-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ok. Most of what is focused on by these and other commentators are nothing more than peripheral matters. This will always be the legacy of the historical approach to scripture. Much of this type of information is more often than not speculative with no real evidence for support. While much of this information may be interesting it seldom gives us any substantial insights into eternal principles presented in the text. In fact it will more often than not blind us to those things.
Every one of these commentators followed the same pattern of textual investigation which took away from the immediate text and bounced all over the place appealing to other scriptures and outside sources. Now, there is certainly a time to do this but when studying any given text it is important that we FIRST confine ourselves to that one text without running everywhere else in scripture trying to find some commonality between this and other texts and then trying to force a link between them. There is a proper time and a proper way to do this but that comes later. The first thing one must do is simply read the text as if it were the first time you have ever seen it. Try not to bring anything into the text from the outside, not even from other scriptures. Once you are done with the initial reading ask yourself, what is this text saying? Then go back and read the text again and pick out the major points of the text. DO NOT attempt to attach an interpretation to anything in the text. Instead, learn to generalize all of the eternal principles that present themselves. These are what are important, not speculating about Melchizedek's linage or the geography of the area or even the significance of the bread and the wine. These are merely peripheral things that take us away from the more significant matters of the text.
I have done a brief examination of the text and here are a few examples of some of the principle I have generalized from that reading.
The Blessing
1. The importance of both Melchizedek and Abraham is linked to an eternal purpose that stands over and above the previously mentioned experience of Abraham. These men are important only because they are linked to the Most High God.
2. The principle of reification immediately presents itself in the blessing extended by Melchizedek The word reify means to understand something as real or concrete. Melchizedek attributed the victory of Abraham to the reality, presence, power, and the will of God, thus he represents God as the causative agent over at least two specific things. Abraham's victory over the four kings and the creation of heaven and earth. Abraham's victory was not the result of any wisdom, military genius, or superior forces on the part of Abraham. “And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
3. The contravention of God over human circumstances and situations
a. What is the situation? Abraham is going out against an army that is better armed,more experienced, and vastly superior.
b. What are the circumstances? Abraham has a much smaller force of untrained servants who have no experience in warfare. Militarily, they are outmanned and outgunned as it were.
These conditions suggest there is no logical reason to suppose that Abraham had any hope of success in this venture. Had it not been for the contravention of God there is no reason to believe that Abraham would have succeeded. The only antecedent for this victory was the Most High God. Thus, God stands over and above all human situations and circumstances.
4. The creation of heaven and earth. This stresses the superiority of God. If the power of this God is responsible for the creation of the universe, who small a thing indeed for him to grant Abraham such a victory. God is the only antecedent of creation.
This will suffice for now. Do you see a difference in this approach to the text?
Every one of these commentators followed the same pattern of textual investigation which took away from the immediate text and bounced all over the place appealing to other scriptures and outside sources. Now, there is certainly a time to do this but when studying any given text it is important that we FIRST confine ourselves to that one text without running everywhere else in scripture trying to find some commonality between this and other texts and then trying to force a link between them. There is a proper time and a proper way to do this but that comes later. The first thing one must do is simply read the text as if it were the first time you have ever seen it. Try not to bring anything into the text from the outside, not even from other scriptures. Once you are done with the initial reading ask yourself, what is this text saying? Then go back and read the text again and pick out the major points of the text. DO NOT attempt to attach an interpretation to anything in the text. Instead, learn to generalize all of the eternal principles that present themselves. These are what are important, not speculating about Melchizedek's linage or the geography of the area or even the significance of the bread and the wine. These are merely peripheral things that take us away from the more significant matters of the text.
I have done a brief examination of the text and here are a few examples of some of the principle I have generalized from that reading.
The Blessing
1. The importance of both Melchizedek and Abraham is linked to an eternal purpose that stands over and above the previously mentioned experience of Abraham. These men are important only because they are linked to the Most High God.
2. The principle of reification immediately presents itself in the blessing extended by Melchizedek The word reify means to understand something as real or concrete. Melchizedek attributed the victory of Abraham to the reality, presence, power, and the will of God, thus he represents God as the causative agent over at least two specific things. Abraham's victory over the four kings and the creation of heaven and earth. Abraham's victory was not the result of any wisdom, military genius, or superior forces on the part of Abraham. “And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
3. The contravention of God over human circumstances and situations
a. What is the situation? Abraham is going out against an army that is better armed,more experienced, and vastly superior.
b. What are the circumstances? Abraham has a much smaller force of untrained servants who have no experience in warfare. Militarily, they are outmanned and outgunned as it were.
