« Belief as Saving Faith | Main | Links Mentioned on the 6/08/16 Show »

June 08, 2016

Comments

If you read a chapter or two: Yes.

If you read the whole book: Clearly not.

If you add in genre, linguistics, and history, oh dear, there's only one rational conclusion: "NO"

Of course, that's the case with processing *all* books or narratives.

Except for autohypnosis, that's just obvious.

Hence the challenge.

The Atheists target the God of the Old Testament making him look as bad as they can. Many Christians spend much time trying to make him look as good as they can. But both groups fail to realize that no matter how their particular "image" of the Old Testament God turns out, He is still God doing the exact same things today.

Jesus rules the nations with a rod of iron from Heaven today, as always Revelation 1:4, 12:5.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)

“Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6)

Nothing happens apart from God, all of the calamities from the time God instituted the New Covenant are no different from the calamities of the old. It is just that now he uses wicked nations to destroy each other. The daily News gives a quick look at what God is doing each and every moment. As I see it, God is far beyond Stephen King's worst nightmares. He actively kills every person ever born at his designated time and manner. And he will again destroy the earth and all living by fire on the last day.

But to those upon whom he shows mercy, he turns death into the gateway to eternal life and happiness in the new Heavens and Earth. Having taken their sins away by pouring out his wrath on his own self in Christ in their place. And then giving them faith and understanding concerning the matter.

A simple example is the obvious reality that Law/Moses regulates, rather than bans, divorce.

The Atheist and many Christians take that as God liking, loving, divorce, the fragmentation of love within families.

But scripture assures us God hates divorce.

So much for Moses as the end of thinking.

There is the narrow narrative of a few chapters.

There is a far wider metanarrative.

Even worse, if Evil is The Good minus something (there can be no other kind) then God creating evil isn't coherent.

Just like divorce, Moses, and God.

Unless we read whole books.

A subgroup of Christians and most Atheists insist on defining things by a few chapters, or slices, rather than defining the slices by the much larger metanarrative which does not "contradict" the slices at all. Rather, it defines their fundamental nature.

If God loves genocide, if God loves divorce, well then the hedges just won't do.

Instead: Just own it.

Anything less isn't respectable.


Of course, if God hates the ends of Moses, which He Himself temporarily places, if in fact *definitions* precede and outdistance the contingent, and in fact begin and end within the immutable love of the Necessary Being, in Christ, well then the whole silly game of these "obstacles" just evaporates as we are forced to *define* the fundamental nature of things by something very, very enigmatic.

Dave,

Does God hate anything?

Does He hate anything He actively does? You know, that stuff we see Him doing in the news?

Does He hate divorce, the fragmentation of love in the family? Scripture states He does.

But....

It's in the news a lot.


Have enjoyed viewing all four videos in the Gosptacles series. Thank you Tim for the insights.

scbrownlhrm,

>> Except for autohypnosis, that's just obvious.

I'm having a little difficulty processing this comment (even though I've read the other posts in this session and agree).

One of the remarkable verses in Scriptures speak of the love-hate relationship involved with the adoration of God: Hate evil, love good,
and establish justice in the courts (Amos 5:15a). I'm pondering Amy's wonderful post dealing with the judge's light sentencing of a college rapist and the social outrage ... and utter inability to transfer these thoughts to the perfect judge in God who shall have much evil to condemn of the summation of history (either our personal or ultimate world).

Hate evil, love good,

Our present society seems to have become enamored of the first (evidenced in all the violent scenarios in all the crime dramas, and their popularity) to adequately associate with the second.

@ scbrownlhrm; >> "Does He hate divorce, the fragmentation of love in the family? Scripture states He does.
But....
It's in the news a lot."

>So does this god hang his head in sorrow, helplessly pleading for people not to do this or that. Or does God send death in all of its forms, including divorce, upon wicked people who are possibly worse than the Canaanites. Is God - God, or is he a godling?

DGF,

The autohypnosis point merely explains *WHY* some of our Non-Theist friends really do believe that, generally speaking, we *should* read whole books before making statements about what it is saying, and yet they have convinced themselves that THEY really can skip THAT step when it comes to Scripture.

Dave,

I disagree that the Daily News informes us of God.

Scripture does. And I'll decline your Occasionalism.

