Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Serious flaws in theology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Serious flaws in theology

    I am very serious, these are incredibly valid points that people make God out to be and do.

    Knowing that the Lamb was slain(the atonement) from before the foundation of the world(Rev 13:8).
    Some people make this to be only for a chosen few(the Elect), where God is not ALL Loving and very finite in grace; Creating men that are the non-chosen few. These must be hated creations, for the very purpose of being destroyed in hell, which is contrary to reality.

    Some people are claiming that man can not even do what is required to be right with God which is to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.

    Some people claim that one must be "regenerated" first before he can even attempt to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.

    This puts the blame on God for them not obeying the command of repenting and putting his faith in/on Christ.

    The blame is on Him because one is excused from a command until one is able.

    Example:
    A family has a law that all members must take turns mowing the lawn.
    Along comes Junior, a day old infant.
    Is Junior included in the law to maw the lawn, or is he excluded until the ability is come?
    This is a fact of reality and can not be discounted just because it is about God.

    Some people's theology has God literally condemning Junior to hell for not mowing the lawn by not giving him the ability first and letting him willingly choose to disobey.
    If a father did this in reality, he would be deemd a sadistic, devilish tyrant. Why isn't God the same if this is true?

    Or, to put this analogy to reality, You have man with no ability to do what is required to be right with God which is to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
    Some people's theology has God condemning man to hell for not doing that which they can no do.

    This theology makes God wrathful and hating man from the result of His own doing.
    This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made them blind.
    This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself would not let them obey by not regenerating them.

    This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" so that all mankind would be condemned in Adam before any one was born(Psalm 51:5).

    This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because He Himself made the very nature of man to be sin by the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" which HE Himself instituted. This nature causes all mankind to sin and go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.(Psalm 58:3).
    (note: I do not agree to the way these Scriptures are used here)

    Anyone
    Please explain
    How God is Justified in doing all this with out saying, "God is God and I am not, so I have no right to think any thing that lines up with reality and compare it to GOD."
    Or
    "He is god, he can do what he wants even though it goes against all that is correct, and who am I anyway to question God."
    This theology does not line up with reality, How can God do what is not real?

    Again, I am seriouse, Please explain this theology with out the above excuses.

    This is the God this theolgy presents:
    (note: I do not agree to the this specific usage of the Psalms here)

    God could have made a world with no sin when it is evident that HE didn't, means that He chose the world that has sin over the one that didn't. This, in turn, means that He wanted sin to exist.

    He then made Adam to sin by His sovereignty(the ultimate cause of everything and ultimate control of everything); the reasoning behind this is if Adam did sin against God's will, that would mean that Adams will is greater than God's.

    God made the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" so that all mankind would be condemned in Adam before any one was born(Psa 51:5). This causes the very nature of man to be sin, hence the "sin nature". This nature causes all mankind to sin and go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.(Psa 58:3).
    (note: I do not agree to the way these Scriptures are used here)

    God commands all mankind to do the impossible and condemns man for not obeying. Man is condemned for that which is unavoidable. Therefore, man is doing that which he was created to do, that is to sin.

    Those who are pre-selected to hell in contraposition to the Elect, can not ever repent because God refuses to give them the ability and condemns for it.

  • #2
    First of all, if God gives us a gift, yet we refuse to accept and open it, that's not God's fault.

    Second, the Psalms are poetry. And poetry - by its nature - is emotive, flamboyant and aggrandizing. If I tell my wife that my love for her is "deeper than the deepest sea", it would be foolish of her to go do research about how deep the deepest sea is, then argue with me that - at 6'1" - it is physically impossible for me to have a deeper love for her than the deepest sea. It would be wise for her to smile, and rest assured that she is deeply and unconditionally loved by her husband. To force literal meanings into poetry is to often miss the point of it entirely.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dio,

      The "free-will"/arminian doctrine falls to the same accusations.

      Free-will theology describes God as a being who fully knowing that those He creates will never place faith in Him and therefore be damned, nonetheless chooses to create them knowing full well, before creating them, that they will end up being damned.

      Many claim that there is no way a loving God would create a being who He knows their end will be nothing be eternal torment. In what way would this be loving towards that creature knowing they will never repent.