These conditions suggest there is no logical reason to suppose that Abraham had any hope of success in this venture. Had it not been for the contravention of God there is no reason to believe that Abraham would have succeeded. The only antecedent for this victory was the Most High God. Thus, God stands over and above all human situations and circumstances.
4. The creation of heaven and earth. This stresses the superiority of God. If the power of this God is responsible for the creation of the universe, who small a thing indeed for him to grant Abraham such a victory. God is the only antecedent of creation.
This will suffice for now. Do you see a difference in this approach to the text?
A
I assume reification (and, I looked it up before finishing your sentence lol) simply because it's in God's word. And my presuppositions (you don't even have to look up that word, right? lol) are if it's in God's word it talks about God and says something to us. But, my puzzlement isn't so much on the circumstances. (I disagree that Abraham's men weren't trained, but mostly because they were called trained in the description of them. I agree with Mel though that that was a God thing -- a miracle -- more than Abram's will, strength or military genius. And I think he had military abilities simply because of how and where he lived. You just don't go roaming around all your life with huge herds and vast numbers of people helping you without getting the ire of some local folks on occasion. Some of those fights were part of God's word -- I'm most remembering the circumstances of letting Ishmael go away with just his mother, but he made it and how impressive that he made it was. Most probably weren't. And that's an educated guess based on the lives of Abram's kin before they "settled down" in Egypt.) It's in a word, and that word still puzzles me despite studying this twice now.
Blessing! I seriously don't get that word. Seems to me if God can bless us, we can't go off and bless God. And yet, Mel blessed both God and Abram. What? I have studied that word both up the wah and the zoo, but don't get it.
And, frankly, this blessing wouldn't have been that impressed on me if Mel wasn't mentioned twice. There are a lot of blessings in the OT. Moses said one every time the Israelites moved. I studied it. I remember thinking it's cool, I just don't get blessing enough to know why it's cool.
And obviously, this all goes back to my original bewilderment. Lots of foreshadowing in the OT, but I still don't get how it relates to NT and how those guys know, but I don't. Foreshadow I do get. (Unlike blessing.) I write fiction, so foreshadowing is a big thing to hint at something else in the story -- a purpose. But how many times have you heard sermons where the preacher assumes X in OT means Y in NT? Many of the ones I've heard through the years I wouldn't buy now. So how do I know when something in OT really is foreshadowed in NT? And how do they know?
Blessing! I seriously don't get that word. Seems to me if God can bless us, we can't go off and bless God. And yet, Mel blessed both God and Abram. What? I have studied that word both up the wah and the zoo, but don't get it.
And, frankly, this blessing wouldn't have been that impressed on me if Mel wasn't mentioned twice. There are a lot of blessings in the OT. Moses said one every time the Israelites moved. I studied it. I remember thinking it's cool, I just don't get blessing enough to know why it's cool.
And obviously, this all goes back to my original bewilderment. Lots of foreshadowing in the OT, but I still don't get how it relates to NT and how those guys know, but I don't. Foreshadow I do get. (Unlike blessing.) I write fiction, so foreshadowing is a big thing to hint at something else in the story -- a purpose. But how many times have you heard sermons where the preacher assumes X in OT means Y in NT? Many of the ones I've heard through the years I wouldn't buy now. So how do I know when something in OT really is foreshadowed in NT? And how do they know?
Let's try another, less strenuous exorcise that will perhaps be easier for you to do some generalization for yourself. This is one I think you may enjoy. Read Gen 15 and 16 without reading any outside sources beyond the text itself and see what general principles you see in that present themselves in 16:1-4.
A
I started reading the Bible with these commentators in March 2014. I admit my mind isn't what it used to be, but it's not so bad that I'll forget everything they taught me about a book I studied just a year ago. Any chance of picking one I haven't studied in a while? (Skip gospels and Paul letters, and anything up to Duet. in OT. Might want to skip Jonah, simply because I really like him too. lol)
This is not about forgetting what you may have learned. It is about learning to see things on your own without all of the outside sources. This exorcise will probably not take you more than a few minutes. You will soon be able to see things in the text that you will not find in any commentaries. If you like, after this we can use some examples from another book, perhaps Joshuah or Judges.
A
Reading it won't take me but a few minutes. It's the homework assignment I'm fuzzy on. lol
Do you want me to write like you did for Gen. 16:1-4?
