading is utterly counter-intuitive, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Christ will not have a name above all names.

If you mean that what God does is always what He desires to do, then the answer is no.

If you mean that what God desires is what He ensures is always done, then the answer is also no.


So God is not supreme? Our blind desires override His intentions?

What do you make of Isaiah 55:11? Doesn't this verse demonstrate that God will, in fact, accomplish all of His desires?

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 08 April 2005 - 10:29 PM

Whether or not PAS rarely means "all" or not is irrelevant.  Seeing that your reading is utterly counter-intuitive...

Please demonstrate why it is counter-intuitive.

...the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Christ will not have a name above all names.


I do believe he has such name.

If you mean that what God does is always what He desires to do, then the answer is no.

If you mean that what God desires is what He ensures is always done, then the answer is also no.


So God is not supreme? Our blind desires override His intentions?


You are equivocating - the issue under discussion is God's desires, not His intentions.

What do you make of Isaiah 55:11?  Doesn't this verse demonstrate that God will, in fact, accomplish all of His desires?


It says that He will accomplish all of His promises as He desires:

Isaiah 55:
11 In the same way, the promise that I make does not return to me, having accomplished nothing.  No, it is realized as I desire and is fulfilled as I intend.”


God desired that Adam and Eve not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

They did.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#10 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 09 April 2005 - 03:14 AM

Fort, that smilie comes off as a very arrogant gesture. I note this only for your sake. I'll get back to you on this tommorrow, God willing.

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 09 April 2005 - 03:59 PM

Fort, that smilie comes off as a very arrogant gesture. I note this only for your sake.

I'm sorry you read it that way. I've taken it out.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#12 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 10 April 2005 - 04:30 PM

Fort, perhaps I read too much into the smilie. Thank you for removing it nonetheless.

Some preliminary questions before I attempt to demonstrate the counter-intuitiveness of your reading....

Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 


Is it your contention that "all names" refers only to those who remain after God has destroyed all the wicked?

Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;



What are the things in heaven, in the earth, and below the earth?

I do not believe that I am equivocating God's desires and His intentions, simply because neither logic nor scripture warrants such a distinction. Were God to desire that which He did not intend, then He would be like a finite human being who suffers from internal strife.

As for Isaiah 55:11, let us examine a like text.

Psa 115:3 But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

What is your take, fort?

Edited by gabe, 10 April 2005 - 05:46 PM.


#13 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 12 April 2005 - 11:21 PM

God desired that Adam and Eve not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


Do you have proof for this assertion?

#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 16 April 2005 - 12:16 PM

God desired that Adam and Eve not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


Do you have proof for this assertion?

Yes:

Genesis 2:
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for and maintain it.
16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die."


Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 16 April 2005 - 12:23 PM


Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 


Is it your contention that "all names" refers only to those who remain after God has destroyed all the wicked?

It is my contention that the 'all' here is a hyperbolic 'all'. It doesn't matter to me whether this refers to the time before or after the destruction of the wicked.


Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;


What are the things in heaven, in the earth, and below the earth?


It's standard hyperbolic language (following the context of verse 9), and simply demonstrates the extent to which he has been glorified. It cannot mean 'all' in absolute terms, because God is not subjected to Christ.

I do not believe that I am equivocating God's desires and His intentions, simply because neither logic nor scripture warrants such a distinction.


I believe it does.

Were God to desire that which He did not intend, then He would be like a finite human being who suffers from internal strife.


Whether or not He is, He certainly represents Himself anthropomorphically as experiencing such strife:

Ezekiel 33:
10 “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what you have said,: “Our rebellious acts and our sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?”’

11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefer that the wicked change his behavior and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil deeds! Why should you die, O house of Israel?’

12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, ‘The righteousness of the godly will not deliver him if he rebels. As for the wicked, his sin will not make him stumble if he turns from it. The godly will not be able to live by his righteousness if he sins.’

13 Suppose I tell the righteous that he will certainly live, but he becomes confident in his godliness and commits iniquity. [b]None of his righteous deeds will be remembered; because of the iniquity he has committed he will die
.


:harp:

As for Isaiah 55:11, let us examine a like text.

Psa 115:3 But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. 

What is your take, fort?


This is an expression of God's sovereignty:

Psalm 115:
3 Our God is in heaven! He does whatever he pleases!


