LaDodger and Civic debate on Gods nature in theology

[civic]

After this opening post @Ladodgers6 and I will agree on Gods innate attributes. Once we agree we will discuss theology and see if our theology lines up with Gods nature and character .

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy and Good are primary ones. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.

The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.

 

[civic]

You came here demanding a debate . I created the thread at your request then you disappeared. @Ladodgers6

 

[civic]

Looks like he backed out of the debate. The challenge was just a bluff and there was never any intention of an actual debate. This happened on the old forum too with the person and he left the debate on the Trinity forum.

Update : I will not be entertaining anyone coming from the other forum from here on out. Just an FYI to the members here. This goes for @forhorn @duncan on our old forum same soc account/ person as @carbon with the identical IP address who also sends people over here from his forum to stir up trouble , recruit members and slander me. I have blocked them in social media and my phone and will have no further contact with them. Their old forum where they all left caught wind of this behavior and stopped the PM and we did as well prevent this unwelcome behavior .

They have been spamming our forum which is why the PM system has been deactivated.

 

[atpollard]

We agreed to it at first then all the dissension came after . We were supportive of each others forum until they read my posts against tulip . I’ve been against that for a few years now that’s not changing anytime soon. That’s like me demanding they don’t speak out against Arminian beliefs .

Also I was told by the sites owner I could not talk about PSA on their forum . Controlling .

Hmmmmm

AARGGH ... this no PM is frustrating.
This is not a conversation we can have in public. E-mail me if you have access. Let's save it for a better venue if you don't. (I have LOTS of opinions on that and even a little information.)

 

[civic]

Ok I’ll request your email from the administrator.

 

[atpollard]

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

It seems a shame to waste a good "Debate", but I am not sure that our views are different enough to generate a true debate. A Formal Debate" typically begins with an agreed upon PREMISE that one side attempts to support as the other side strives to refute in a "point-counterpoint" exchange of a fixed number of rounds. Absent that, let me offer this as a PSEUDO-COUNTERPOINT to the above POINT:

*****

I agree with my esteemed opponent that all of God's attributes must and do work in harmony. I would go even further and state that not only are they "not in opposition", but that each and every attribute of God defines, reinforces and compliments each and every other attribute of God.
Where my opponent drifts into error, in my opinion, is when he attempts to elevate one attribute [LOVE in this case] above all other attributes. God is an OMNI being … EVERYTHING and ALL THE TIME. To be otherwise is to posit that God is mutable (changing) which negates the possibility of God being PERFECT. If God changes even one IOTA, then he either becomes MORE PERFECT (indicating that God was not completely perfect before) or LESS PERFECT (the problem with a slightly imperfect God is self-evident). So, God cannot change.

• God is LOVE, so His love is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is HOLY, so His holiness is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is GOOD, so His goodness is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is JUST, so His justice is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is ANGRY (towards sin), so His anger (towards sin) burns 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is MERCY, so His mercy is 100% and 100% of the time.

Thus no “attribute” can be filtered through some other attribute, or it is not a primary attribute of God. God’s LOVE is expressed through His HOLINESS and GOODNESS and JUSTICE and ANGER and MERCY. God’s HOLINESS is seen through and in and fully compatible with His LOVE and GOODNESS and JUSTICE and ANGER and MERCY. And so on for each and every quality of God …

To allow sin into heaven to destroy His Children is not an act of LOVE, so God’s ANGER and JUSTICE in damning souls is an expression of His love … His PERFECT LOVE (which is not like our very imperfect love).​

When Adam fell, we (all human beings) lost the ability to “see” and “understand” as God does. I do not mean PERFECTLY (we are finite and incapable of comprehending God’s infinite) but, rather, we are hobbled with eyes that cannot see clearly and ears that cannot hear clearly. To LOVE those that are hurting you will never “make sense” to the “human mind”, so our UNDERSTANDING is impaired.

It is only through Christ that we can even GLIMPSE the mind of God, where EVERYTHING and ALL THE TIME fits together perfectly. Until then, we can TRUST that God is:

• LOVE and HOLY and GOOD and JUST and ANGRY and MERCY … all at the same time.

