Homer wrote:PaulT,
You wrote:
Well at least at this point we’ve gotten you to agree there is a line however fine you might think that line is which if there is a line then you agree that you’ve misrepresented the Reformed point of view, correct?
No, not correct. I can see I will need to write very plainly, which I will attempt to do. I thought you would understand the example from Israel's history.
Let us say I have an employee I assign to do a job. He needs equipment to do the job, but has no means to get the equipment. I have the equipment but withhold it from him. I thus did not allow him to do the job. One meaning of allow is "to make a possibility". But enough quibbling over words and definitions that are not in scripture, as the Calvinist creeds are not in scripture but are the products of fallible men. They would have us believe God causes everything but is only responsible for the good things. .
Where did the fine line go? Friend, you continue to misrepresent the issue, your illustration is a straw-man, let me show you why. Had your illustration been apples to apples with the Reformed point of view, the employee who you assigned to do the job would have evaluated the job from his perspective, (a perspective that presupposes you, the boss haven’t a clue because the employee believes he understands everything and has the freedom to evaluate the legitimacy of the job from his own paradigm) emphatically stated what you were asking was not reasonable whether or not the required equipment was available, refused the assignment and walked off the job, in which case you would be justified in firing the employee who thought he was the boss or at least knew as much as the boss. The fact that man in his unnatural state is at enmity with God is well documented in Scripture, so again you present another straw-man. Finally, how do you sleep at night believing God is not in control, btw, the definition of good is God.
Homer wrote:
And you wrote:
Didn’t someone suggest we ought not have need to go to the Greek text and didn’t someone criticize White for going to the Greek text? Ok, so the word can mean diligently or carefully so based on my understanding of what you suggest, the text may mean man does not continuously diligently seek after God and therefore according to you that leaves open the possibility that they infrequently seek God in a less than diligent approach? Surely you jest, if man doesn’t continual seek God in a diligent manner how could he ever find God if he sought Him it in an inconsistent less than diligent manner. Your logic makes absolutely no sense, that is assuming your explanation of the Greek is accurate which the text in and of itself militates against because at the end of the day the Apostle says all are found wanting, whether they got there through consistent diligent efforts or what you would have us believe random chance unengaged effort. Friend, I’m not the one forcing my view on the text, I would suggest that the view that the text leaves open the possibility that those who by chance may seek God in an unengaged or haphazard manner is the one who is importing their viewpoint onto the text. Your rendition is at best case implausible. Do you have any translations that supports your viewpoint that while none continuously in a diligent manner seek after God some in a random chance unengaged manner may seek God? White isn’t the issue, the text is your obstacle that you need to overcome and this attempt is woefully inadequate.
And again I can see I must write plainly. I write slowly, perhaps you can read slowly and we will connect
: What I was saying was that Paul's point was that the sinner
did not diligently, persistently, continuously, etc., etc. seek God.
He was not saying that, absent a prior regeneration, they could never, at any point, seek God. The Calvinist has made that idea up!
Didn’t want to deal with my argument, eh? Homer, thank your for the admonition, however, in this case I don’t think the issue is my understanding what you seem to believe the Apostle intended, the issue appears to be your not thinking through the implications your suggested reading does to the text and the Apostles argument. Why would the Apostles go to great length to inform the Jews, folks who thought they “diligently” sought God that they were just like the Gentiles folks who didn’t seek God turn right around and confirm that some seek God on a part time basis. What the Apostle is clearly informing us is that none be they Jew who has all the trappings of God and regularly goes to the Synagogue or the Greek who were considered defiled who did not seek God at all but instead worshipped themselves along with a variety of gods were on equal footing. The Apostles point is that none of them sought God part-time, full-time or anytime. Attempting to construe something out of the text other than this is implausible, your reading just flat doesn’t make sense.
Homer wrote:
And you wrote:
In the words of Ronald Regan, God rest his soul, there you go again. Homer, your bias is showing, does the text say “could” or “should”? You do understand the difference don’t you?
Whose bias is showing? I can see why you want to avoid the Greek text. Although some translations have it "would" (NIV, NASB), some "should" (KJV, NKJV), the Greek text has neither could, would, or should, but as in Young's Literal, it is simply "to seek". So the difference between could and should is irrelevant.
