The Lord’s Abilities

  • 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.
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#61
#61
Credo :"You seem to be missing the point. I said that evil is not a necessary consequence of free will because God has free will and is without evil. So it’s not obvious why God couldn’t have given us a type of free will that doesn’t result in evil choices."
Perhaps it is not what we had that made it possible, but what we didn't have. If we had eaten first of the tree of life, would we have ever eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#62
#62
resurrection33 said:
Suffering is a necessary part of life, I believe, because we all sin. However, when I say the Lord will make us happy, I am saying the Lord will eliminate suffering, even in this lifetime, if we obey his commandments.

Sorry, haven’t read the “Westminster Shorter Catechism.”
Click to expand...
First, the fact that you haven't read the WSC is really irrelevant since I quoted the portion I had in mind, so I have no idea why you would point that out.

Secondly, suffering didn't seem to be optional for Paul (“For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” - Acts 9:16 “For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know” - 1 Thessalonians 3:4). And it doesn't seem to be all that foreign or abnormal to Christian life, when one considers the over all Christian experience (“Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good” - 1 Peter 4:19). Clearly, God didn't eliminate suffering for Christians in the past and he clearly hasn't eliminated it for many today. Many Christians have suffered and will suffer martyrdom. I would find it rather unbelievable if you're actually going to suggest that such persons would have had their suffering eliminated if they had simply obeyed God more.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#63
#63
charisenexcelcis said:
Credo :"You seem to be missing the point. I said that evil is not a necessary consequence of free will because God has free will and is without evil. So it’s not obvious why God couldn’t have given us a type of free will that doesn’t result in evil choices."
Perhaps it is not what we had that made it possible, but what we didn't have. If we had eaten first of the tree of life, would we have ever eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Click to expand...
Interesting question, but I don't know that the Bible gives us enough information on what exactly the tree of life is or confers.

God bars them from eating of the tree of life after having eaten of the tree of knowledge. I always took that to mean that it just extended their life. But maybe I'm wrong.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#64
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#64
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
First, the fact that you haven't read the WSC is really irrelevant since I quoted the portion I had in mind, so I have no idea why you would point that out.

Secondly, suffering didn't seem to be optional for Paul (“For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” - Acts 9:16 “For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know” - 1 Thessalonians 3:4). And it doesn't seem to be all that foreign or abnormal to Christian life, when one considers the over all Christian experience (“Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good” - 1 Peter 4:19). Clearly, God didn't eliminate suffering for Christians in the past and he clearly hasn't eliminated it for many today. Many Christians have suffered and will suffer martyrdom. I would find it rather unbelievable if you're actually going to suggest that such persons would have had their suffering eliminated if they had simply obeyed God more.
Click to expand...
My experience was that when I repented of certain sins I was committing, most of my troubles vanished.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#65
#65
resurrection33 said:
My experience was that when I repented of certain sins I was committing, most of my troubles vanished.
Click to expand...
Well we shouldn't use our experiences as our only textbook on theology. If the word of God suggests that your experience is invalid or not universal, I'd say it's better to go with Scripture.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#66
#66
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
Interesting question, but I don't know that the Bible gives us enough information on what exactly the tree of life is or confers.

God bars them from eating of the tree of life after having eaten of the tree of knowledge. I always took that to mean that it just extended their life. But maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is pertinent that the tree of life is in such abundance in the New Jerusalem. If it was just for the giving of life wouldn't it be redundant after the resurrection?
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#67
#67
charisenexcelcis said:
Perhaps it is pertinent that the tree of life is in such abundance in the New Jerusalem. If it was just for the giving of life wouldn't it be redundant after the resurrection?
Click to expand...
I'm not big on eschatology, but I think I understood it to be metaphorical for the eternality of the final state.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#68
#68
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
I'm not big on eschatology, but I think I understood it to be metaphorical for the eternality of the final state.
Click to expand...
If the original tree is not metaphoric, then I think that its mention in the Revelation is probably literal. While God sometimes speaks in the metaphoric, He acts in the literal.
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me shall live, even if he dies." Do you believe that the tree of life was a type of Jesus?
 
DinoDillinger

DinoDillinger

Senior Member
#69
Jul 28, 2009
839
19
18
#69
Ressurection33, you at one point said that God can't force us to love Him, at another you said that God can do anything to make us happy. I say to you, that if God can't make us love Him then He can't make us happy. If by us you mean His people that is.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#70
#70
charisenexcelcis said:
If the original tree is not metaphoric, then I think that its mention in the Revelation is probably literal. While God sometimes speaks in the metaphoric, He acts in the literal.
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me shall live, even if he dies." Do you believe that the tree of life was a type of Jesus?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's necessary to see the original tree in Genesis as metaphoric if we are going to see the latter one as metaphoric. Metaphors often work best when they are used of some actual thing. When you have something that's a metaphor through and through, that's when problems can easily arise. Genesis is historical.theological narrative. Revelation is apocalyptic. In part, I would appeal to these different genres for my literal/metaphoric distinction.

I don't necessarily have a problem with saying the tree of life represents Christ in Revelation, but I'm not going to commit myself to that view. As I said, I understood it to simply refer to immortality. But I'm not big on eschatology and I haven't tried to hammer out my views in this area.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#71
#71
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
I don't think it's necessary to see the original tree in Genesis as metaphoric if we are going to see the latter one as metaphoric. Metaphors often work best when they are used of some actual thing. When you have something that's a metaphor through and through, that's when problems can easily arise. Genesis is historical.theological narrative. Revelation is apocalyptic. In part, I would appeal to these different genres for my literal/metaphoric distinction.

