Is God a Monster?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by Homer » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:31 pm

Hi Robby,

You have commented;
1. The greek word oikoumenē is used to describe what world the NT writers are concerned with. Strong states the primary position as the inhabited earth contextualized as: (a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians; and (b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire.

As for the “great commission”, this was specifically given for Israel’s last days, which was in the 1st century, encompassing the known Roman Empire. This is very clear to me when reading the NT writers letters and understanding.
Your belief that the great commission was limited to the lands of the Greco/Roman empire would seem to be falsified by the Apostle Thomas, unless he misunderstood Jesus first hand commandment. There is evidence from many sources that Thomas evangelized in India and planted churches there long before 70 AD.

Thanks and be blessed, Homer

Also I am confused by your comments about Calvinism. Is it your belief that regeneration occurs prior to faith?

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:57 pm

Homer wrote:Hi Robby,

You have commented;
1. The greek word oikoumenē is used to describe what world the NT writers are concerned with. Strong states the primary position as the inhabited earth contextualized as: (a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians; and (b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire.

As for the “great commission”, this was specifically given for Israel’s last days, which was in the 1st century, encompassing the known Roman Empire. This is very clear to me when reading the NT writers letters and understanding.
Your belief that the great commission was limited to the lands of the Greco/Roman empire would seem to be falsified by the Apostle Thomas, unless he misunderstood Jesus first hand commandment. There is evidence from many sources that Thomas evangelized in India and planted churches there long before 70 AD.

Thanks and be blessed, Homer

Also I am confused by your comments about Calvinism. Is it your belief that regeneration occurs prior to faith?
Hi Homer,

Why are you more interested in fables concerning Thomas than dealing with Paul's emphatic statements? Does Paul's statements hold more value or weight than uninspired legends that can never be proven or disproven? I thought we were discussing proof texts regarding my reasonings? So what do you do, you interject fables as a response to Paul's emphatic understanding. Of course I say these things in kindness, and with a little fun, in order for you to see the error of your attempt to refute my biblical position. Did or did not Paul ascribe Matt 24:14 as fulfilled in his day? The answer is, YES! Now you can choose to believe in fables or the inspired words of Paul. Why am I considered the odd ball for actually believing what Paul said? Something is askew here, don't you think?

Lastly, I believe that God quickens the spiritual dead. God's grace and mercy, the first act, gives them the ability to freely receive or reject the gift of salvation, at least this was how it was done in Israel's last days.

Blessings my friend!

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by mattrose » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:53 pm

A few points in relation to this thread

1. The metaphor of death is being, in my opinion, overused by robbyyoung. People are not, in a literal sense, completely dead spiritually speaking. We are incapable of saving ourselves spiritually, but that doesn't mean we aren't spiritual 'awake' so to speak. Scripture is clear that we, even after 'the fall' are still image bearers of God. We still get convicted, experience shame and desire for God/eternity, etc. Calvinists are forced to interpret the 'death' metaphor literally despite observed evidence because it is required by their system.

2. I must also admit that I find robbyyoung's maneuvering of Scriptures speaking to God's universal love quite baffling. I cannot fathom, outside of a preconceived doctrine, how one would come away from those texts with such a reading. We should not expect biblical authors to constantly re-iterate that when they make specific statements about specific people it applies to people in general. Paul's epistles and letters were occasional, not systematic theologies.

3. The concept of prevenient grace, no matter what you call it, is (to my mind) an indisputable reality. It simply means that God's grace goes before our salvation. This includes what calvinists might call common grace, but also includes God's initial wooing of all people. This is made clear in passages like Acts 17:26-27, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:15, etc. God speaks to all humanity (both Jew and Gentile) through creation and conscience. Some also receive the light of Christ.

