|
Post by eternal on Sept 26, 2006 19:40:57 GMT -5
Um, that is exactly what I said. I have already stated this. This is the premise of my disagreement with the doctrine. "No part of man is free from the effects of sin." I am asking, what about the spirit and breath of God which are a part of man? Um, again, this is not what I have argued at all. You seem to be deffending yourself against a position which was never offered. God "living" in our hearts is itself a metaphor. I have said that God's breath and spirit are said to be a part of the human condition. I outlined this in great detail in many posts, beyond just the one you looked at. Perhaps you can read a little further into the thread. And yes, that is my argument. How do you deal with it? Your switch up fails to meet my position. I have said that God is NOT currupt, which is why we are NOT Totaly depraved. I never suggested that every part of us is only "partialy depraved." That is a gross misreading/representation of my position. I suggest again that you read more than the first post. Here, for further context to all of this, allow me to quote myself from another post in this thread: Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
" Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3)
Job 34:14"If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
etc.
Let me explore some of these...
Genesis 6:3 > God's Spirit will not strive with men forever? What does that mean? In the context it means that there will be a limit to how long a person may live. The life of any individual is therefore defined by how long God's Spirit strives with them. ALL PEOPLE, not just the saved.
Notice that theme continued in Job 34. It says that if HE (God, not man) would gather to HIMSELF (God not man) HIS (God, not man) Spirit and HIS (God, not man) breath, all flesh would perish and return to the dust.
The same message is being communicated. While we possess God's spirit and breath, we are alive. But if it were to be recalled, we would die instantly, for only God lives. We are SHARING in His existence and glory. Without His sustaining (Col 1:17) presence that all things consist in, we would die and return to the dust in which we came from, and His spirit would return to God who gave it. In fact, that is exactly what Ecclesiastes 12:7 confirms: "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it."
Clearly, God's Spirit and Breath "strive" with all flesh until it they die, at which point they retreat from their souls, and the flesh naturaly currupts without it.Again, it would benefiet you to read beyond the FIRST post, lol. I am not highlighting "children." I am not sure why you ran with that. It really makes no sense to me. Obviously the implication is that we are all created by God. I never suggested otherwise, another straw man, unfortunatley. My point with this passage and the thrust of passages it was among, is that God is in fact saturated in all creation, and is a part of all of us, whether we recognize Him or not. That is the plain langauge of the text. If you want to deny that we are "in" God or that God is "in" us, you are going to have to explain away the scripture, not I. Um, ok? lol Of course not. So, you are not going to talk about the passages you cited me as quoting? Nuance, anybody? Um, sadly you have completely ignored my points, and have largely argued against stuff I have not said. If you do not want to read my position as layed out, that is fine. I would rather not spend my time answering all your quesstions by reading back myself and doing a bunch of cut and pastes for your benefiet. I hope you understand. peace.
|
|
|
Post by 5pointer on Sept 26, 2006 21:21:38 GMT -5
Um, that is exactly what I said. I have already stated this. This is the premise of my disagreement with the doctrine. "No part of man is free from the effects of sin." I am asking, what about the spirit and breath of God which are a part of man?
You said that Calvinist believe that man is "exhaustively evil" This is not Calvinism, hence the reason I gave the proper definition. You made a false claim.
God "living" in our hearts is itself a metaphor. I have said that God's breath and spirit are said to be a part of the human condition. I outlined this in great detail in many posts, beyond just the one you looked at. Perhaps you can read a little further into the thread.
I read a lot of things on the net. I did not feel like reading 6 pages worth of arguments. I read your first one and dealt with it.
The verses you gave to support this pantheistic god of yours do not "have your back."
The verses you gave, (Gen. 2:7, Job 27:3, and Isaiah 2:22) only say that God breathed life into us, that is made us alive. It does not mean that God's breath is a part of us.
"...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." Gen 2:7
Simply a way of saying "made him come alive"
"...and the breath of God is in my nostrils..." Job 27:3
"...whose breath of life is in his nostrils..." Isaiah 2:22
Even if we took this literally, the furthest Gods breath penetrates is our "nostrils." So does that mean that people who where born without noses or lost their nose in an accident no longer have the "breath of God."