I don't necessarily have a problem with saying the tree of life represents Christ in Revelation, but I'm not going to commit myself to that view. As I said, I understood it to simply refer to immortality. But I'm not big on eschatology and I haven't tried to hammer out my views in this area.
Click to expand...
Even within apocalyptic literature, there is non-metaphoric revelation, otherwise, one would diminish the content of the seven letters. In Revelation, you have Christ at the center of the New Jerusalem, why would you need the tree of life as a metaphor of eternal life. My original question still stands, we were created in the image of God. there are many things included in that, but one thing that was not there was immutablility.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#72
#72
charisenexcelcis said:
Even within apocalyptic literature, there is non-metaphoric revelation, otherwise, one would diminish the content of the seven letters.
Click to expand...
I didn't say there wasn't. But this doesn't change the fact that if I read of a seven headed beast in an apocalyptic book I have more warrant (all things being equal) to take it figuratively than if I read it in a historical narrative.

In Revelation, you have Christ at the center of the New Jerusalem, why would you need the tree of life as a metaphor of eternal life.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Maybe to make the point that it's a greater paradise. I'm not really interested in debating eschatology.

My original question still stands, we were created in the image of God. there are many things included in that, but one thing that was not there was immutablility.
Click to expand...
Not sure which question you're referring to. The one about if we had first eaten of the tree of life?
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#74
#74
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
I didn't say there wasn't. But this doesn't change the fact that if I read of a seven headed beast in an apocalyptic book I have more warrant (all things being equal) to take it figuratively than if I read it in a historical narrative.
I would say that if you read of a seven headed beast in the book of Genesis, you would have thought it metaphoric also. The first definer of the metaphor vs the literal is the actual image and how it fits into the narrative.



I don't know. Maybe to make the point that it's a greater paradise. I'm not really interested in debating eschatology.




Not sure which question you're referring to. The one about if we had first eaten of the tree of life?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the question. Perhaps what we are missing is immutablility of character.
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#75
#75
charisenexcelcis said:
I would say that if you read of a seven headed beast in the book of Genesis, you would have thought it metaphoric also. The first definer of the metaphor vs the literal is the actual image and how it fits into the narrative.
Click to expand...
I don't know that I would have. I read of a talking snake in Genesis, but I don't take that as being metaphorical, although I think there is more to it than just an ordinary snake of course. But even that's based on other passages. But like I said, all things being equal.

Yes, that is the question. Perhaps what we are missing is immutablility of character.
Click to expand...
You mean that God couldn't have given us the type of free will that doesn't result in evil because we are not immutable?
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#76
#76
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
I don't know that I would have. I read of a talking snake in Genesis, but I don't take that as being metaphorical, although I think there is more to it than just an ordinary snake of course. But even that's based on other passages. But like I said, all things being equal.
And when it refers to the snake in Revelation 11, do you take it metaphorically.



You mean that God couldn't have given us the type of free will that doesn't result in evil because we are not immutable?
Click to expand...
No, I mean that God chose not to make us immutable and that perhaps if Man and Woman would have eaten first of the tree of life they would have become immutable and never partaken of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#77
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#77
Credo_ut_Intelligam said:
Well we shouldn't use our experiences as our only textbook on theology. If the word of God suggests that your experience is invalid or not universal, I'd say it's better to go with Scripture.
Click to expand...
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt 4:17 RSV
Click to expand...
[1] In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
[2] "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt 3:1-2 RSV
Click to expand...
If you don’t take these Scriptures to heart, I think you are missing something vital, Credo.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#78
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#78
DinoDillinger said:
Ressurection33, you at one point said that God can't force us to love Him, at another you said that God can do anything to make us happy. I say to you, that if God can't make us love Him then He can't make us happy. If by us you mean His people that is.
Click to expand...
We will love him because we will see that he deserves to be loved, don’t you think?
 
C

Credo_ut_Intelligam

Guest
#79
#79
charisenexcelcis said:
And when it refers to the snake in Revelation 11, do you take it metaphorically.
Click to expand...
I guess you're talking about the "beast" in verse 7? I would probably take it metaphorically.

Not sure why you're quizzing my views on Revelation. I already said I don't take any particular stance on eschatology (outside of that most of Mat. 24 and it's parallels refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). I was raised in a dispensational premil school (even got to hear Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson speak at my church (several times for the latter). Late in my college years I became a partial preterist postmillennialist. Now I don't take much interest in it and wouldn't describe myself as a postmiller, though I can sympathize with them. So you're not going to get much from me by way of Revelation and if I were to hash out my eschatological views, I definitely wouldn't start in that book.

No, I mean that God chose not to make us immutable and that perhaps if Man and Woman would have eaten first of the tree of life they would have become immutable and never partaken of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Click to expand...
Interesting suggestion, but too to do anything about it now.
 
resurrection33

resurrection33

Banned
#80
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#80
wisdomseeker said:
Peace be to you
A voice inside me said today i can do anything i want to do anytime i want to do it.I said your not God cause he cant lie.
:)

Love a friend in God
Click to expand...
What do you make of this?

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it. Jonah 3:10 RSV
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.