4. Since we should not expect absolutized statements in letters written to particular people (see point 2), we are not (and should not be) dependent on such statements to come to Scripturally based, big-picture conclusions about God's love. God IS love. It is the core of God's being. God's love for creation is, therefore, not in question. God created the world. Entered the world. Died for the world. And has promised to restore the whole world. It is only when we force a presupposed doctrine onto the Scriptures that we miss the forest for the trees.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by robbyyoung » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:08 pm

mattrose wrote:A few points in relation to this thread

1. The metaphor of death is being, in my opinion, overused by robbyyoung. People are not, in a literal sense, completely dead spiritually speaking. We are incapable of saving ourselves spiritually, but that doesn't mean we aren't spiritual 'awake' so to speak. Scripture is clear that we, even after 'the fall' are still image bearers of God. We still get convicted, experience shame and desire for God/eternity, etc. Calvinists are forced to interpret the 'death' metaphor literally despite observed evidence because it is required by their system.
Hi Matt,

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Spiritual death (which alienates us from God) is a poignant reminder of the condition of man. I gave a scriptural reference concerning this fact, and you say it’s overused, I disagree. When it comes to salvation, we are literally spiritually dead—this is the point of the discussion. We are not talking about being aware of spiritual ideas; we are discussing how the natural man cannot respond to the TRUE voice of God. For example:

1 Cor. 2:14 “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (ESV)

So to be clear, I am discussing Paul’s understanding of spiritual death which alienates us from God, a very literal and specific fact:

Eph 2:1-5 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved (ESV)

I think my moderate use of the term “spiritual death” to illustrate Paul’s point is sufficient.
mattrose wrote:2. I must also admit that I find robbyyoung's maneuvering of Scriptures speaking to God's universal love quite baffling. I cannot fathom, outside of a preconceived doctrine, how one would come away from those texts with such a reading. We should not expect biblical authors to constantly re-iterate that when they make specific statements about specific people it applies to people in general. Paul's epistles and letters were occasional, not systematic theologies.
I could appreciate the criticism far better if you would briefly summarize what text, quote, and misapplication you are referring to, thanks.
mattrose wrote:3. The concept of prevenient grace, no matter what you call it, is (to my mind) an indisputable reality. It simply means that God's grace goes before our salvation. This includes what calvinists might call common grace, but also includes God's initial wooing of all people. This is made clear in passages like Acts 17:26-27, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:15, etc. God speaks to all humanity (both Jew and Gentile) through creation and conscience. Some also receive the light of Christ.
I see no problem with this, but doesn't God's grace work outside of the hearing of "the gospel"? If not, why not?
mattrose wrote:4. Since we should not expect absolutized statements in letters written to particular people (see point 2), we are not (and should not be) dependent on such statements to come to Scripturally based, big-picture conclusions about God's love. God IS love. It is the core of God's being. God's love for creation is, therefore, not in question. God created the world. Entered the world. Died for the world. And has promised to restore the whole world. It is only when we force a presupposed doctrine onto the Scriptures that we miss the forest for the trees.
God’s love is not in question here; it’s how He imparts His divine judgment and mercy within His love. Nevertheless, I have the same presupposed doctrine of the 1st Century believers, like them, I actually believe what they were told and how major events were uniquely applicable to them. However, it is hard to overcome a denial of inspired claims by uninspired men for thousands of years and still going… and going… and going… Principles may transcend the original audience but promised events do not. Again, my supposition is to appreciate what belongs to the original audience of the 1st century, being careful not to hi-jack specifics events as my own, especially on the backdrop of inspiration.

As always, blessings my friend!

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by mattrose » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:34 pm

robbyyoung wrote:

I think my moderate use of the term “spiritual death” to illustrate Paul’s point is sufficient.
If all that you are saying is that nobody is capable of coming to God apart from God's grace... then we agree.
I could appreciate the criticism far better if you would briefly summarize what text, quote, and misapplication you are referring to, thanks.
Well, as an example, I think you're unnecessarily over-interpreting 1 Timothy 2:3-4. The passage is saying that God wants all men to be saved (come to the knowledge of the truth). Just because only those who have access to knowledge of the truth in Paul's day were in his direct purview doesn't suggest that God doesn't want ALL people to be saved. That actually goes against the over-arching point of the passage which is talking about all governments and all people. It makes no sense to me to try to limit the implications of Paul's words just because he, himself, only lived in a particular place/time.
I see no problem with this, but doesn't God's grace work outside of the hearing of "the gospel"? If not, why not?
I don't understand the purpose of your question.
God’s love is not in question here; it’s how He imparts His divine judgment and mercy within His love. Nevertheless, I have the same presupposed doctrine of the 1st Century believers, like them, I actually believe what they were told and how major events were uniquely applicable to them. However, it is hard to overcome a denial of inspired claims by uninspired men for thousands of years and still going… and going… and going… Principles may transcend the original audience but promised events do not. Again, my supposition is to appreciate what belongs to the original audience of the 1st century, being careful not to hi-jack specifics events as my own, especially on the backdrop of inspiration.