According to the NIV TDNT, the Greek word
zeteo, "seek", in the NT refers to "following and seeking something, to probing ideas and reflections, as well as judicial inquiry. It can mean anything from deliberate striving and desiring to asserting one's claims". In Acts 17:26 Paul informs us God's actions with the peoples He made and nations He arranged is to bring about His supreme purpose regarding men:
"in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him".
Remember Homer the issue is seeking God not a god or multiple gods, being religious doesn't help, the only thing that helps is a true knowing of God. Who is showing his bias, you are, by reading into the text something that the Apostle has already indicated doesn’t happen unless God intervenes, remember none seek after God, not “god”, man in the flesh is as enmity against God, although he may worship a god or god’s. The reason I didn’t want to go to the Greek is that I understand a little Greek is very dangerous, which seems to be the case with your reading of this passage. The admonition of the Apostle doesn’t mean they will seek which is obviously why the translators inserted the word “should”. Here is
John Gill’s view of the passage,
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
Acts 17:27
That they should seek the Lord…
Or "God", as the Alexandrian copy and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read; their Creator, and kind Benefactor, and who has appointed their time of life, and their habitations for them; and this should engage them to seek to know him, who has done all this for them, and to fear and serve him, and to glorify his name:
This is further confirmed by the Apostle pointing out to the Greek philosophers, remember the setting of his message, Paul is addressing the best and brightest minds in the Greek world. The Areopagus is the heart of Greek philosophical thought. All these guys’s did day in and day out is argue over the existence of a higher power. Unlike your presupposition of Romans 3 all these guy’s did is diligently seek after an understanding on the who and what of humanity, if there is a higher authority, etc, etc. The Apostle has already told them he is addressing who they claim is the “Unknown” God. His point in using the term “groping” is that their philosophical banter is like “groping” in the dark when the God they have the alter to, the one they say is “Unknown” is right next to them. Why is it that although all these guy’s do is speculate all day long about “a” god, they don’t know the true God? It is because as the Apostle told the Roman Christians, they, “suppress the truth in unrigheousness”, which is confirmed by Paul pointing out in the next 2 verses that while they have their being in God yet they think God is like gold or silver, they’ve turned the Divine into unrighteousness.
I guess you don’t understand that you’ve contradicted yourself, how can God have a purpose if He is not ultimately directing what is going on. Your assertion that God is dependent upon man to work out His purpose defies the context of the passage you bring to the discussion. Based on your presupposition what we would expect to read is the Apostle informing the crowd that God loves them and has a great plan for them, he wants to save them, yet what does the Apostle do? Is he pleading, ranting and raving suggesting that God wants a relationship with them?
Acts 17 is a classic example of the Reformed point of view in proclaiming the Gospel. There is no appeal that God is “love” or that He wants a “relationship” with them. Paul doesn’t offer into evidence the clear reasons for God, he simply tells them who He is, what He is and has done and that they better get right with their Maker. Total depravity of man and the enlightening work of the Spirit is borne out in the text, some scoffed at the truth of the Apostle while some believed. Are we to believe those that believed were just smarter than those that mocked the Apostle’s clear truth?
Perhaps you should put away the Greek and focus more on the English text so that you will understand the context of the message, who the Apostle is addressing and what the issues were all about. In that way, perhaps you won’t butcher the Greek hoping to prop up your warped view of God and His plan of redemption.
Homer wrote:
And you wrote:
Homer, I’m glad for you and yours but are you suggesting your praryers willed God to do something different than what He was already going to do?
It is absurd to think our prayers "will" God to do anything. That is a far cry from saying our prayers would be taken into consideration by our loving Father and He might respond. What do you think James meant when he said "the prayer of a righteous man availeth (
ischuo, 'prevails greatly') much"?
Truly you have a misconception of the view, tis a sad thing.
Fair enough. If all that will ever happen is foreordained, please correct my (our?) misconception regarding what, if anything, you think prayer accomplishes.
Well In my humble opinion prayer helps man because God needs no help. Prayer helps the believer to communicate with God the Creator. Personally I know that when I pray and I do pray for protection for my family, myself, understanding in how to deal with life’s issues and wisdom in dealing with difficult issues my mind clears so that I can become more clear on a given issue. I pray that my children will come to know God as I have but at the end of the day, I understand it is up to God who tells me that “all things work together”.
PaulT