Your argument is rather silly.
Your switch up fails to meet my position. I have said that God is NOT corrupt, which is why we are NOT Totally depraved. I never suggested that every part of us is only "partially depraved." That is a gross misreading/representation of my position.
This is very simple:
Your saying that man cannot be "exhaustively evil" because that would make Gods breath "exhaustively evil." I think this is what you are saying.
If this is the case, then if man is partially evil, then Gods breath would be partially evil.
If only one man sinned and only one time, then Gods breath would be corrupted by that sin.
This is very simple. I am simply taking your argument to it's logical conclusion.
Let me explore some of these...
Genesis 6:3 > God's Spirit will not strive with men forever? What does that mean? In the context it means that there will be a limit to how long a person may live. The life of any individual is therefore defined by how long God's Spirit strives with them. ALL PEOPLE, not just the saved.
Why do you read this and think that Gods Spirit dwells in man when the verse nor the context suggest any such thing?
You are reading that into the text.
And if all God has to do is remove His Spirit for man to die then what is the purpose of the flood? Why not just remove His Spirit and have everyone fall to the ground?
Notice that theme continued in Job 34. It says that if HE (God, not man) would gather to HIMSELF (God not man) HIS (God, not man) Spirit and HIS (God, not man) breath, all flesh would perish and return to the dust.
A simple acknowledgment that God is the giver of life as we have already seen in the preceding verses.
And for your benefit, historical narrative is not the best place to go for doctrine.
and His spirit would return to God who gave it. In fact, that is exactly what Ecclesiastes 12:7 confirms: "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it."
And again I will ask; why do you assume that the spirit in Eccl 12:7 is the Spirit of God?
Clearly, God's Spirit and Breath "strive" with all flesh until it they die, at which point they retreat from their souls, and the flesh naturally corrupts without it
Romans 8:9
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Looks here that one can be alive without having the Spirit of God in them.
This verse states that not having the Spirit means you do not belong to Him, not that you are physically dead.
This whole context is that if one does not have the Spirit then they are the ones who live in the flesh, not that they are dead.
My point with this passage and the thrust of passages it was among, is that God is in fact saturated in all creation, and is a part of all of us, whether we recognize Him or not. That is the plain language of the text. If you want to deny that we are "in" God or that God is "in" us, you are going to have to explain away the scripture, not I.
I need not explain anything away, I simply look at the context. The whole context is that God created everything and that our existence is "in" Him. All creation is upheld by the power of His word. All creation owes it's existence because of Him.
You sound very much like a cross between a Mormon and a Pantheist.
I'm not sure what you claim to be, but if it is Protestant, you are not in line with it at all. Arminian and Calvinist would both rebuke you.
So, you are not going to talk about the passages you cited me as quoting? Nuance, anybody?
Not sure what your trying to say here.
Um, sadly you have completely ignored my points, and have largely argued against stuff I have not said. If you do not want to read my position as layed out, that is fine. I would rather not spend my time answering all your questions by reading back myself and doing a bunch of cut and pastes for your benefit. I hope you understand.
I responded to everything in your first post. Just because you disagree with my response does not mean I did not respond.
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Sept 27, 2006 10:10:32 GMT -5
You said that Calvinist believe that man is "exhaustively evil" This is not Calvinism, hence the reason I gave the proper definition. You made a false claim. LOL. OK homey. If you reject context and any attempt to read beyond the first post, then fine, continue to misrepresent me. Ask any calvinist on this board if I have EVER argued what you suggest I am. Would you believe them? lol. You take words to mean what you want, that is fine. Here is some quotes, that if you scrolled down your computer you would have found, but instead chose to be lazy and insist that I do your work for you... or Perhaps you should read a little more, so that you do not accuse people of things that are untrue, simply due to your own lack of understanding. I responded to everything in your first post. Just because you disagree with my response does not mean I did not respond.[/quote]I read a lot of things on the net. I did not feel like reading 6 pages worth of arguments. I read your first one and dealt with it.[/b] And you dealt with it with false assumptions and bad reading. To help those faulty steps of yours, I suggest you read more of what I have written in this thread. Otherwise you will continue to miss the point, and instead assault strawmen. Sound fair? The verses you gave to support this pantheistic god of yours do not "have your back."Again, another slander due to your refusal to either think through what I wrote, or simply read beyond the first post. If you did either of those, you might have found that I have previously said in this thread: Now please tell me how you substantiate your slanderous remarks that I teach pantheism? Please explain how you came to this conclussion? Was it based on faulty reading, a refusal to read, and a predisposed mindset to disagree? IF it was something else, please explain. Thanks. The verses you gave, (Gen. 2:7, Job 27:3, and Isaiah 2:22) only say that God breathed life into us, that is made us alive. It does not mean that God's breath is a part of us.
