These few things I know.

Israel

Senior Member
He is The Sovereign King.
I don't disagree, and have only been asking questions.
And I don't disagree with the usefulness of examples.


But do you think the example may break down a bit (not denying any usefulness) by bringing God to the equivalence of a king...himself, in and "of" the creation?

Even to His reliance upon strength or power of others..."in and of the creation"? (Soldiers like himself..."of the creation")
(And I do not deny angelic spirit's being nor power)

I cannot help but reiterate the original question in light of being persuaded that as the God of all creation who being not only "above" (superior in any way it might be applied as being separate in nature from a created thing)...but responsible for, not only all the things that are (such as to the extent my understanding of what is, is) but even those things which I am persuaded "be not".

You have, if I understand you (and in a way I would say has been helpful to me) only told (again, do I understand you?) how God chooses to act toward His creation, but the question,

"What is not under His control"

since you posit

but does not control everything
remains.

What is it? that? they? thing? (that is or even "be's not") that could be part of, included in, of any "of everything" that He does not control?
 
Last edited:

gemcgrew

Senior Member
"I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

"The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

Do all Arminians think so poorly of Christ as to see Him as a mindless puppet? Or only the Classical ones?
 

Ray357

Senior Member
I don't disagree, and have only been asking questions.
And I don't disagree with the usefulness of examples.


But do you think the example may break down a bit (not denying any usefulness) by bringing God to the equivalence of a king...himself, in and "of" the creation?

Even to His reliance upon strength or power of others..."in and of the creation"? (Soldiers like himself..."of the creation")
(And I do not deny angelic spirit's being nor power)

I cannot help but reiterate the original question in light of being persuaded that as the God of all creation who being not only "above" (superior in any way it might be applied as being separate in nature from a created thing)...but responsible for, not only all the things that are (such as to the extent my understanding of what is, is) but even those things which I am persuaded "be not".

You have, if I understand you (and in a way I would say has been helpful to me) only told (again, do I understand you?) how God chooses to act toward His creation, but the question,

"What is not under His control"

since you posit

remains.

What is it? that? they? thing? (that is or even "be's not") that could be part of, included in, of any "of everything" that He does not control?
Apply the same to the Parables. If you analyze them to death.....
God created gravity, trees, leaves, and wind resistance. Does He actively place every leaf on the ground. One extreme is deism. The other,hyper Calvinism. The truth, somewhere in between.
 

Ray357

Senior Member
That would fall under the category of "everything"(see post #40).
You hold a position that puts you on a theological Island with a miniscule few for company. You might want to research the difference between Cause and Ordain. I honestly don't really care, because I am sure discussion will be unfruitful.
James 1:13
 

Ray357

Senior Member
And few there are that find it.
Good thing that FEW get lost in the weeds. You can't find anything, so that line of argument is pointless. God debating God. He controls your keystrokes. He controlls my keystrokes. He debates with Himself. That's past odd. That's insanity.
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
Good thing that FEW get lost in the weeds. You can't find anything, so that line of argument is pointless. God debating God. He controls your keystrokes. He controlls my keystrokes. He debates with Himself. That's past odd. That's insanity.
Are you still honestly not really caring?
 

Israel

Senior Member
I am persuaded the sense of this is lost upon ( i.e. must appear as "lostness" to an observer) what does not yet see it, and is so painfully obvious to what does; that having no choice in the matter of appearance, the one speaking of its sense by that compulsion to speak of it can only be seen as either insane or Captain Obvious. A man might like to think he can choose to be wise, but that too is out of his hands.

As to the relationship of lostness to insanity (and seeing the insanity card has been played as trump), and no less mention of an island with weeds that few venture to, (or find) the parable of the movie "Cast Away" could be useful.

Chuck Nolan suffers a crash. Lone survivor. He finds himself on an island. (Or does an island provided find him?) This place where we get to watch the working out of his isolation to the point of both failed suicide and imbuing a volley ball with selfness to a relationship.

Did he "go crazy" or was the already resident crazy only manifest by particular circumstance? Or, did he not go crazy at all, just survive by whatever means (even if to us it appears crazy) till recovery?

What gave him that thing (was it a form of hope?) in the seeming loss of everything (as Wilson floated away) and of such losing that he even lets go (for a time) of his life line? We watch as the lifeline sinks, understanding. There could be a point at which it comes to rest out of his reach despite his will.

In that moment, that particular moment of all...did he "make a choice?" Or quite conversely...was that the moment of all where choice was particularly denied him...having none?

Life simply...took over?

Even saving him from death by delusion?

Could he describe it later? Would he say "I chose to let Wilson go" and "opted for the raft?" Or would he say something other, "my delusion almost (all but) killed me?" And caused me to let go of everything...and in that something else took over that allows me to stand here today...speaking of it?

Even all my trying to cling to delusion...worked?

When I was past hope...(or is it only past "my hopes"?) that a man discovers...

The man even sillier than I am will read "he is recommending clinging to delusion..."
I am saying a man has no choice, he already does that. The first inclination is always to it.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

(Only the believer is made to believe this)

He knows of inclinations...and the vast superiority of salvation...too vast to describe.
An intervention. Always being made upon the first man to dissuade from...that he might be persuaded to.

I thought to say, at the first "I would prefer", but that was taken from me.

It is not at all that "I would prefer" to see the self control of God rather than admit to something being not under His complete control.

I have no choice.





 

gordon 2

Senior Member
It is a far, far good thing that bros. SemperFiDawg is no man to worry that his tread is derailed or not derailed.

From a topic avowing that the depths of scripture are mystery and speculative to him but nevertheless truth and yet sure that God is in full control which " That's pretty much it. Very simple to understand." and on to the posts in response by the lumberjacks on planks sure and steady at various heights of the bible tree with saws chewing in-- sawing to agree and disagree.

Yet there is something else in the OP... something about "Jesus loves me." which no saws have cut into regardless of which plank and height we are on. It is a kind of like the love of God is ecumenical which splits and saw tracts for bible study does not afford.


There is something about the way we study the bible that makes lovers fools.

Salvation is conditional and salvation is not conditional the bible tells me so---but God's love is fussier about what it tells me precisely about salvation. Maybe.

The bible tells me the hot and cold have a good chance at salvation and the lukewarm are out. The cross and Christ on it tells me that the possiblity at salvation is for all, the hot, the cold and the lukewarm. Conservatives, liberals and wingnuts at both ends all can look on it... and perhaps knock at the door that is not a real door at the gate which is not a real gate but is Christ and so receive eternal life. Otherwise the Great Commission is not real.

That's pretty much it. Very simple to understand. Those who have hearts permit such to feel. Those who have eyes permit them to see. Those who have ears make hearing aids less expensive something like glasses are for the eyes... and as less then perfect neighbors find it in their hearts to be neighborly.
 
Last edited:
Top