Random Questions; Bible-based answers

[GWH]

Very nice, i like this and i agree with it.
But Now it is time to talk about God's attributes major.
Is God being loving the only attribute you know, assign and call Him from our human POV? Are there any other attributes?

No. Although humans do not have the mental categories (Kant) or ability to imagine alternative or supernatural reality, which may be why the NT does not describe immortality and hell in detail (cf. 1CR 15:35-44 and MT 24:51, 25:30, 41&46.), I will share my under-standing of the NT concept of God, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1TM 1:17), in terms of seven words.

Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (RM1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (HB 9:27-28, 1CR 15:12-26).
Perthe NT the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (JN 14:9-25). God desires communion.

1. God’s omnipotence means that He can do everything except “disown Himself” or not be God (2TM 2:13). It does NOT mean that God can perform logical absurdities, such as creating a rock too large for Him to move. Omnipotence or sovereignty also means that human MFW has limits with regard to how it can contradict God’s will. God provides morally competent humans the ability to resist His intentional will and plan of salvation (POS) within limits, such as the time limit that will end with death, resurrection (the last miracle) and judgment (per HB 9:27)–called His permissive will.

2. God’s power is equivalent to His omniscience. Jeremiah wrote that “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom.” (JR 10:12) Many NT passages refer to God as the source of true wisdom (e.g., ACTS 6:3, 1CR 1:25, CL 2:2-3, JM 1:5). God’s infinitely superior knowledge is extolled in Romans 11:33-34 (echoing IS 40:13-14) and Daniel 2:20-23.

Omniscience includes knowledge of people’s thoughts (PS 94:11, MT 12:25) and the foreknowledge of events (ACTS 2:23, RM 8:29, 11:2, 1PT 1:2). Some people think that God even knows what a person will be/do before that person exists (JR 1:5). If this view is correct, it must be maintained that God’s foreknowledge does not predetermine a person’s spiritual choice regarding the satisfaction of God’s requirement for salvation or else moral responsibility would be abrogated. I find it simpler to think that God merely tweaks the river of history occasionally to keep if flowing in the direction He intends but allows the fish to swim as they wish. God allows eddies in the river of salvation.

3. Omnipotence is connected with omnitemporality (in RV 1:18): “I am the Apha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Romans 1:20 refers to God’s “eternal power”, and Jeremiah 10:10&16 names God “the Lord Almighty”, who is true, living and eternal.

4. God’s infinite power implies omnipresence (per PS 139:7-8). God transcends spatial existence while being immanent in all points of space. (Other scriptural support for this view includes 1KG 8:27, IS 66:1, JR 23:33, ACTS 17:27-28 and EPH 4:6.) God’s superiority over His creation must be viewed as a matter of degree or quantitatively in order to preserve the continuity between God and humanity that would be requisite for communication (like the need for a common language and culture). However, the Bible teaches that God also differs from creatures in kind or qualitatively, so that attaining equality with Deity is impossible (IS 55:9, EPH 3:19). We can be like God (GN 3:3), and we can become one with the Son of God (JN 17:21-23), but we cannot become God (cf. Humanism).

In addition to the omni-attributes related to power, Paul referred to God’s “nature” (in RM 1:20), which may be described in three ways: love, truth and justice. These often are called the moral attributes of God.

5. The Bible says that God is love and true love comes from God (1JN 4:7-21, RM 5:5), so volitional creatures or souls can love only by reflecting, imitating or cooperating with the Creator’s love. Although the Bible speaks of God hating Esau (ML 1:3) and other evil people (HS 9:15), Jesus’ teaching of love for enemies (MT 5:44) reveals that God loves all creatures including Satan but hates their sinful choices.

It seems logical to assume that the all-loving God would create the best possible world or one in which the greatest percentage of persons may attain ultimate joy (1TM 2:3-4, 2PT 3:9). God may have created all possible kinds of worlds simultaneously: the world of dead matter, the world of living plants, the world of intelligent animals, and the world of morally accountable souls/humans. God’s world/way is best.

6. The Bible teaches that God is truth (JN 1:17, 8:40, 15:26, 17:17), so all truth is from God and manifests God’s Spirit. If any atheists are truthseekers, then they are not far from the kingdom of God (MK 12:34, 2THS 2:10, JN 18:37), because Jesus promised that those who seek will find (LK 11:9&13). Of course, if the truth is that there is no God or heaven, then what we believe is no more significant than the ideology of a rock or some other evolved collection of atoms (ECC 3:20)! Truth or God’s Word is represented in the Bible as light (JN 1:1-9), which also signifies God’s glory (LK 2:9).