      That is why you have seen the doctrine of open-theism creep into the arminian denominations because then the omniscience of God can be denied thereby "dumbing" Him down.

      In your example, the father does not have onmiscience therefore he doesn't know if "junior" will grow to be able to mow the lawn or not. This is not the case with God, he knows all things and knows before creating "junior" whether he will mow the lawn or not. So, the analogy, on many levels, doesn't catch all the nuances of God.
      WDJD - what DID Jesus do

      He died on a cross for our sin and rose from the dead,
      securing, for all who believe, eternal life and forgiveness of sin

      Toolman

      Comment


      • #4
        These are the logical conclusions to some peoples interp of the Bible.

        I think a better way to do this is for those to explain pont by point.
        To make the questions clearer, I emboldend the context.
        Please give a piont by point explaination of each.
        OR
        Give the rease why you can/will not.

        1: Some people make the Atonement to be only for a chosen few(the Elect) where God is not ALL Loving and very finite in grace. In contrast which the Atonement is for all and is ALL Loving and infinite in grace.

        2: Please explain that God would Create sentient men that are the non-chosen, non-elect. These must be hated creations, for the very purpose of being destroyed in hell. Therefore, man is doing that which he was created to do, that is to sin & yet, being condemd for it.
        The non-elect have no grace to be saved because the Atonement is not for them.
        They were never suposed to be saved in the first place, which makes them created only to be distroyed in hell.
        Therefore, they are not in hell for what they have done, but in hell for that wich they were created for.

        3: Please explain how that man can not even do what is required to be right with God which is to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
        Man is condemned for that wich is unavoidable.

        4: Please explain how that one must be "regenerated" first before he can even attempt to repent and put his faith in/on Christ. This theology makes God wrathful and hating man because GOD would not let them obey by not regenerating them.
        Man is guilty for what God will not do.

        This puts the blame on God for not giving them the ability to obey the command to repent and to put his faith in/on Christ.

        5: Please explain why God would condemn man from the result of His own doing.
        or
        Man is guilty for what God did.
        This is God making man candemned before the crime of sin by the law of "Federal Headship of Adam".
        By this, God made the very nature of man to be sin by the law of "Federal Headship of Adam" which HE Himself instituted, this causes the very nature of man to be sin, hence the "sin nature".

        6: Please explain why God would make a world with sin when HE could have made one that didn't.
        This means that He chose the world that has sin over the one that didn't. This, in turn, means that He wanted sin to exist, & yet condemns for that which HE wills.

        When the truth is that God could not have made a world woith out sin and not infringe on free will.
        (He couldn't have made a world with no sin by making a world with no laws, God is not lawless)

        7: Please explain how God wanted Adam to sin.
        Some say this as true.

        8: Please explain how those who are pre-selected to hell in contraposition to the Elect, can not ever repent because God refuses to give them the ability(regeneration) and condemns for it.
        (Man is guilty for what God pre-ordains to be.)

        One more question.
        9: Do you think that it is GOD who rejects man, instead of man rejecting GOD?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jeffreys View Post
          First of all, if God gives us a gift, yet we refuse to accept and open it, that's not God's fault.

          Second, the Psalms are poetry. And poetry - by its nature - is emotive, flamboyant and aggrandizing. If I tell my wife that my love for her is "deeper than the deepest sea", it would be foolish of her to go do research about how deep the deepest sea is, then argue with me that - at 6'1" - it is physically impossible for me to have a deeper love for her than the deepest sea. It would be wise for her to smile, and rest assured that she is deeply and unconditionally loved by her husband. To force literal meanings into poetry is to often miss the point of it entirely.
          Amen!
          I agree with you.

          I hate it when some use poetic scripture as doctrine. I can proove by scripture useing poetic scripture that the sun actualy revolves around the earth instread of the Earth around the sun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Toolman View Post
            Dio,

            The "free-will"/arminian doctrine falls to the same accusations.
            That is why I am neither arminian nor Calvinist.

            Call me a semi-pelagian Molinist.

            Free-will theology describes God as a being who fully knowing that those He creates will never place faith in Him and therefore be damned, nonetheless chooses to create them knowing full well, before creating them, that they will end up being damned.
            Correct.
            Mankind are created to worship Him.
            The reason that they are going to hell is for choosing not to do what they are created for.