Also, warning: I'm working on quitting smoking, so my mind is weirding out on me. (Thought I could quit with God's help last Monday, but got violently sick that night, so took that as a sign that maybe cold turkey wasn't a good plan. lol)
Do you want me to write like you did for Gen. 16:1-4?
Also, warning: I'm working on quitting smoking, so my mind is weirding out on me. (Thought I could quit with God's help last Monday, but got violently sick that night, so took that as a sign that maybe cold turkey wasn't a good plan. lol)
O
Lynn,
hub and I are thrilled to hear that you are giving up smoking....Praise God!
our prayers are with you dear one.
we both went cold-turkey, but we were much younger - it would be wise to just quit, but
how you reacted is a sure sign of just how toxic your body is, so be very careful.....
know this, when the mind and heart say NO, then miracles will happen.....
hub and I are thrilled to hear that you are giving up smoking....Praise God!
our prayers are with you dear one.
we both went cold-turkey, but we were much younger - it would be wise to just quit, but
how you reacted is a sure sign of just how toxic your body is, so be very careful.....
know this, when the mind and heart say NO, then miracles will happen.....
LOL, I understand. I quit smoking myself more about 35 years ago. It is not an easy thing to do.
Do not worry about doing anything the way I did. Just focus on those four verses within the context of those two chapters and write down any principles that you see emerging from these four verses. Learn to let the text speak for itself.
Do not worry about doing anything the way I did. Just focus on those four verses within the context of those two chapters and write down any principles that you see emerging from these four verses. Learn to let the text speak for itself.
A
Just Gen. 16:1-4
God promises Abram (in a very big and powerful way) that Abram will be the father of a huge nation. Like we all do when God delays, we start thinking we should do something to make God's promise happens. Doesn't help that Sarai is bummed she can't have kids but wants to keep Abram's bloodline going. And I really can't tell from these verses if she's been nagging Abram for those ten long years or if this was a new nag after ten long years, but either way, she talks Abram into impregnating Hagar, her maidservant.
It worked. Hagar was pregnant, so she looked with contempt at Sarai.
No idea if she really did, or if that's how Sarai perceived it, but I'd have to be thinking, "Thanks a lot, Lady. I've been your faithful loving servant for many years and this is how you repay me? Seriously? Ever consider what happens to me now? And I'm pregnant? Ever consider I'm old too?"
So Abram was busy thinking he had to nudge God at his promise. Sarai was busy thinking she's useless, but she has to "help" her hubby. Hagar was feeling contemptuous. And all along, they were thinking they had to nudge God.
So now we have an unwanted child -- at least one out of three of them didn't want him.
And other than Jesus came through that promise, and was that promise all along, (that's not really the promise given in Gen. 15, but I'm pretty sure somewhere in all this, God says nations will come from Abraham later), I don't see any foreshadowing. Sorry. I'm really not good at this.
God promises Abram (in a very big and powerful way) that Abram will be the father of a huge nation. Like we all do when God delays, we start thinking we should do something to make God's promise happens. Doesn't help that Sarai is bummed she can't have kids but wants to keep Abram's bloodline going. And I really can't tell from these verses if she's been nagging Abram for those ten long years or if this was a new nag after ten long years, but either way, she talks Abram into impregnating Hagar, her maidservant.
It worked. Hagar was pregnant, so she looked with contempt at Sarai.
No idea if she really did, or if that's how Sarai perceived it, but I'd have to be thinking, "Thanks a lot, Lady. I've been your faithful loving servant for many years and this is how you repay me? Seriously? Ever consider what happens to me now? And I'm pregnant? Ever consider I'm old too?"
So Abram was busy thinking he had to nudge God at his promise. Sarai was busy thinking she's useless, but she has to "help" her hubby. Hagar was feeling contemptuous. And all along, they were thinking they had to nudge God.
So now we have an unwanted child -- at least one out of three of them didn't want him.
And other than Jesus came through that promise, and was that promise all along, (that's not really the promise given in Gen. 15, but I'm pretty sure somewhere in all this, God says nations will come from Abraham later), I don't see any foreshadowing. Sorry. I'm really not good at this.
Do not think about foreshadowings. Never enter into the study of any text with a predetermined idea of what you are looking for. Simply let the text reveal what is there. I looked at this text an found a number of general principles that I find rather interesting. I will give you one and then you look at these verses again and see what you can find that relates to this generalization.
One generalization is this - The promises of God are not time contingent.
Abraham's and Sarah's decision in this matter is an attempt to fill a gap or void in the logical sequence of their situation.