Yes, God does whatever He please. No doubt about it.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#16 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 16 April 2005 - 06:35 PM

Hello Fortigurn. Hope you are well.

Genesis 2:
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for and maintain it.
16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die."


This verse has the Lord God giving a command and warning Adam and Eve of the consequences of breaking the command. Implied by this command, I'd reckon we agree, is that God desired a perfect life for Adam and Eve. But why should the breaking of the command and the resulting curse be incompatible with a final state of restoration in which God's desire ultimately comes to pass?

Perhaps I should ask you if you believe that it is possisble, both Scripturally and logically, that the entrance of sin and death into the world is an inherent part of God's eternal plan for the world?


Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:


It is my contention that the 'all' here is a hyperbolic 'all'. It doesn't matter to me whether this refers to the time before or after the destruction of the wicked.


What would be the function of such hyperbole?
Why not take verses 9-11 literally?
What proof have you got for this assertion?




Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;







It's standard hyperbolic language (following the context of verse 9), and simply demonstrates the extent to which he has been glorified. It cannot mean 'all' in absolute terms, because God is not subjected to Christ.


What do you consider to be the context of verse 9, and for what reasons? Correct, PAS here cannot be all in absolute terms. But this is entirely irrelevant to my case.


Whether or not He is, He certainly represents Himself anthropomorphically as experiencing such strife:



 
Ezekiel 33:
10 “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what you have said,: “Our rebellious acts and our sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?”’

11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefer that the wicked change his behavior and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil deeds! [b]Why should you die, O house of Israel?’

12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, ‘The righteousness of the godly will not deliver him if he rebels. As for the wicked, his sin will not make him stumble if he turns from it. The godly will not be able to live by his righteousness if he sins.’

13 Suppose I tell the righteous that he will certainly live, but he becomes confident in his godliness and commits iniquity. None of his righteous deeds will be remembered; because of the iniquity he has committed he will die.


Agreed, although the Bible also reveals that God is Perfect.



Psa 115:3 But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.





This is an expression of God's sovereignty:


And what do you mean by sovereign?



Psalm 115:
3 Our God is in heaven! He does whatever he pleases!



Yes, God does whatever He please. No doubt about it.


According to your view, did it please God to create the billions of people that would finally be lost forever?

Edited by gabe, 16 April 2005 - 06:37 PM.


#17 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 17 April 2005 - 01:05 AM

Genesis 2:
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for and maintain it.
16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die."


This verse has the Lord God giving a command and warning Adam and Eve of the consequences of breaking the command. Implied by this command, I'd reckon we agree, is that God desired a perfect life for Adam and Eve.

Yes, on His terms.

But why should the breaking of the command and the resulting curse be incompatible with a final state of restoration in which God's desire ultimately comes to pass?


It isn't - given that Adam and Eve repented and were re-accpeted by God, there is every likelihood that they will ultimately be restored.

Perhaps I should ask you if you believe that it is possisble, both Scripturally and logically, that the entrance of sin and death into the world is an inherent part of God's eternal plan for the world?


No.

Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 


It is my contention that the 'all' here is a hyperbolic 'all'. It doesn't matter to me whether this refers to the time before or after the destruction of the wicked.


What would be the function of such hyperbole?


It's a literary device for emphasis.

Why not take verses 9-11 literally?


Because it cannot be done without breaking other passages of Scripture.

What proof have you got for this assertion?


It's the same hyperbolic phraseology which is found all through the Bible, and a literal reading would contradict many other passages of Scripture.

Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;

It's standard hyperbolic language (following the context of verse 9), and simply demonstrates the extent to which he has been glorified. It cannot mean 'all' in absolute terms, because God is not subjected to Christ.


What do you consider to be the context of verse 9, and for what reasons?


Verse 9 has Christ being exalted by God. That is the context. My reason for considering this is that verse 9 says that Christ has been exalted by God. Verse 10 cannot break verse 9 - Christ is exalted by God, not above God.

Whether or not He is, He certainly represents Himself anthropomorphically as experiencing such strife:

Ezekiel 33:
10 “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what you have said,: “Our rebellious acts and our sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?”’

11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefer that the wicked change his behavior and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil deeds! [b]Why should you die, O house of Israel?’

12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, ‘The righteousness of the godly will not deliver him if he rebels. As for the wicked, his sin will not make him stumble if he turns from it. The godly will not be able to live by his righteousness if he sins.’