And we can accept that because HE LOVES US and We TRUST Him. (What is the alternative?)

 

[civic]

AARGGH ... this no PM is frustrating.
This is not a conversation we can have in public. E-mail me if you have access. Let's save it for a better venue if you don't. (I have LOTS of opinions on that and even a little information.)

I emailed you from AOL.

 

[civic]

It seems a shame to waste a good "Debate", but I am not sure that our views are different enough to generate a true debate. A Formal Debate" typically begins with an agreed upon PREMISE that one side attempts to support as the other side strives to refute in a "point-counterpoint" exchange of a fixed number of rounds. Absent that, let me offer this as a PSEUDO-COUNTERPOINT to the above POINT:

*****

I agree with my esteemed opponent that all of God's attributes must and do work in harmony. I would go even further and state that not only are they "not in opposition", but that each and every attribute of God defines, reinforces and compliments each and every other attribute of God.
Where my opponent drifts into error, in my opinion, is when he attempts to elevate one attribute [LOVE in this case] above all other attributes. God is an OMNI being … EVERYTHING and ALL THE TIME. To be otherwise is to posit that God is mutable (changing) which negates the possibility of God being PERFECT. If God changes even one IOTA, then he either becomes MORE PERFECT (indicating that God was not completely perfect before) or LESS PERFECT (the problem with a slightly imperfect God is self-evident). So, God cannot change.

• God is LOVE, so His love is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is HOLY, so His holiness is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is GOOD, so His goodness is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is JUST, so His justice is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is ANGRY (towards sin), so His anger (towards sin) burns 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is MERCY, so His mercy is 100% and 100% of the time.

Thus no “attribute” can be filtered through some other attribute, or it is not a primary attribute of God. God’s LOVE is expressed through His HOLINESS and GOODNESS and JUSTICE and ANGER and MERCY. God’s HOLINESS is seen through and in and fully compatible with His LOVE and GOODNESS and JUSTICE and ANGER and MERCY. And so on for each and every quality of God …

To allow sin into heaven to destroy His Children is not an act of LOVE, so God’s ANGER and JUSTICE in damning souls is an expression of His love … His PERFECT LOVE (which is not like our very imperfect love).​

When Adam fell, we (all human beings) lost the ability to “see” and “understand” as God does. I do not mean PERFECTLY (we are finite and incapable of comprehending God’s infinite) but, rather, we are hobbled with eyes that cannot see clearly and ears that cannot hear clearly. To LOVE those that are hurting you will never “make sense” to the “human mind”, so our UNDERSTANDING is impaired.

It is only through Christ that we can even GLIMPSE the mind of God, where EVERYTHING and ALL THE TIME fits together perfectly. Until then, we can TRUST that God is:

• LOVE and HOLY and GOOD and JUST and ANGRY and MERCY … all at the same time.

And we can accept that because HE LOVES US and We TRUST Him. (What is the alternative?)

I pretty much say the same thing in my paper here so I’m not really your opponent, we are on the same page brother .

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

 

[Administrator]

Can you at least appreciate the IRONY since it was a PM from you that "invited" me to the old "Berean-Apologetics" forum (without which I might never have discovered it or the move to a new forum).

Clearly, "stir[ring] up trouble" is a clear RULE VIOLATION (and bad manners), but "recruit[ing]" doesn't actually seem forbidden in the posted RULES.
Griping in private, however, has a long tradition in every culture. Look at the short trip from Egypt to the Promised Land.

See rule number 2. no soliciting of any kind.

 

[atpollard]

See rule number 2. no soliciting of any kind.

You should edit that to clarify, most people think of commercial advertising.