Scripture states that God hates X.

Yet He regulates, rather than bans, X.

You seem to conclude that X is therefore The-Good.

Why?

Where do your definitions of Good begin? End?

Dave,

Also,

You never answered the initial question:

Does God love, like, divorce?

As the ground of all being, nothing, not even evil, the lack of Good, can exist without God. You're conflating that reality with misguided conclusions that God loves the X which Scripture defines as that which God hates. There are all sorts of X's.

Your are also conflating all sorts of realities for judgement. We are *all* Pharaohs you know. It's a bit sloppy on your end.

If God loves, likes, divorce, then just own it.


@ scbrownlhrm;

Things are just as God would have them to be - or God is not God. I believe God loves Righteousness and Righteous people (Adam before the Fall). But at the same time Hates sin and sinners. He would not be good if he did not.

Does he love us? No, because we are wicked. But because God is Love, he unconditionally set his love on those he hates, taking out his wrath in his own self in Christ in behalf of those elect far too wicked to save themselves.

I hope that makes my view more understandable.

Dave,

Does God love divorce?

God does not ban divorce in the Law of Moses. Is that because He loves divorce?

Or does He hate divorce?

What about now in the NT? Is God the same?

The other stuff about God summing to Being Itself and about Judgment are orthogonal to the topic under review, and do not change the (correct) conclusions about that topic.


@ scbrownlhrm; >> Does God love divorce?

God does not ban divorce in the Law of Moses. Is that because He loves divorce?

Or does He hate divorce?

What about now in the NT? Is God the same?

> God hates sin and sinners. He uses sinful acts to punish sin. Does God love poison or Satan? No. but he creates and energizes them to perform his will, right along with divorce.

God is the same today. Only his plan for the church moved from war based to being peace based.

From some comments in some thread somewhere at some random blog called “Stand To Reason” the point of “definitions” is looked at:

Begin random quotes:

Excellent observation. Bruce Waltke and Charles You point out that "Jesus says God adapted his law according to the moral capacity of the Old Testament saint (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5)" (An Old Testament Theology, p. 818 n. 30).

Laws which circumscribe behavior do not approve of that behavior per se. Some laws protect institutions because the state believes those institutions are beneficial to society. However, some laws merely permit institutions or activities.

…….[we already] pointed out the distinction between permission and approval. If endorsement is understood to be approval (and it is) then simply citing a law which says "You may do x" is not in itself sufficient to show approval.

End.

And, of course, unfortunately for the Non-Theist, it is painfully obvious that on Scripture's own terms the Non-Theist cannot scrounge up his "definitions" from the Law of Moses. Nor from any mutable and contingent line within the pains of Man's privation. He, the Non-Theist, must find Scripture's immutable and unchanging "A" and Scripture's immutable and unchanging "B" by which, from which, and through which he must filter all of his *definitions* on the fundamental nature of Man, Reality, and God.

Otherwise, there cannot be any (real) "obstacle".

Let's make A/B into this instead:

.....Scripture's immutable and unchanging "[A] through [Z]"..... by which, from which, and through which he must filter all of his definitions.....

David,

My answer to the question of "Does God love divorce" is "No". As is my reply to "Does God condone divorce". Or Genocide. And so on.

I'm not sure what your answer is.

You're still conflating A's with B's. Which is unfortunate given that there are real distinctions to be made. "Everything is God and God is everything", or whatever, isn't Christianity's statement about God.

@ scbrownlhrm; ""Does God condone divorce". Or Genocide. And so on."

>He does not condone sin in any form but sends sin as judgement on sinners to increase his wrath upon them. If God sends divorce, it is not that he condones it, but uses it to punish evil doers, just like the mass extermination of the peoples of old and today.

God punishes sinners with sin.

Dave,

Okay then, we agree that neither God nor Scripture nor the Law of Moses condones genocide.

On the nature of God as Being Itself, on the nature of Judgment, and on the nature of Causation (God as First Cause as opposed to God as the Only Cause) we disagree, but those matters are all orthogonal to the topic at hand: the fundamental nature of genocide as per the God of Scripture.

"Does God Condone Genocide?