7. The Bible also teaches that God is just (RM 3:25-26, 9:14, 2THS 1:6). This doctrine is called theodicy. It means that we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair. If a person cannot explain how a loving God could order the execution of babies (JSH 6:17, 8:2), then possibly He did not do so. Synonyms for justness include righteousness and goodness (IS 5:16).

 

[Eli1]

No.

I see.
Okay, so what do you do when you are faced with:

1. GN 6:17
2. GN 19:24-25
3. JO 6:21
4. 1 SM 15:3
5. JU 14:19
6. NM 31

among some examples?

 

[GWH]

I see.
Okay, so what do you do when you are faced with:

1. GN 6:17
2. GN 19:24-25
3. JO 6:21
4. 1 SM 15:3
5. JU 14:19
6. NM 31

among some examples?

GN 6:17 says God will cause a flood, which He does every day somewhere in the world as part of the earthly experience that He intends to teach humans their need of His salvation (HB 12:7-11), and everyone who seeks Him will be saved (MT 7:7). The next worldwide destruction will involve fire rather than water (2PT 3:6-7).

GN 19:24-25 says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by what seems like a volcanic eruption, which occurs every day...

JSH 6:21 is the beginning of the Israelites' campaign of genocide against the Canaanites (that ended in JSH 11:23) which Christians in the light of NT teaching must repudiate. However, I see two ways of harmonizing this passage with NT morality:

First, the astute reader will have noticed that the Gibeonites were spared because they agreed to be the Israelites, so perhaps the others would have been spared if they also had surrendered and converted from their paganism.

The second way is not preferred, but it is possible to view the adult Canaanite pagans as worthy of destruction, unless they fled the country, and to view killing their children as better than letting them starve to death since there was no adoption option.

1SM 15:3 says the Lord commanded killing all of the Amalekites as punishment for them attacking the Israelites (cf. DT 13:12-15). Again paganism is viewed as a capital crime punishable by death including the children, which reflects the morals of that time and place rather than of Christ.

I guess you get my idea. How do you view these passages?

 

[Eli1]

I guess you get my idea. How do you view these passages?

I don't say that "God is only a loving God" in order to avoid mental gymnastics especially when intelligent atheists confront you with questions such as: "How can i believe in Christianity when your God kills babies?". My answer is: "Who said God is only loving?". When i was first taught this lesson i didn't realize its importance because i was young but this resolves about 99% of morality problems that atheists might throw at you. I was also happy to see that our new millennial friend who joined here who is also a Baptist, Calvinist, PreMill, and many other 'ist' member, she mentioned the word "the wrath of God".
So God is not only loving, but also just, wrathful, maybe jealous and most importantly a merciful God.
This is what is used in the liturgy in my Church. During many many points in the liturgy the priest says "Thank you merciful and loving God for your blessings".

 

[maxwel]

I don't say that "God is only a loving God" in order to avoid mental gymnastics especially when intelligent atheists confront you with questions such as: "How can i believe in Christianity when your God kills babies?". My answer is: "Who said God is only loving?". When i was first taught this lesson i didn't realize its importance because i was young but this resolves about 99% of morality problems that atheists might throw at you. I was also happy to see that our new millennial friend who joined here who is also a Baptist, Calvinist, PreMill, and many other 'ist' member, she mentioned the word "the wrath of God".
So God is not only loving, but also just, wrathful, maybe jealous and most importantly a merciful God.
This is what is used in the liturgy in my Church. During many many points in the liturgy the priest says "Thank you merciful and loving God for your blessings".

Good point.

If we delve into the ramifications of God's attributes, we quickly find that if God is "perfect in love", that actually REQUIRES justice.

It's really important we think about these things, and have answers for the people who challenge us with attacks on God's character. (God will be fine without our help... but if possible, we should give answers to these challenges.)

.

 

[GWH]

Good point.

If we delve into the ramifications of God's attributes, we quickly find that if God is "perfect in love", that actually REQUIRES justice.

It's really important we think about these things, and have answers for the people who challenge us with attacks on God's character. (God will be fine without our help... but if possible, we should give answers to these challenges.)

.

I completely agree, which is why I have thought a lot about how to harmonize divine love and justice, and here is what I have learned from GW:

Atheists have a negative or even demonic conception of God, which may be caused or reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (RM 2:24, 2PT 2:2). Who would want to believe in such a God? Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to disbelieve in that benevolent Being, if good reason to do so can be found. God is NOT demonic!

What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets God’s Word in the Bible, which is called “hermeneutics”. IMO a Scripture-based hermeneutic begins by believing that a person should triangulate from two key NT teachings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of problematic OT statements:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4, ACTS 17:26-28); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).

Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). All explanations of reality and interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (PS 145:17) The Judge is just. It would be better not to attempt an explanation of God’s Word than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16).

Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love. Hebrews 12:4-11 offers the clue for harmonizing these two themes. This passage indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline: to teach people to repent of their hatefulness or faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19) before they die, after which divine wrath will be experienced justly without the opportunity for repentance.

If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what occurred rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of how people should behave. Of course, because God is loving and just, He does not tempt, trick, confuse or otherwise contribute to anyone’s sinfulness. On the contrary, God must be doing all that He can do without abrogating justice or volition (MFW) to influence people not to be deceived and become self-condemned (JM 1:13-17, TIT 3:11, IS 45:19).

This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm free will as a paradoxical fact (DT 30:19). It is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd.

Divine love is signified in the Bible by marriage (IS 62:5, MT 19:6, EPH 5:25-32). People are free to repent and become part of the Bride of Christ (RV 21:9), and Believers may choose to be spiritually unfaithful or commit apostasy (or adultery in HOS 1:2f.) and become spiritually divorced from the Lord. (Marriage signifies spiritual union.)

 

[Eli1]

This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm free will as a paradoxical fact (DT 30:19). It is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd.

In general i agree with what you said and i just wanted to add on this point here regarding Calvinism.
I think the first problem is the problem of language itself which isn't enough to describe God, His Creation and His attributes, this is why i said earlier "from our human pov".
Because what we might see as "wrath" here and now, could be something else in a higher understanding in the real Kingdom of God.
Remember the Flatland analogy about dimensions in regards to Trinity?
So if you can get two parties to understand each-other on what the basic concepts are, after you've exhausted many words in the vocabulary, then after that, you are left with different interpretations which i personally see as unique approaches to God based on the individual's personality.

 

[GWH]

In general i agree with what you said and i just wanted to add on this point here regarding Calvinism.
I think the first problem is the problem of language itself which isn't enough to describe God, His Creation and His attributes, this is why i said earlier "from our human pov".
Because what we might see as "wrath" here and now, could be something else in a higher understanding in the real Kingdom of God.
Remember the Flatland analogy about dimensions in regards to Trinity?
So if you can get two parties to understand each-other on what the basic concepts are, after you've exhausted many words in the vocabulary, then after that, you are left with different interpretations which i personally see as unique approaches to God based on the individual's personality.

True, which is why you should notice that I typically talk in terms of sufficient rather than perfect understanding or agreement--with God and with fellow Christians (although I am not convinced we should be satisfied with 50% :^)

The role of language is why I view an axiomatic truth as this: 3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.”

Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me :^)

 

[maxwel]

I completely agree,

I hate to start the new year being so agreeable.

I feel like I'm letting everyone down.

.

 

[GWH]

I hate to start the new year being so agreeable.

I feel like I'm letting everyone down.

.

I disagree.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, and "how do i get saved" is equivalent to seeking salvation (MT 7:7), which is the most important thing to do currently, since A&E, and until the eschaton.

Acts 16:31
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
KJV



Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

 

[GWH]

RQ: What truth or doctrine is the most important to learn after learning how to be saved?

 

[GWH]

The Scriptures contain a few discrepancies that will serve as my next RQs. Here are the first three:

MK 9:40 says "the person not against Jesus is for him", but MT 12:30 says "the person not with Jesus is against him".

Do you see a way to harmonize these?

LK 23:46 says the last words of Jesus were "Father, into...", and JN 19:30 says the last words were "It is finished".

Possible to harmonize?

MK 10:46 reports that one blind man is healed, whereas MT 20:30 says two blind men are healed.

Which is it?

 

[Eli1]

Do you see a way to harmonize these?

Yes, the Bible was written by men like you and me who were used by God to convey a message to the rest of us using limited language not only for their time, but even if they used the language of our time, it would still be difficult to explain the true nature of God.
Also since they weren't trained in forensics, mathematics, astronomy and many other fields, we see mainly eyewitness accounts.
Also, since they didn't have free printing paper which they could throw in trash if they did a small grammatical mistake, they used very short words which took days to write on a papyrus which was a very precious paper, almost like having a Ferrari today major.
So when you realize all this, you don't say "God cannot contradict Himself", because we all know that God cannot contradict Himself.
What you realize is that men are fallible, imperfect and they have a hard time expressing God in writing correctly.
I mean even us in the year 2020 can't tell who won the elections correctly, can we?

But to answer your first question.
On Mark 9 Jesus is saying that He is the new covenant, and on Mathew 12 Jesus is saying to the pharisees that He is the new covenant.
So i guess there isn't much contradiction?
What say you major?