            Many claim that there is no way a loving God would create a being who He knows their end will be nothing be eternal torment. In what way would this be loving towards that creature knowing they will never repent.
            He gave them all a choice to in the matter.

            But, according to some peoples theology/doctrine, He doesn't give anybody a choice, He creates some as elect and some non-elet.

            If one is of the elect, he has no choice because He was created for the sole purpose to be saved.
            In contraposision to the "elect", was created for the sole purpose to be destroyed in hell.

            Sure, there is an "apearance" of choice in their theology/doctrine, but in reality, the choice is ultimatly made by God.
            God "regenerates", only some, so that they can not deny(no choice).
            You might say that they had a choice in the matter after the "regeneration", then that would mean that they could have still rejected Him while being "regenerated"
            That goes in contradiction to "irrisistable grace"
            One has no choice in resisting, otherwise, it would not be irrisistable.
            Furthermore, you would have a "born agian" sinner that rejects Christ.

            So, in regards to your question. God creates all mankind out of love. He gives all a choice in the matter because He loves them.

            Why would He create some that HE knows that will reject Him by choice?
            He could not have made a world with out some being lost and not infringe upon free will.
            Otherwise, He would most definatly save all by infringing uppon free will and electing all.

            Would you seriously bake a poop pie?

            That is the same as God creating a "non-elect", "vessle of wrath".
            A poop pie would only be made for the sole purpose of being flushed down the toilet. So it is with the so called "non-elect" according to your theology.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hello Diolectic:

              I essentially agree with your analysis as per the OP. I have not read any of the other responses yet, so I hope that I am not repeating.

              I do not believe that the Scriptures teach "election" of individuals to salvation or to loss.

              You are entirely correct in your view (as I understand it) that it is incoherent and nonsensical to suggest that we deserve to punished for being born "in Adam's sin". I submit that no human can truly make sense of the idea that a person is morally culpable for actions in respect to which he does not have the power of contrary choice.

              Still, I think that there is a way that we can believe that we are born "doomed to die" as a result of Adam's sin without doing such violence to concepts of justice and guilt.

              More specifically, I suggest that it is more coherent to think of the act of Adam more as "damaging the human DNA we all inherit" and not in terms of matters of moral guilt. So, on the view that I am proposing, Adam sins and the very fabric of the world is damaged such that we lose our immortality.

              Part of my view about this includes the assertion that there is something deeply fundamental about the nature of created reality that "ties God's hands" in this respect. In short, an unavoidable (even for God) consequence of the creation of a universe as rich as ours is that, if Adam sins, all his children lose the immortality they otherwise would have been given.

              On this view, we are not so much "guilty in Adam" as we are "damaged goods". By analogy, consider the child born with Aids. He is guilty of nothing, but he still has a big problem to deal with - his body is destined to get sick and die.

              One final aspect of this overall view - I think that the Bible teaches that the lost are annihilated and not tormented eternally.

              Does this overall picture address some of your "theological" concerns?

              Comment


              • #8
                What I have gleaned from the scriptures in the past few decades, is that when it comes to the Elect and those "predestined", that refers to certain individuals, say for one example, (which should be enough), Moses;
                1Co 10:2 and all were immersed into Mosheh in the cloud and in the sea, ... (The Scriptures 1998+)

                The element of immersion (re: baptism) here is: into/unto the Name Of Moses, meaning, "identified with the character and purpose." (Like when we get saved, we are immersed "into the name of the Lord" - a spiritual immersion);

                Now, Moses was of the Elect and Predestined. The Israelites that believed into Moses, and continued to follow him, because in following him, they followed God, are integrated into the FAMILY of the Elect. They had a choice either to join the family (of the elect), or reject it - it was their choice.

                So, that is my concluded thoughts regarding the Elect, and I have believed it in this manner for a very long time. As for people who think "that no matter what you do, you are going to where you are going to in eternity either way", well, my response to that is, "Praise The Lord for the gift of COMMON SENSE" [EDIT: I should have pointed out that COMMON SENSE dictates that "...no matter what you do, you are going to where you are going to in eternity either way" does not apply to everybody"]
                Last edited by Clifton; Jan 21st 2008, 04:14 PM. Reason: Clarification
                "A text without context is a pretext."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Leverate law

                  When Adam ate the fruit he died that very day, lest you make God a liar. He must have died spiritually since his physical body lived on.