First:

We need not wonder why too much of the world misunderstands Christianity's actual truth claims about the nature of things when they find themselves in the midst of a setting in which getting "God hates genocide" out of this or that subgroup of Christians is like pulling teeth.

Secondly:

When the Non-Theist states, asserts, or asks, "Does God Condone Genocide", the first move (obviously) is this:

[A] Define condone

.... and secondly....

[B] Define all lines by the Necessary, the Immutable, the Unchanging.

Why?

Because reality just is (finally, ultimately, or cosmically) defined by the Necessary and not by the contingent. Meaning flows downhill. Reality in fact can't be defined by the contingent, meaning in fact can't flow uphill. Not really. Not finally. Not ultimately. Not cosmically.

This is true both for the Christian/Theist and the Non-Theist.

If one's "...wellspring of all being, consciousness, and bliss, the source, order, and end of reality..." just is the Christian's Triune God, well then the "A" and the "Z" of all meaning flows downhill from that wellspring in which we find those timeless processions within Trinity amid love's unending self-giving constituting the Knower and the Known, from A to Z.

Whereas, if one's wellspring of all being just does bottom out in a fundamental nature which sums to the non-rational, (non, not "ir"), to the non-loving (non, not "un"), to nothing more (or less) than the ontological stalemate, and so on ad infinitum, well then all meaning, even still, flows downhill.

And necessarily so.

Autohypnosis and wish fulfillment can help us avoid that fact.

For awhile.

But in the end illusion never really stands a chance.


DGF,

The question on the table is this:

What is the fundamental nature of genocide (or divorce, or slavery, etc.) per the God of Scripture?

So I'm aiming "there".

Justice is of course a good thing. Justice, though, does not come to us “amid letter and that’s that”, but, instead, among living beings (God and Man). And that is a living variable in the living God’s decrees. That is to say, it (really) defines (real) contours of (real) Justice. God states that He prefers our own embracing of the good to His own acts of punishment in the OT, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live…..” (Ezekiel) and of course God is the same in the NT. With that definition of what God loves and how God’s love of Justice interfaces with His love of Man (perhaps Christ's motions of "Prepare for Me a Body" stream from that corner somewhere), your point about Justice is an important one, and, further downstream it does intersect the question of the OP: “Does God / Scripture condone genocide?

But, right now, it is Scriptures’ statement on the fundamental nature of “genocide” which is on the table.

So, even granting Judgment wherein God is the only cause of any event (which most reject), or granting secondary causes, or granting factually free-to-do-otherwise moral beings, or all three, or two, or one, or either way, we find that God yet still forces definitions which leave it (genocide, divorce, etc.) as that which is less than His pleasure, less than His love. He loves something very different. His pleasure is found in quite another location as Ezekiel’s echo of many other lines throughout Scripture’s metanarrative affirm.

That is because even granting any of that, the question on the table is not about modes of judgment or modes of causation, but is about the fundamental nature of genocide as per the God of Scripture.

Pleasure/Justice:

Whatever we conclude on the modes of judgment or the modes of causation, if we end up in any place or in any conclusion other than God hating the loss of any of us where his *pleasure* is concerned, or anywhere other than God hating genocide (and divorce, and.... and... ) well then we will have been guilty of either conflating this or that "A" for this or that "C", or else of making a category error, or, perhaps, we will have been guilty of asserting a simple but false identity claim.

Best of all, on God's pleasure, on what God likes, we find Deuteronomy 28:63 fully actualized, instantiated, in/at the only location of God's perfect pleasure, which is that location where we find Perfect Justice / Perfect Mercy in one, single ontological focus:

Christ.

If one asks, "What is it that God loves, likes, takes pleasure in?", well any answer which places "Any X" above Christ is fundamentally misguided.

Why? Because God loves, likes, prefers, finds pleasure in, this:

Perfect Justice / Perfect Mercy.

All else pales.

Of course God loves, delights in, and so on, many things or many realities. All of this is aimed at, again, the topic on the table: what is the fundamental nature of genocide / divorce / slavery / etc. as per the God of Scripture.

As per previous comments, definitions do not flow, and cannot flow, uphill. Rather, all meaning necessarily flows downhill from the Immutable into the mutable, from The Good into "The Good minus something".