How does this idea manifest itself in the text?
One generalization is this - The promises of God are not time contingent.
Abraham's and Sarah's decision in this matter is an attempt to fill a gap or void in the logical sequence of their situation.
How does this idea manifest itself in the text?
A
Uh, hunh? (I really do feel slow around you. lol)
I'm busy thinking, what would I do if God gave me a huge powerful, ain't-no-way-this-is-just-in-my-mind promise? Say he tells us (hubby is always part of me), "I'm going to give you a billion dollars." What's the first thing we'd do? Contact my brother, the financial adviser. (Hey we've dreamed of winning the lottery enough to already know what to do. lol)
So his first question is, "Where is the money now?"
See where that one tanks immediately? And then see what we'd be doing next to "prepare" for this? And then it's ten years later, and no money. Eeek!!!!
So, God's plans aren't time contingent. Well, in both cases it really is. Abram would have to be alive up to 9 months before baby is born. And, if we die then that wasn't ever a promise from God. So, yeah, there is some contingency going on there. (Not to worry. God has never made any such promise to us.)
So, I'm thinking God's time continent, just not always what we'd consider "speedy." Like he told Adam and Eve the Savior is coming. They start naming their kids for that promise, but it doesn't happen for millenniums. Not speedy, but timely. It had to be where it happened when it happened, because, like God tells Abram about in Chapter 15, "the iniquities of the Amorites is not yet complete." Just like it wouldn't be fair to destroy all those nations at that moment, the timing had to be just and right for Jesus to come. Sooner would have been unfair to the people of Rome and Judah. And later, then Nero wouldn't have been around to disperse the message by the simple act of trying to annihilate all those who trusted Jesus was the promised Messiah.
I'm busy thinking, what would I do if God gave me a huge powerful, ain't-no-way-this-is-just-in-my-mind promise? Say he tells us (hubby is always part of me), "I'm going to give you a billion dollars." What's the first thing we'd do? Contact my brother, the financial adviser. (Hey we've dreamed of winning the lottery enough to already know what to do. lol)
So his first question is, "Where is the money now?"
See where that one tanks immediately? And then see what we'd be doing next to "prepare" for this? And then it's ten years later, and no money. Eeek!!!!
So, God's plans aren't time contingent. Well, in both cases it really is. Abram would have to be alive up to 9 months before baby is born. And, if we die then that wasn't ever a promise from God. So, yeah, there is some contingency going on there. (Not to worry. God has never made any such promise to us.)
So, I'm thinking God's time continent, just not always what we'd consider "speedy." Like he told Adam and Eve the Savior is coming. They start naming their kids for that promise, but it doesn't happen for millenniums. Not speedy, but timely. It had to be where it happened when it happened, because, like God tells Abram about in Chapter 15, "the iniquities of the Amorites is not yet complete." Just like it wouldn't be fair to destroy all those nations at that moment, the timing had to be just and right for Jesus to come. Sooner would have been unfair to the people of Rome and Judah. And later, then Nero wouldn't have been around to disperse the message by the simple act of trying to annihilate all those who trusted Jesus was the promised Messiah.
Let me explain what I mean when I say the promises of God are not time contingent. I am not suggesting that time is not involved. What I am saying is that time is not causal element. God responds IN tome but never TO time. Time is always made to respond to the will of God. For Abraham and Sarah, time had indeed ran out. They were biologically too old to have children.
Here is my generalization of that text.
A. This presents an obvious discontinuity dilemma – Abraham's and Sarah's decision in this matter is an attempt to fill a gap or void in the logical sequence of their situation.
1. What is the given expectation? It is the promise of God - “You shall have an heir out of your own body.”
2. What is the logical sequence for producing an heir? Abraham and Sarah + fertility + time = desired result – an heir.
3. What are the discontinuities in this logical sequence?
a. They are too old. He is 85 and she is 75.
b. Sarah is too barren, 11:30
These two factors represent a physiological discontinuity.
c. Time is against them – This is a discontinuity of physics. We have a tendency make the same mistake in measuring the promises of God against the metric of time.
4. What is the only element of continuity? It is the power of God to overturn the limitations of the physics and their physiology.
B. Time as a contingency element
Quite often I think, we expect God to respond to our desires within tour perception of time. We tend to hold God accountable to time and regard the faithfulness of God as time contingent. “If he hasn't answered my prayer by now, he isn't going too.” This certainly appears to have been Abraham's reasoning. God has not acted on the matter so he feel it is up to him to act.