13 Suppose I tell the righteous that he will certainly live, but he becomes confident in his godliness and commits iniquity. None of his righteous deeds will be remembered; because of the iniquity he has committed he will die.


Agreed, although the Bible also reveals that God is Perfect.


Yes it does. But as I have demonstrated, it also reveals that God - in order to be consistent with His character - sometimes acts in a manner which is not His desire.

Psa 115:3 But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. 

This is an expression of God's sovereignty:


And what do you mean by sovereign?


I mean He has all power - He can act indepenently of anyone else.

Psalm 115:
3 Our God is in heaven! He does whatever he pleases!

Yes, God does whatever He please. No doubt about it.


According to your view, did it please God to create the billions of people that would finally be lost forever?


You're equivocating. This verse does not say that God only does things which please him. The phrase 'whatever He pleases' is an expression of His sovereignty.

As I have shown from Ezekiel, it did not please God to punish the wicked with death, but He did so.

It didn't please Him to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the flood, but He did so.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#18 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 17 April 2005 - 10:44 PM

G:

This verse has the Lord God giving a command and warning Adam and Eve of the consequences of breaking the command. Implied by this command, I'd reckon we agree, is that God desired a perfect life for Adam and Eve. 



F:

Yes, on His terms.


I would think that I agree but, just to be sure, what exactly do you mean by "on His terms?"


G:

But why should the breaking of the command and the resulting curse be incompatible with a final state of restoration in which God's desire ultimately comes to pass?




F:

It isn't - given that Adam and Eve repented and were re-accpeted by God, there is every likelihood that they will ultimately be restored.


It appears, then, that oru disagreement lies in the fact that you believe that God has both temporary and eternal desires. Or is my impression incorrect?


G:

Perhaps I should ask you if you believe that it is possisble, both Scripturally and logically, that the entrance of sin and death into the world is an inherent part of God's eternal plan for the world?




F:

No.


Why not? Do you believe that God improvises as events unravel?

F1:

It is my contention that the 'all' here is a hyperbolic 'all'. It doesn't matter to me whether this refers to the time before or after the destruction of the wicked.




G:

What would be the function of such hyperbole?



F2:

It's a literary device for emphasis.


Emphasis on what, precisely?


G:

Why not take verses 9-11 literally?




F:

Because it cannot be done without breaking other passages of Scripture.


What passages have you got in mind?




G:

What proof have you got for this assertion?




F:

It's the same hyperbolic phraseology which is found all through the Bible....


What specific hyperbolic phraseology do you have in mind? I asked for proof, could you provide such?


G:

What do you consider to be the context of verse 9, and for what reasons?




F:

Verse 9 has Christ being exalted by God.  That is the context.



Correct.

F:

My reason for considering this is that verse 9 says that Christ has been exalted by God.


You don't say... :shades:

F:

Verse 10 cannot break verse 9 - Christ is exalted by God, not above God.


Of course, but this point is entirely irrelevant to my case. My position, as you ought to be well aware of, is that "all" refers to all humanity.


G:

Agreed, although the Bible also reveals that God is Perfect.




F:

Yes it does. But as I have demonstrated, it also reveals that God - in order to be consistent with His character - sometimes acts in a manner which is not His desire.


Where did you demonstrate this? :harp:

What is it in God's character which requires Him to sometimes act in a manner which is not desirous to Him?



G:

And what do you mean by sovereign?




F:

I mean He has all power - He can act indepenently of anyone else.


What then is the function of the word CHAPHETS? What stylistic, contextual, and grammatical evidences do you have which backs your dismissal of the face-value of the text?

G:

According to your view, did it please God to create the billions of people that would finally be lost forever?




F:

You're equivocating.


Equivocating on what, exactly?

F:

This verse does not say that God only does things which please him

The phrase 'whatever He pleases' is an expression of His sovereignty.


I'm waiting for proof. I cannot simply take someone's word for proof.

F:

As I have shown from Ezekiel, it did not please God to punish the wicked with death, but He did so.


You have shown no such thing.

F:

It didn't please Him to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the flood, but He did so.


Actually, He does all that He pleases.


MOD EDIT: Fixed quote tags.

Edited by Dianne, 18 April 2005 - 01:54 PM.