The topics of God as Being Itself and what that looks like, and of Judgment and what that looks like [ btw, volitional or not, and we are volitional, we are all in a sense Pharaoh given that we all inherit (whether before death and inside of time, or after death and outside of time makes no difference) that which sums to our first love.... and what that "looks like" is of course important as well, but still orthogonal to the OP's topic ], and of Causation (God as First Cause as opposed to God as the Only Cause.... radically different realities) and what that looks like, are important and do intersect "the causal stream of reality" further downhill, further downstream. But downstream, downhill, here within the pains of our privation, is not where definitions stream from.

Nor end.

Ever.

Why?

Because all meaning necessarily flows downhill.

Method:

When the Non-Christian comes to us and asks us if God loves genocide, condones Genocide, or if Scripture condones genocide, a simple yet firm "No, not in any possible world, given the Christian God" right out of the gate is the best answer.

If they are insincere, well then the least we can do is make them earn it ;-)

"Does God / Scripture condone genocide?"

"No. Did you have another question?"

@ scbrownlhrm ; >>"(God as First Cause as opposed to God as the Only Cause) we disagree,"

What I believe is that God is the first cause and all secondary causes fall out logically and automatically over time. Including so called "free choices" that are not really free but caused according to secondary causes under God's control. Nothing exists apart from God being the root cause.

“A man’s heart deviseth his way: But the LORD directeth his steps.” (Proverbs 16:9)

Dave,

That's certainly and interesting (and important) discussion. The word "automatically" sounds quite mechanistic, which is probably one of a few "foci" where we'd disagree.

As for genocide and the Non-Theist challenger:

"No. did you have another question?"


Gotta at least make them earn it. I mean, I'm just saying ;-)


@ :scbrownlhrm >""automatically" sounds quite mechanistic"

How can it be otherwise? The material universe of precise unforgiving cause and effect relationships. Each atom affecting another and so on. All under the control of logic and created physical laws emanating from the split second origin of all things. Forever unchangeable once the horses are out of the shoot - so to speak.

Dave,

Agree. Materialism does define Man and Universe that way.

Dave,

Clarification:

The metaphysical baggage of materialism (naturalism) starts here:

The material universe of precise unforgiving cause and effect..... each atom....

Some naturalists are under the false impression that the fundamental causal nature of reality (whatever "it" "is") where naturalism's metaphysical baggage is concerned is somehow improved by adding in quantum indeterminism.

Reply:

The final reductio ad absurdum which naturalism forces upon us, or, if one prefers, which the bundled content of physicalism / quantum indeterminism forces upon us.

It shows up in various ways.

The end is the same either way.

The interesting segue there consists of "change", "frame of reference", and the "minded observer". It's difficult to expunge either one, and in fact some remark that it all opens the door to possible worlds as but one step away. It seems the trio of Science, Eden, and Revelations all agree. Though, of course, science has no means (unlike Scripture) to (ontologically) condemn genocide in any possible world, as we find to be the case in this particular world. Obviously, given the God of Scripture, we can and do rationally hate genocide in all possible worlds, should any world but this one actually have epistemological room for such a thing.


Dave states:

"Things are just as God would have them to be - or God is not God."

So Dave gets to decide what makes God, God. I don't think so, Dave.

Dave,

I'm just curious, do you think it's even possible for God to create a volitional being (let's call it, say, VLB) and intentionally, by design, set VLB in an actual ontological crossing amid possible worlds? Can God do that and still be God? Even better, can God do that and it also be the (designed) case that VLB, whichever way he goes, shall find all lines in all worlds converging in Christ?

@ Goat Head 5;>""Things are just as God would have them to be - or God is not God."

So Dave gets to decide what makes God, God. I don't think so, Dave.

“And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35)

@SCB;>"I'm just curious, do you think it's even possible for God to create a volitional being (let's call it, say, VLB)"

If you are asking if God can be the cause of something independent of him, No. Because it would require another god for it to exist.

@SCB; >"Agree. Materialism does define Man and Universe that way."

Materialism fails to take God into account because they are not allowed to. They continually guard against the appearance of Intelligent Design.

But some of what they say lines up with scripture. When we look into the doctrine of Predestination, their theory of the Big Bang (God Spoke) and its unfolding logically and precisely through time seems to harmonize with scripture. Only that God intelligently ordained all, spiritual and material, that would emanate from the single creation of time, space, and matter.