1. Time has relevance only within the human analysis of the situation.
2. Time is a function of God. God is not accountable to time. God responds in time but not to time. Time responds to the will of God.
3. Man, on the other hand, responds to time independently of the will of God. This is what Abraham and Sarah did. Because of the perceived limitations of the time element they interject into the situation, they attempt to manipulate the promise of God in such a way that it will harmonize with their understanding of physics and physiology. They then operate on the basis of the consistency of these two fields of discourse constraint. Time + physics + physiology = a discontinuity between the word of God and the circumstances. They then respond to the discontinuity through human resolution. Why does Hagar seem to satisfy the human resolution? Because she fills the gap in the logical sequence.
a. She is young enough for child bearing.
b. She is not barren
c. The time factor is satisfied – they can have the child now.
But, it does not satisfy the demands of faith. Control of the situation is NEVER allowed to reside within the human arena. God always reserves the right of contravention – to act against all limitations of physics and physiology.
The generalizations I have pointed out are
1. When human experience is confronted by the will of God this presents and immediate discontinuity.
2. The promises of God are never subject to human reason or logic.
3. Physics and physiology are never determinate to the promises of God.
4. Time is non-contingent to the promises of God. Again, God responds in time but not to time. Time always responds to the will of God.
This by no means exhausts the number of generalizations to be found in this text but it will serve as an example of biblical generalization.
Here is my generalization of that text.
A. This presents an obvious discontinuity dilemma – Abraham's and Sarah's decision in this matter is an attempt to fill a gap or void in the logical sequence of their situation.
1. What is the given expectation? It is the promise of God - “You shall have an heir out of your own body.”
2. What is the logical sequence for producing an heir? Abraham and Sarah + fertility + time = desired result – an heir.
3. What are the discontinuities in this logical sequence?
a. They are too old. He is 85 and she is 75.
b. Sarah is too barren, 11:30
These two factors represent a physiological discontinuity.
c. Time is against them – This is a discontinuity of physics. We have a tendency make the same mistake in measuring the promises of God against the metric of time.
4. What is the only element of continuity? It is the power of God to overturn the limitations of the physics and their physiology.
B. Time as a contingency element
Quite often I think, we expect God to respond to our desires within tour perception of time. We tend to hold God accountable to time and regard the faithfulness of God as time contingent. “If he hasn't answered my prayer by now, he isn't going too.” This certainly appears to have been Abraham's reasoning. God has not acted on the matter so he feel it is up to him to act.
1. Time has relevance only within the human analysis of the situation.
2. Time is a function of God. God is not accountable to time. God responds in time but not to time. Time responds to the will of God.
3. Man, on the other hand, responds to time independently of the will of God. This is what Abraham and Sarah did. Because of the perceived limitations of the time element they interject into the situation, they attempt to manipulate the promise of God in such a way that it will harmonize with their understanding of physics and physiology. They then operate on the basis of the consistency of these two fields of discourse constraint. Time + physics + physiology = a discontinuity between the word of God and the circumstances. They then respond to the discontinuity through human resolution. Why does Hagar seem to satisfy the human resolution? Because she fills the gap in the logical sequence.
a. She is young enough for child bearing.
b. She is not barren
c. The time factor is satisfied – they can have the child now.
But, it does not satisfy the demands of faith. Control of the situation is NEVER allowed to reside within the human arena. God always reserves the right of contravention – to act against all limitations of physics and physiology.
The generalizations I have pointed out are
1. When human experience is confronted by the will of God this presents and immediate discontinuity.
2. The promises of God are never subject to human reason or logic.
3. Physics and physiology are never determinate to the promises of God.
4. Time is non-contingent to the promises of God. Again, God responds in time but not to time. Time always responds to the will of God.
This by no means exhausts the number of generalizations to be found in this text but it will serve as an example of biblical generalization.
A
First thing I should do is explain why I'm back on page 1 five weeks later. There are two reasons that ended up including a third thing:
1. I'm still working on getting what Old Hermit said to me last, and wanted to round it out with all the rest of what he said to me, to get the fullness of it. (Five weeks later, so I'm rusty too.)
2. Someone quoted a line of what someone else said and then added to it, so I got nosy and had to see where that fit in.
And then a third thing happened:
3. General nosiness on what everyone said again, preceded by having a month of watching the same people put into practice what they said they believed here.
It's been an interesting study on that too. Has anyone else ever noticed how what people say they believe and what they preach when in preacher-mode isn't anything like the consistency of what they really do the rest of the time -- even just on this site?