#19 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:59 AM

thank you, dianne, for the editing. :shades:

#20 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 26 April 2005 - 03:05 PM

[quote name='gabe' date='Apr 18 2005, 06:44 AM'] G: [quote] This verse has the Lord God giving a command and warning Adam and Eve of the consequences of breaking the command. Implied by this command, I'd reckon we agree, is that God desired a perfect life for Adam and Eve.  [/quote]


F: [quote]Yes, on His terms.[/quote]

I would think that I agree but, just to be sure, what exactly do you mean by "on His terms?" [/quote]
Sorry it's been so long Gabe, things have been busy around here.

What I mean by 'on His terms' is that God did not unconditionally guarantee to Adam and Eve that everything would work out well. He stated that things would work out well under certain conditions which He had determined.

[quote]G: [quote]But why should the breaking of the command and the resulting curse be incompatible with a final state of restoration in which God's desire ultimately comes to pass? [/quote]

F: [quote]It isn't - given that Adam and Eve repented and were re-accpeted by God, there is every likelihood that they will ultimately be restored.[/quote]

It appears, then, that oru disagreement lies in the fact that you believe that God has both temporary and eternal desires. Or is my impression incorrect?[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. God has eternal desires, and makes temporary accommodations.

[quote]F: [quote]No.[/quote]

Why not? Do you believe that God improvises as events unravel?[/quote]

No. I believe His plans take into account the events which He foreknows will occur.

[quote]F1: [quote]It is my contention that the 'all' here is a hyperbolic 'all'. It doesn't matter to me whether this refers to the time before or after the destruction of the wicked. [/quote]

G: [quote]What would be the function of such hyperbole? [/quote]


F2: [quote]
It's a literary device for emphasis.[/quote]

Emphasis on what, precisely?[/quote]

Emphasis on the great authority given to Christ, and the height of his exaltation.

[quote]G: [quote]Why not take verses 9-11 literally? [/quote]

F: [quote]Because it cannot be done without breaking other passages of Scripture.[/quote]

What passages have you got in mind?[/quote]

Passages which speak of Christ as always subordinate to God, and God sovereign over all things including Christ, as I have said.

[quote]G: [quote]What proof have you got for this assertion? [/quote]

F: [quote]It's the same hyperbolic phraseology which is found all through the Bible....[/quote]

What specific hyperbolic phraseology do you have in mind? I asked for proof, could you provide such?[/quote]

Well you know as well as I do the hyperbolic use of 'all'. But if you want some examples:

[quote]Genesis 41:
56 While the famine was over all the face of the earth, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians. The famine was severe throughout the land of Egypt.[/quote]

This is not a global famine.

[quote]Exodus 9:
6 And the Lord did this on the next day; all the livestock of the Egyptians died, but of the Israelites’ livestock not one died![/quote]

All of the livestock of the Egyptians did not die.

[quote]Romans 3:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.[/quote]

Christ did not sin nor fall short of the glory of God.

[quote]Revelation 5:
13 Then I heard every creature—in heaven, on earth, under the earth, in the sea, and all that is in them—singing:

“To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb

be praise, honor, glory, and ruling power forever and ever!”[/quote]

John did not hear every creature in the universe and on earth - both in the water and under the earth - singing these words.

[quote]G: [quote]What do you consider to be the context of verse 9, and for what reasons? [/quote]

F: [quote]Verse 9 has Christ being exalted by God.  That is the context. [/quote]

Correct.[/quote]

Great.

[quote]F: [quote]My reason for considering this is that verse 9 says that Christ has been exalted by God. [/quote]

You don't say... :shades: [/quote]

That's a yes?

[quote]F: [quote]Verse 10 cannot break verse 9 - Christ is exalted by God, not above God.[/quote]

Of course, but this point is entirely irrelevant to my case. My position, as you ought to be well aware of, is that "all" refers to all humanity.[/quote]

I'm not objecting to your case here, I am answering your question.

[quote]G: [quote]Agreed, although the Bible also reveals that God is Perfect. [/quote]

F: [quote]Yes it does. But as I have demonstrated, it also reveals that God - in order to be consistent with His character - sometimes acts in a manner which is not His desire.[/quote]

Where did you demonstrate this?[/quote]

In the passage I quoted from Ezekiel.

[quote]What is it in God's character which requires Him to sometimes act in a manner which is not desirous to Him?[/quote]

Both His justice and His mercy.