Dave,

The volitional God, as the ground of all being, just is the source of VLB's volitional being.

God cannot be the direct cause and constant sustainer of such, and still be God, is that right?

Dave,

Material does not beget the immaterial, the spirit, the soul.

It can't.

So you're not done building Man.

Sorry.

Dave,

On my last two comments:

We're building the Imago Dei.

@ SCB; >"God cannot be the direct cause and constant sustainer of such, and still be God, is that right?"

I'm not sure if I understand your question so I will break it into two answers. One is that the eternal decree is perfect and therefore unchangeable. All things are set in motion as the materialists suggest.

But God supports everything causing the grass to grow, the Sun to shine, everything concerning the universe and life.

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28)

@SCB: >"Material does not beget the immaterial, the spirit, the soul."

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I believe I made it clear that the materialists fall short in spiritual matters. But they have some truth in the way the universe follows logic and natural laws in a predetermined sense.

David,

First,

If you don't see God as the volitional God, free to create or not create, and so on, then we're probably at an impasse.

Secondly,

If you don't see God as the direct cause of all being and the constant sustainer thereof, again the impasse.

1 & 2 explain why you reject the reality of God creating VLB.

Thirdly,

Agree. The immaterial has a nature *too*. We see it in God. In the Imago Dei. Equating the *nature* of covalent bonds to the *nature* of God / the *nature* of the Imago Dei will get one in trouble every time.

Dave,

Sorry, I said "Agree" there and I meant with your most recent post on natural laws.

@SCB; >"If you don't see God as the volitional God, free to create or not create, and so on, then we're probably at an impasse."

I believe God might not have created the universe, but for the sake of manifesting his glory he did.

I believe God created things just as they are because he is absolutely glorious. He manifests his glory against the backdrop of sin. It is there his created order worships him in his perfections. Grace, Mercy, Righteousness, love, wrath, judgement and all of his glorious attributes.

God was complete in himself but in love created those whom he chose to save to enjoy him forever.

Dave,


Half truths don't give us the whole picture. Hence your definitions repeat that pattern. Proof texts are like that too if one isn't careful.

God hates X. But God forces, from the get go, every Man to do every X. Full stop.

That's all you offer to the world.

Half of Scripture.

It's half true, half false, and very unfortunate as it, well, simply fails to tell so, so much of Scripture's metanarrative.

On the volitional being:

You don't seem to see God as the direct cause of all being and the constant sustainer thereof, hence you reject even the possibility of the volitional God creating the volitional being in His Image, as you (unjustifiably) count such a being as existing independently from God.

But you haven't justified that conclusion.

@ SCB: You should re-read my first post in this thread. Maybe it will help clarify my position. A portion follows;

"Nothing happens apart from God, all of the calamities from the time God instituted the New Covenant are no different from the calamities of the old. It is just that now he uses wicked nations to destroy each other. The daily News gives a quick look at what God is doing each and every moment. As I see it, God is far beyond Stephen King's worst nightmares. He actively kills every person ever born at his designated time and manner. And he will again destroy the earth and all living by fire on the last day.

But to those upon whom he shows mercy, he turns death into the gateway to eternal life and happiness in the new Heavens and Earth. Having taken their sins away by pouring out his wrath on his own self in Christ in their place. And then giving them faith and understanding concerning the matter."

Dave,

You're evading.

You should allow your theology to be informed by the entire body of scripture.

You might be surprised.

You were first quite hesitant to state God hates genocide.

Why?

Because it's in the news?

Now you're just as hesitant to answer a straightforward question as to God's ability to instantiate His Own Image as the Root of that Image.

Why?

You don't seem to see the volitional God as the direct cause of all being and the constant sustainer thereof, hence you reject even the possibility of the volitional God creating the volitional being in His Image, as you (unjustifiably) count such a being as existing independently from God.

If one holds that God cannot create a volitional being, a being who can actually choose, and one [A] cannot justify the claim and [2] one is anxious that one's God cannot be God otherwise, well then one's God is too small to subsume the entirety of scripture.

But shouldn't our understanding of God and reality be informed by the whole metanarrative of scripture?

How Big Is God?

Dave,

Another approach:


How big is God?