As always, blessings my friend!
I don't really understand what you are talking about. The point of the discussion IS the interpretation/understanding of 1st century believers. It hardly serves the purpose of discussion to simply declare that your interpretation IS the correct one. I apologize for not remembering what theological paradigm you are coming from, but not knowing is clearly confusing me and preventing me from understanding why you're coming to such strange conclusions. I'm guessing you're a hyper-preterist. I can only (but honestly) say that I've always felt that school of thought is an incredibly strained way to interpret Scripture. I myself am a preterist, but the 'hyper' versions of that paradigm create more problems than they solve in my opinion.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by robbyyoung » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:41 pm

Homer, Matt, and others,

Although I appreciate the discussion, this conversation is getting way off track from the original post. Therefore, I will attempt to present a working thesis on Matthew 24:14 and how I tentatively support a relevance only to Jesus' last days generation of the 1st century. In short, if the language of the text denotes a regional fulfillment, what does this mean regarding the age to come for the entire world?

I'll start a new thread soon, but it may take awhile due to the holidays. By the way, I am a full preterist, and I hope to engage with you all soon.

Blessings!

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by mattrose » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:28 pm

robbyyoung wrote:Homer, Matt, and others,

Although I appreciate the discussion, this conversation is getting way off track from the original post. Therefore, I will attempt to present a working thesis on Matthew 24:14 and how I tentatively support a relevance only to Jesus' last days generation of the 1st century. In short, if the language of the text denotes a regional fulfillment, what does this mean regarding the age to come for the entire world?

I'll start a new thread soon, but it may take awhile due to the holidays. By the way, I am a full preterist, and I hope to engage with you all soon.

Blessings!
Of note, I would also tend to equate Matthew 24:14 as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the 1st century (as demonstrated by those other verses you listed). A preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:14 is not, in other words, the issue I take with your position.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by robbyyoung » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:44 am

mattrose wrote:Of note, I would also tend to equate Matthew 24:14 as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the 1st century (as demonstrated by those other verses you listed). A preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:14 is not, in other words, the issue I take with your position.
Fair enough. Then please share your primary concern, with scripture reference and context, and I will adjust accordingly, thanks.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by Homer » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:56 am

Robby,

Only by eisegesis can these verses in our Lord's commission to the apostles be limited to the Roman empire:

Mark 16:15 (NASB)
15. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Acts 1:8 (NASB)
8. but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

Jesus did not limit, or have in mind, any limit to how far the apostolic message should go. It was designed to extend its influence continually, until it reached every part of this world.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Is God a Monster?

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:25 am

Homer wrote:Robby,

Only by eisegesis can these verses in our Lord's commission to the apostles be limited to the Roman empire:

Mark 16:15 (NASB)
15. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Acts 1:8 (NASB)
8. but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

Jesus did not limit, or have in mind, any limit to how far the apostolic message should go. It was designed to extend its influence continually, until it reached every part of this world.
Hi Homer,

On Dec 14, I presented a brief exegetical response concerning Paul's understanding and conclusion to Jesus' prophetic statement concerning the "great commission". My interpretation is in line with Paul's. If you believe I'm mistaken, then prove your case by refuting the following:

1. The Greek word oikoumenē is used to describe what world the NT Writers have in view. Strong's Concordance states oikoumenē as the inhabited earth contextualized as: (a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians; and (b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire. For example, Luke 2:1, Acts 11:28, Acts 17:6, and Acts 24:5. Moreover, this world is inferred or implied to in Acts 2:5, is it not? Therefore, when we clearly understand THEIR intent and understanding, the Greek word kosmos--when used to simply denote an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government (Strong's)--can illustrate a supportive understanding of oikoumenē in light of verses like: Rom 1:8, Col 1:6, and Rom 10:18. Thus, a global scenario would be at odds with the text. I don't know how you can prove your case, but I'm all ears.

2. Colossians 1:23, "if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." However interpreted, Paul made it clear that the words of Christ in Matthew 24:14 and Mark 16:15 were fulfilled in his own time. I'm sorry, but I don't believe there's any eisegesis on my part.

Blessings.

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”