                  When Seth was born he had the image and likeness of Adam, a living body and dead spirit. We are all born in the same way with living bodies and dead spirits which is why we must be born again. It is also why we are "condemned already" as it says in John 3.

                  So Adam died without spiritually living heirs. Jesus fulfills the Leverate law by producing living heirs on behalf of "the first man".

                  There is nothing unfair about producing life where there is only death. No one can accuse God of not producing more life here or there, when they are themselves incapable of producing any life at all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Diolectic View Post
                    That is why I am neither arminian nor Calvinist.

                    Call me a semi-pelagian Molinist.
                    Ok

                    Originally posted by Diolectic View Post
                    Correct.
                    Mankind are created to worship Him.
                    The reason that they are going to hell is for choosing not to do what they are created for.
                    This is where you are misrepresenting reformed theology.

                    Reformed theology teaches that man, of his own will, chooses to hate God and love sin. Man does this of his own will because that is what he wants to do.

                    God chooses to give grace to some (He does not owe grace to anyone.. that's why its grace). By this grace He actively changes the will of whom He chooses, by grace not force, to desire His Son instead of sin.

                    Men choose sin of their own will not by force.


                    Originally posted by Diolectic View Post
                    He gave them all a choice to in the matter.

                    But, according to some peoples theology/doctrine, He doesn't give anybody a choice, He creates some as elect and some non-elet.

                    If one is of the elect, he has no choice because He was created for the sole purpose to be saved.
                    In contraposision to the "elect", was created for the sole purpose to be destroyed in hell.

                    Sure, there is an "apearance" of choice in their theology/doctrine, but in reality, the choice is ultimatly made by God.
                    God "regenerates", only some, so that they can not deny(no choice).
                    You might say that they had a choice in the matter after the "regeneration", then that would mean that they could have still rejected Him while being "regenerated"
                    That goes in contradiction to "irrisistable grace"
                    One has no choice in resisting, otherwise, it would not be irrisistable.
                    Furthermore, you would have a "born agian" sinner that rejects Christ.

                    So, in regards to your question. God creates all mankind out of love. He gives all a choice in the matter because He loves them.

                    Why would He create some that HE knows that will reject Him by choice?
                    He could not have made a world with out some being lost and not infringe upon free will.
                    Otherwise, He would most definatly save all by infringing uppon free will and electing all.

                    Would you seriously bake a poop pie?

                    That is the same as God creating a "non-elect", "vessle of wrath".
                    A poop pie would only be made for the sole purpose of being flushed down the toilet. So it is with the so called "non-elect" according to your theology.
                    I do not believe in a limited atonement, just for the record. I was just pointing out flaws in your own theology, which limits atonement and misunderstandings of reformed theology.

                    My theology believes that God is actually wise enough, powerful enough and loving enough to save all that He has determined to save.

                    Arminian theology (or semi-pelagian molinist, middle knowledge, etc.) believe that God is unable to save all. Reformed calvinists believe that God is unwilling to save all.

                    I hold to neither position but believe scripture is clear that God is both willing and able to save to the utmost.
                    WDJD - what DID Jesus do

                    He died on a cross for our sin and rose from the dead,
                    securing, for all who believe, eternal life and forgiveness of sin

                    Toolman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Toolman View Post
                      Arminian theology (or semi-pelagian molinist, middle knowledge, etc.) believe that God is unable to save all.
                      Hello Toolman.

                      Since we are worried about mischaracterizations in the thread, I wanted to point out that "unable" is your word and is used for effect here. I think it is safe to say that most everyone posting on these forums do not believe that God is "unable" as in "wise enough", "powerful enough", or "loving enough" to do as He wills determinately. This includes judgment.

                      God Bless!
                      Watchinginawe

                      I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Toolman View Post
                        Reformed theology teaches that man, of his own will, chooses to hate God and love sin. Man does this of his own will because that is what he wants to do.
                        I am hopng that you can explain what you mean here in a little more detail. Just so that you will know where I am coming from, I would find the following argument to be logically self-defeating:

                        1. Premise: it is indeed true that man cannot be held morally accountable for something over which he has no power of contrary choice.