"...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..." Gen 2:7
Simply a way of saying "made him come alive"
"...and the breath of God is in my nostrils..." Job 27:3
"...whose breath of life is in his nostrils..." Isaiah 2:22
Even if we took this literally, the furthest Gods breath penetrates is our "nostrils." So does that mean that people who where born without noses or lost their nose in an accident no longer have the "breath of God."
Your argument is rather silly.lol. Again you are refusing certain passages to create a character of my argument. 1) You skipped out on passages that I presented such as: Genesis 6:17 "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
Genesis 7:15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life.
Job 34:14"If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust. Why is it you chose to not give mention to these? All discuss the breath being "IN" man. And none of them mention nostrils. 2) Even if the breath of God remained in the nostrils exclussively, it is still IN man. And my question stands, is this part of man, ALSO CURRUPT? Would you care to answer that question? This is very simple:
Your saying that man cannot be "exhaustively evil" because that would make Gods breath "exhaustively evil." I think this is what you are saying.
If this is the case, then if man is partially evil, then Gods breath would be partially evil.
If only one man sinned and only one time, then Gods breath would be corrupted by that sin.
This is very simple. I am simply taking your argument to it's logical conclusion.lol AGAIN! Please, think outside of YOUR box for a moment, and hear what I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I am saying, not what your character of me is saying, ok? As a matter of fact, allow me to quote myself: Clearly, my point is obvious. Calvinism teaches that EVERY aspect of man has been touched by sin. I have shown that the bible teaches that both God's spirit and breath are in fact a part of the human condition. WIth this biblical fact as our guideline, I ask simply is it still true that EVERY aspect of man has been touched by sin? Or is it just EVERY aspect of man EXCEPT for God's spirit and breath? And if you chose to define it that way, what impact does this have on the doctrine of total depravity, knowing that there is a part of man, God's breath and spirit, that are unaffected by sin? Why do you read this and think that Gods Spirit dwells in man when the verse nor the context suggest any such thing?
You are reading that into the text.
And if all God has to do is remove His Spirit for man to die then what is the purpose of the flood? Why not just remove His Spirit and have everyone fall to the ground?I read it that way because that is what it says. And yes the context does suggest such a thing, and I have dealt with it in this thread, again, if you were willing to read the context of my argument. I have read NOTHING into the text, but have exhaustively pulled out from the text. Allow me to ask you, do you disagree with the scripture that God merely had to remove His spirit for man to die? Do you dispute the black and white text? I am confused as to the intent of your second paragraph quoted above. Please elaborate! God does lots of things and sets things up a certain way, and we can ask why didn't He do this or do that? Point is, He did as He chose to do. A simple acknowledgment that God is the giver of life as we have already seen in the preceding verses.
And for your benefit, historical narrative is not the best place to go for doctrine.
LOL @ "historical narrative." HAHA. Do you agree with the passage or not?! I have shown THROUGHOUT scripture a consistent theme, and you pigeon hole it to this one verse? This verse is very clear, but you now ammount my presentation to being contingent upon "historical narrative?" LOL. Who is being dishonest here? God certainly is the giver of life, but the scriptues are consistently showing us how God has set things up, that all flesh has in it the breath of God, and we have the Spirit of God in like manner. Do you dispute the many scriptures that teach this, both NT and OT? And again I will ask; why do you assume that the spirit in Eccl 12:7 is the Spirit of God?As I have explained in the posts you refuse to read, there is a consistent hermenutic that has been recognized in the scripture, that shows God's spirit is in fact in every being. It stands in the tradition of what I have outlined above, and more specificaly: " Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3)
Job 34:14"If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. 4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish. Romans 8:9
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Looks here that one can be alive without having the Spirit of God in them.