[quote]G: [quote]And what do you mean by sovereign? [/quote]

F: [quote]I mean He has all power - He can act indepenently of anyone else.[/quote]

What then is the function of the word CHAPHETS?[/quote]

I'm happy with Strong's:

[quote]02654 Upx chaphets khaw-fates’

a primitive root; TWOT-712,713; v

AV-delight 39, please 14, desire 9, will 3, pleasure 3, favour 2, like 2, moveth 1, would 1, at all 1; 75

1) to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with
1a) (Qal)
1a1) of men
1a1a) to take pleasure in, delight in
1a1b) to delight, desire, be pleased to do
1a2) of God
1a2a) to delight in, have pleasure in
1a2b) to be pleased to do
2) to move, bend down
2a) (Qal) to bend down[/quote]

How does that sit wit you?

[quote]What stylistic, contextual, and grammatical evidences do you have which backs your dismissal of the face-value of the text?[/quote]

I am not dismissing the face value of the text. The face value of the text says that God does whatever He pleases - a phrase which means 'He can do as He likes'. It does not say that all He does is what He takes pleasure in, nor that He only does that which pleases Him.

[quote]G: [quote]According to your view, did it please God to create the billions of people that would finally be lost forever?[/quote]

F: [quote]You're equivocating. [/quote]

Equivocating on what, exactly?[/quote]

You are reading the passage as if it says 'God only does that which please Him', or 'God only does that which pleases Him'. It does not say that.

[quote]F: [quote]
This verse does not say that God only does things which please him

The phrase 'whatever He pleases' is an expression of His sovereignty.[/quote]

I'm waiting for proof. I cannot simply take someone's word for proof.[/quote]

It's like the English phrase 'I do what I like'. You don't say that to mean 'I only do things which I like', or 'I don't do things which I don't like'. You use it to say 'I am free to act independently'.

The same phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture both of God and kings with precisely this meaning, so it's not as if we're guessing here:

[quote]Psalm 135:
5 Yes, I know the Lord is great, and our sovereign Master is superior to all gods.

6 He does whatever he pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the ocean depths.[/quote]

[quote]Ecclesiastes 8:
3 Do not rush out of the king’s presence in haste—do not delay when the matter is unpleasant, for he can do whatever he pleases.[/quote]

[quote]Jonah 1:
14 So they cried out to the Lord, “Oh, please, Lord, don’t let us die on account of this man! Don’t hold us guilty of shedding innocent blood.69 After all, you, Lord, have done just as you pleased.”[/quote]

:shrug:

[quote]F: [quote]As I have shown from Ezekiel, it did not please God to punish the wicked with death, but He did so.[/quote]

You have shown no such thing.[/quote]

I invite your comment on these passages:

[quote] Ezekiel 33:
10 “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what you have said,: “Our rebellious acts and our sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?”’

11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefer that the wicked change his behavior and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil deeds! Why should you die, O house of Israel?’

12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, ‘The righteousness of the godly will not deliver him if he rebels. As for the wicked, his sin will not make him stumble if he turns from it. The godly will not be able to live by his righteousness if he sins.’

13 Suppose I tell the righteous that he will certainly live, but he becomes confident in his godliness and commits iniquity. None of his righteous deeds will be remembered; because of the iniquity he has committed he will die.[/quote]

You will note that the word 'pleasure' there is the same under discussion in the other passages. God is saying here that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but He assures Israel that He will indeed punish the wicked with death if they do not repent - despite the fact that He does not wish to.

[quote]F: [quote]It didn't please Him to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the flood, but He did so. [/quote]

Actually, He does all that He pleases.[/quote]

He does. But not all that He does pleases Him.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#21 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 27 April 2005 - 01:12 AM

It will be some time, Fprt, before I get back to this.

Edited by gabe, 27 April 2005 - 12:55 PM.


#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 29 April 2005 - 11:10 PM

No probs Gabe, take all the time you need.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#23 gabe

gabe

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 01:37 AM

Dear Fortigurn,

It's been awhile since this debate was discontinued, eh? I have just reviewed it and have decided that I'm not against continuing it, should you have the inclination. How are you these days, anyway?

#24 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 03:42 PM

Well gabe in a word I'm busy. And that's putting it mildly. Right now I couldn't possibly commit to this debate again for at least two weeks.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users