                        2. Man is born with desires to sin. These desires are made manfest by wanting to sin. Because man is not born with any faculty to "balance" this desire to sin, man will indeed act out those wants and "choose" to sin.

                        3. Because man only does what he wants to do, he is acting of "his own will" and is therefore culpable for his actions.

                        This is a flawed argument, since, I think, it tries to vest moral accountability in the "wanting" tendency -a tendency which cannot be resisted.

                        The unsophisticated reader will think "Fred must be morally accountable for his sin, since he wants to do it". But this is not proper thinking: if Fred is born with wants that he does not have the power to resist, his acting on those wants is something he has no control over. He cannot, therefore, be seen as morally accountable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by drew View Post
                          The unsophisticated reader will think "Fred must be morally accountable for his sin, since he wants to do it". But this is not proper thinking: if Fred is born with wants that he does not have the power to resist, his acting on those wants is something he has no control over. He cannot, therefore, be seen as morally accountable.
                          Just to help me out here Drew, do you believe that men have the ability within themselves, apart from God's Spirit at work in them, to resist sin and live righteously?
                          WDJD - what DID Jesus do

                          He died on a cross for our sin and rose from the dead,
                          securing, for all who believe, eternal life and forgiveness of sin

                          Toolman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Toolman View Post
                            Just to help me out here Drew, do you believe that men have the ability within themselves, apart from God's Spirit at work in them, to resist sin and live righteously?
                            No I do not believe that men have such an ability.

                            However, I do not argue that we are morally accountable for being born with an irresistable desire to sin. We are indeed born with such a nature, and we indeed do sin. And sin leads to death.

                            But, and this is key, the death that results is not "punishment" that is grounded in matters of moral accountability. It is rather the consequence of having "damaged DNA" that we inherited from Adam.

                            Consider a child born with HIV. Is that child morally culpable for having the virus? Of course not. Will he get sick and die if not treated? Yes, he will.

                            In short, there is an alternative to seeing this whole issue in terms of a "guilt-accountability" paradigm. We are born with a certain nature that will inevitably lead to death unless God intervenes. The sin nature entered the world with Adam's death. We are no more "accountable" for being born with that nature than is the child who is born with HIV.

                            In both cases, death is the result, unless somebody intervenes. And thankfully of us, God has indeed intervened and "fixed" his damaged creation so that we can escape death.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by drew View Post
                              No I do not believe that men have such an ability.

                              However, I do not argue that we are morally accountable for being born with an irresistable desire to sin. We are indeed born with such a nature, and we indeed do sin. And sin leads to death.

                              But, and this is key, the death that results is not "punishment" that is grounded in matters of moral accountability. It is rather the consequence of having "damaged DNA" that we inherited from Adam.

                              Consider a child born with HIV. Is that child morally culpable for having the virus? Of course not. Will he get sick and die if not treated? Yes, he will.

                              In short, there is an alternative to seeing this whole issue in terms of a "guilt-accountability" paradigm. We are born with a certain nature that will inevitably lead to death unless God intervenes. The sin nature entered the world with Adam's death. We are no more "accountable" for being born with that nature than is the child who is born with HIV.

                              In both cases, death is the result, unless somebody intervenes. And thankfully of us, God has indeed intervened and "fixed" his damaged creation so that we can escape death.
                              As a biblical universalist I could definitely find some common ground with what you propose, though I personally am not at the point of throwing out penal substitution as one facet of the atonement, but I know not all share my conviction there.

                              So, just to be crystal clear here, you reject the doctrine of eternal torment, i.e. that God torments (mentally or physically) for eternity those who sin against Him and reject Christ?

                              As to this particular thread, those who teach that God judges sinners by burning people for eternity (arminian and reformed) have to wrestle with the issue of God being a "loving God". Those were the issues I was addressing in this thread. As so often happens we have, IMO, a issue of the pot calling the kettle black. The arminian has to contend with God's foreknowledge. In free will theology God created men who He knew, with full foreknowledge, He would eternally damn and torment and yet He still chose to create such creatures. The same type questions of "Why would a loving God do that?" can be leveled there and often are by many atheists, agnostics, etc.
                              WDJD - what DID Jesus do

                              He died on a cross for our sin and rose from the dead,
                              securing, for all who believe, eternal life and forgiveness of sin

                              Toolman

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X