This verse states that not having the Spirit means you do not belong to Him, not that you are physically dead.
This whole context is that if one does not have the Spirit then they are the ones who live in the flesh, not that they are dead.Um, "in the Spirit" is language clearly articulating a particular relationships between God and human being. It is not of the sort we have been discussing, and to align them together is to tarnish the scriptures themselves. I need not explain anything away, I simply look at the context. The whole context is that God created everything and that our existence is "in" Him. All creation is upheld by the power of His word. All creation owes it's existence because of Him.
You sound very much like a cross between a Mormon and a Pantheist.
I'm not sure what you claim to be, but if it is Protestant, you are not in line with it at all. Arminian and Calvinist would both rebuke you.You obviously are unfamiliar with the traditions of the Orthodox Church. Clearly you are unfamiliar with Augustine: Allow me to ask you, do you believe in omnipresence? IF you claim you do, please define it. Most people who do not think about it say God is all around us, but not in us. If that is so, then what they are saying is that God is in oxegyn molecules, but none others. Does that make sense to you? I teach omnipresence, not the slanderous charge you brought of pantheism, claiming I serve a false "god." Not sure what your trying to say here.Um, I was saying you didn't talk about the passage, and how you deal with it. For your conveniece, I will again quote it for you: You quoted this, but never dicussed the pasage. Why? I responded to everything in your first post. Just because you disagree with my response does not mean I did not respond.No, I take issue with your CHARACTERIZATION of my post. You are uninformed, this is clear to see. And you read things into what I said, and took it as fact. I suggest that if you want to be respectful of what a person says, you should understand it before you critique it. Is that fair? peace.
|
|
|
Post by 5pointer on Oct 8, 2006 20:50:13 GMT -5
Again, another slander due to your refusal to either think through what I wrote, or simply read beyond the first post. If you did either of those, you might have found that I have previously said in this thread:
Now please tell me how you substantiate your slanderous remarks that I teach pantheism? Please explain how you came to this conclusion? Was it based on faulty reading, a refusal to read, and a predisposed mindset to disagree? IF it was something else, please explain. Thanks.
You may deny being a pantheist but your remarks about how God is "part" of us is very pantheistic.
You sound very much like the Mormon who says, "We are not polytheist." Then the next words out of their mouths is, "We believe in billions of gods."
You may not subscribe to the same "kind" of pantheism as others but as soon as you say that God is "part" of us, you reveal that you are a partial pantheist.
You can not say, "God is "part" of us" without subscribing to the ultimate consequence of that statement.
lol. Again you are refusing certain passages to create a character of my argument.
1) You skipped out on passages that I presented such as:
Genesis 6:17 "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
Genesis 7:15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life.
Job 34:14"If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, 15 All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.
Why is it you chose to not give mention to these? All discuss the breath being "IN" man. And none of them mention nostrils.
The whole point is that the "breath of life" is simply a way of stating that these creatures are alive.
I truly cannot see how you can read this to mean that Gods breath is part of us.
2) Even if the breath of God remained in the nostrils exclusively, it is still IN man. And my question stands, is this part of man, ALSO CORRUPT? Would you care to answer that question?
Please stick with one word. "In" man, and "part" of man has different meanings to me.
The steak I ate for dinner is "in" me, not a "part" of me.
The skin on my bones is "part" of me, not "in" me.
I have no problem with God being "in" man, but when you say "part" of man you have crossed the line into heresy.
Clearly, my point is obvious. Calvinism teaches that EVERY aspect of man has been touched by sin. I have shown that the bible teaches that both God's spirit and breath are in fact a part of the human condition. With this biblical fact as our guideline, I ask simply is it still true that EVERY aspect of man has been touched by sin? Or is it just EVERY aspect of man EXCEPT for God's spirit and breath? And if you chose to define it that way, what impact does this have on the doctrine of total depravity, knowing that there is a part of man, God's breath and spirit, that are unaffected by sin?