In how many worlds is God God?

Well, all, yes?

Adding bigness, worlds, to the mix:

Do you think it's even possible for God to create a volitional being (VLB) and intentionally, by design, set VLB in an actual ontological crossing amid possible worlds? Can God do that and still be God? Even bigger: Can said VLB (literally) choose among possible worlds and God still be God? How big *is* God? How wide is Being Itself? Can God *be* God in *all* worlds, both possible and actual? Can VLB escape *God* by volitionally diving into world after world after world? Even bigger: can God do that and it also be the case that VLB, whichever way he goes, shall find all lines in all worlds converging in Christ?

Dave is still contending: ""Things are just as God would have them to be - or God is not God."

And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. Gen 6:6

Hmmm. That doesn't sound like things went just as God would have them go, now does it, Dave.

Once again Dave doesn't get to decide what makes God....God.

"naham"

"Regret" / Genesis 6

This affirms both our volition and the *God* which is affirmed in the comment here time stamped "Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 11, 2016 at 05:30 AM".

As with Pharaoh, so with all of us. Which is good news as it affirms both our volition and God's bigness.


M. Kriedemann comments:


"The Hebrew word translated “repent” in the King James Version is naham, which means “to be sorry, regret” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon). There are many examples in the Bible of God feeling sorrow or changing direction. But these examples of God changing His mind are always in response to the failings of human beings....."

The word naham shows up many times in reference to God and is always a reference to a free action on His end responding to a free act on man's end.

Continuing:

"Jeremiah clearly shows that most prophecy is conditional upon the response of men:

“The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it” (Jeremiah 18:7-10).

These verses plainly reveal that repentance on God’s level, naham, is man-dependent or conduct-dependent. God has created us as free moral agents to choose life or death, and His judgments are frequently dependent on our conduct or obedience to His commands...."

Even further:

We are all Pharaohs. We all, in the light, move our own hearts into and out of alignment with truth. Volitionally. God created such a world. At some point our own choices [A] encounter consequences and ultimately [B] whether we are volitional or not (and we are volitional) we are all in a sense Pharaoh given that we all inherit (whether before death and inside of time, or after death and outside of time makes no difference) that which sums to our first love.

At some point we all face the end of our mutability.

It's called judgement.

Our temporal "I will's" become immutable, just as our temporal "I shan't's" become immutable.

Whether that judgement happens inside of time before death or outside of time after death does not change what it is. Pharaoh is given the fully informed. Literally. For real. Several times. Light. And then choice. He moves his own heart several times. Eventually, though, judgement comes on scene and our mutable hearts inherit immutability. Even that, though, fails to sum to God forcing us to "really want". Rather, it is simply the consummation of whichever one of our loves we have volitionally placed ahead of our other loves. It is Judgement. We are *all* "Pharaohs".

As for worlds, bigness, and God, well, Scripture's God subsumes the whole show.

Can Man hide from God (*God*, not *god*) by diving into world after world after world?

Of course not.

@ GH5; >"“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Genesis 6:6)"

So what is your point? That God didn't know what he was doing and things got away from him?

God has perfect knowledge which means he created with this in view. Including the manner he explained it in ways primitive humans would understand.

If God knows everything, human beings do not have free will. If God does not know everything, he is not God...

@SCB; >"You were first quite hesitant to state God hates genocide."

I'm not quick to answer questions I do not understand. And cautious when I do.

“The LORD hath made all things for himself: Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” (Proverbs 16:4)

Dave,

Let's make it simple then:

Scripture says God hates divorce.

Like in the news.

The reason you struggle to make your ends meet is because you're trying to define everything by employing one half of scripture.

It's a one ended stick.

A one faced coin.

It just can't end well, using tools that do not exist.

Hence your own confessed "difficulty" understanding God hating what's in the daily news.

Or divorce.

Or genocide.

Dave,

All things bring glory to God as all definitions begin and end in Him.

That's half.

There is no world where that can be otherwise.

That's still only half.

Think BIGGER.

Dave,

You'll need to justify your claim wherein you conflate foreknowledge for causation such that volitional causation in "VLB" (from earlier) is expunged.

Your one ended stick may appear to help, but the other end of the stick will be problematic.... given that it, well, exists.

The comments to this entry are closed.