Several people have told me there's no particular reason to study God's word this hard because God just magically feeds your spirit with whatever he happens to feel like giving. Well, having now seen the heart of quite a few on this site, it seems it's reversed. They receive what they just happen to want to receive without worrying if it is from God or not. Here's an example, and honestly? I accepted this was true until recent events proved it's not.
You said you go for simplicity. I truly believe you do, but the thing you are missing is you've gone for simplicity of message from some preacher who told you to believe what you believe, skipping God if God gets too complex on something.
How do I know, because I posted something full of wonder about the beauty of what God has done as written in a devotional by Spurgeon and your message was plan -- it can't be true because ... ROBOTS!
Scripture never mentions robots. Spurgeon never mentioned robots. I never mentioned robots. But the robot thing is a strawman fallacy against predestination, (which is scriptural), so apparently, your simple is really "much easier to believe others than to learn what God said."
That's not childlike. That's defiance! It was also an attack against something I never said.
It's also a repeat for what happens too often on the BDF. Post something on this board, and 95% of the time, you don't get answers. You get prove-MY-point! Very few listen. And when someone dares to insist they do listen, that person is the villain. So, no. I'm not into "simplicity" because on here that means, "believe how I was taught. Believe my prove-a-point, because that's all I have to offer."
This is me learning to think clearly so I can learn what God will have me learn, because I've had enough of listening to Man thinking he can simplify God into his own understanding. I've heard most prove-a-points. They do nothing but prop the prove-a-pointer up with a thin piece of balsam wood.
1. I'm still working on getting what Old Hermit said to me last, and wanted to round it out with all the rest of what he said to me, to get the fullness of it. (Five weeks later, so I'm rusty too.)
2. Someone quoted a line of what someone else said and then added to it, so I got nosy and had to see where that fit in.
And then a third thing happened:
3. General nosiness on what everyone said again, preceded by having a month of watching the same people put into practice what they said they believed here.
It's been an interesting study on that too. Has anyone else ever noticed how what people say they believe and what they preach when in preacher-mode isn't anything like the consistency of what they really do the rest of the time -- even just on this site?
Several people have told me there's no particular reason to study God's word this hard because God just magically feeds your spirit with whatever he happens to feel like giving. Well, having now seen the heart of quite a few on this site, it seems it's reversed. They receive what they just happen to want to receive without worrying if it is from God or not. Here's an example, and honestly? I accepted this was true until recent events proved it's not.
You said you go for simplicity. I truly believe you do, but the thing you are missing is you've gone for simplicity of message from some preacher who told you to believe what you believe, skipping God if God gets too complex on something.
How do I know, because I posted something full of wonder about the beauty of what God has done as written in a devotional by Spurgeon and your message was plan -- it can't be true because ... ROBOTS!
Scripture never mentions robots. Spurgeon never mentioned robots. I never mentioned robots. But the robot thing is a strawman fallacy against predestination, (which is scriptural), so apparently, your simple is really "much easier to believe others than to learn what God said."
That's not childlike. That's defiance! It was also an attack against something I never said.
It's also a repeat for what happens too often on the BDF. Post something on this board, and 95% of the time, you don't get answers. You get prove-MY-point! Very few listen. And when someone dares to insist they do listen, that person is the villain. So, no. I'm not into "simplicity" because on here that means, "believe how I was taught. Believe my prove-a-point, because that's all I have to offer."
This is me learning to think clearly so I can learn what God will have me learn, because I've had enough of listening to Man thinking he can simplify God into his own understanding. I've heard most prove-a-points. They do nothing but prop the prove-a-pointer up with a thin piece of balsam wood.
A
General Principles of Gen. 16:1-4 -- Take Two.
Man's going to do what Man's going to do with or without God's promises.
Man will get in trouble every single time for doing this.
God will still love his kids (those adopted by him) and will still keep his promise.
Man gets to spend the rest of his life regretting not trusting God's word, but, even the consequences aren't all bad. (Abraham loved Ishmael.)
Did I finally get what you're saying? (Or am I still missing it?
)
Man's going to do what Man's going to do with or without God's promises.
Man will get in trouble every single time for doing this.
God will still love his kids (those adopted by him) and will still keep his promise.
Man gets to spend the rest of his life regretting not trusting God's word, but, even the consequences aren't all bad. (Abraham loved Ishmael.)
Did I finally get what you're saying? (Or am I still missing it?