Far from demonstrating this as "biblical fact."
This is, of course, the point of contention. I do not hold to this idea of God being "part" of man, as if we are little deities here on earth. If God is "part" of the "human condition", then man is "part" of the divine condition.
A white male and a black female have a child together. The child id "part" white, and "part" black. The child shares the "nature" of the two parents. Does this mean we are "part" God?
LOL @ "historical narrative." HAHA. Do you agree with the passage or not?!
Ecclesiastes 10:19
"Men, prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything."
Do you agree with this passage or not?
It is "black and white."
God certainly is the giver of life, but the scriptures are consistently showing us how God has set things up, that all flesh has in it the breath of God, and we have the Spirit of God in like manner. Do you dispute the many scriptures that teach this, both NT and OT?
Of course I do not dispute this. What I dispute is your understanding of it.
As I have explained in the posts you refuse to read, there is a consistent hermeneutic that has been recognized in the scripture, that shows God's spirit is in fact in every being. It stands in the tradition of what I have outlined above, and more specifically: " Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3)
This verse says absolutely nothing about Gods Spirit being "part" of man.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Where does this verse say this is Gods Spirit? I see spirit, not Spirit.
Psalm 146:3 Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. 4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish
Is the context referring to "mans" spirit, or "God's" Spirit?
You obviously are unfamiliar with the traditions of the Orthodox Church. Clearly you are unfamiliar with Augustine:
Misinterpreting an individual as well as the bible is not a rebuttal.
Allow me to ask you, do you believe in omnipresence? IF you claim you do, please define it. Most people who do not think about it say God is all around us, but not in us. If that is so, then what they are saying is that God is in oxygen molecules, but none others. Does that make sense to you? I teach omnipresence, not the slanderous charge you brought of pantheism, claiming I serve a false "god."
I believe in omnipresence, but there is a vast difference between being somewhere and being part of something.
Likewise I also believe in Gods omnipotence, yet I also know that there are things that God cannot do. God cannot lie. God cannot deny Himself.
Omnipotence and omnisciense are simply human words used to describe an attribute of God, yet these words, like any other, need to be defined in light of scripture.
I might label your view as "hyper omnipresense" like someone who believes God could lie as "hyper omnipotence."
The scripture says that obeying God is possible and "not too difficult." If we were exhaustively evil and incapable of doing what the scripture in Dt. 30 says is "not too difficult" and Paul quotes concerning the gospel in Romans 10, that would invalidate the scripture as erroneous
It helps to read the context.
The way in which it is not difficult is the fact that it is not "far" from them, not way up in the heavens or out to sea but it is "near" to them.
Was it near to the Babylonians or the Assyrians? No. It was near to Gods people, the Hebrews. Why; because it was God Himself who "circumcised" their heart so that THEY would be able to love God with their heart and soul.
Notice that Chapter 30 talks much about what God does and how man passively responds.
In this chapter GOD....
set blessings and curses
banished the people
restores from captivity
gathers the people
from where HE scattered them
brings them into the land
prosper and multiply them
circumcise their hearts
inflict curses on their enemies
prosper them abundantly
and on and on.....
Very Calvinistic chapter.
I'm not sure where you stand on the trinity, but in trinitarian theology Christ dual natures are separate from one another.
His Humanity and His Divinity do not combine in any way. The reason for this is because Christ had to be human and God in order to do what He did.He is the Shepard and the sheep.
His dual natures could not have been "part" of one another because that would have made Him a third kind of creature or thing. He would not have been human or God but a mixture of both; a third type of being.
This is relevant to our discussion, because if Christ flesh is separate and not "part" of God then neither is ours.
|
|
|
Post by 5pointer on Oct 8, 2006 21:40:29 GMT -5
I too mentioned some verses that you did not deal with.
John 6:44, 65 say that man can't go to Christ "unless."
Care to respond Eternal.
|
|