SOLICIT (transitive verb)
1a: to make petition to : entreat
1b: to approach with a request or plea

• solicited Congress for funding

2: to urge (something, such as one's cause) strongly
3a: to entice or lure especially into evil
3b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute
4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas

• solicited donations

 

[e v e]

It seems a shame to waste a good "Debate", but I am not sure that our views are different enough to generate a true debate. A Formal Debate" typically begins with an agreed upon PREMISE that one side attempts to support as the other side strives to refute in a "point-counterpoint" exchange of a fixed number of rounds. Absent that, let me offer this as a PSEUDO-COUNTERPOINT to the above POINT:

*****

I agree with my esteemed opponent that all of God's attributes must and do work in harmony. I would go even further and state that not only are they "not in opposition", but that each and every attribute of God defines, reinforces and compliments each and every other attribute of God.
Where my opponent drifts into error, in my opinion, is when he attempts to elevate one attribute [LOVE in this case] above all other attributes. God is an OMNI being … EVERYTHING and ALL THE TIME. To be otherwise is to posit that God is mutable (changing) which negates the possibility of God being PERFECT. If God changes even one IOTA, then he either becomes MORE PERFECT (indicating that God was not completely perfect before) or LESS PERFECT (the problem with a slightly imperfect God is self-evident). So, God cannot change.

• God is LOVE, so His love is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is HOLY, so His holiness is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is GOOD, so His goodness is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is JUST, so His justice is 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is ANGRY (towards sin), so His anger (towards sin) burns 100% and 100% of the time.
• God is MERCY, so His mercy is 100% and 100% of the time.

Thus no “attribute” can be filtered through some other attribute, or it is not a primary attribute of God. God’s LOVE is expressed through His HOLINESS and GOODNESS and JUSTICE and ANGER and MERCY. God’s HOLINESS is seen through and in and fully compatible with His LOVE and GOODNESS and JUSTICE and ANGER and MERCY. And so on for each and every quality of God …

To allow sin into heaven to destroy His Children is not an act of LOVE, so God’s ANGER and JUSTICE in damning souls is an expression of His love … His PERFECT LOVE (which is not like our very imperfect love).​

I would say the anger and justice is against the evil realm who caused all this.

When Adam fell, we (all human beings) lost the ability to “see” and “understand” as God does. I do not mean PERFECTLY (we are finite and incapable of comprehending God’s infinite) but, rather, we are hobbled with eyes that cannot see clearly and ears that cannot hear clearly. To LOVE those that are hurting you will never “make sense” to the “human mind”, so our UNDERSTANDING is impaired.

It is only through Christ that we can even GLIMPSE the mind of God, where EVERYTHING and ALL THE TIME fits together perfectly. Until then, we can TRUST that God is:

• LOVE and HOLY and GOOD and JUST and ANGRY and MERCY … all at the same time.

And we can accept that because HE LOVES US and We TRUST Him. (What is the alternative?)

lovely

 

[Arial]

Can you at least appreciate the IRONY since it was a PM from you that "invited" me to the old "Berean-Apologetics" forum (without which I might never have discovered it or the move to a new forum).

Edit

 

[Arial]

We agreed to it at first then all the dissension came after . We were supportive of each others forum until they read my posts against tulip . I’ve been against that for a few years now that’s not changing anytime soon. That’s like me demanding they don’t speak out against Arminian beliefs .

Also I was told by the sites owner I could not talk about PSA on their forum . Controlling .

Hmmmmm

No to start a fight. But aren't you being extremely controlling right now?

 

[Administrator]

You should edit that to clarify, most people think of commercial advertising.


SOLICIT (transitive verb)
1a: to make petition to : entreat
1b: to approach with a request or plea

• solicited Congress for funding

2: to urge (something, such as one's cause) strongly
3a: to entice or lure especially into evil
3b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute
4: to try to obtain by usually urgent requests or pleas

• solicited donations

According to the above definition we should be good.

 

[Arial]

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.

You are setting this portion of you defining God from a position that does not exist. That being, that anyone claims, or any theology claims, that there is a separation between God's sovereignty and His moral standards. No doctrine says that His acts of sovereignty trump your definition of His love. You have God divided into primary attributes and secondary attributes which when one considers God is an impossibility.He has no secondary attributes. They are all equal all active all the time. So before the debate even begins, you have presented an impossibility on which to base the debate.

The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

And then you continue establishing as the debate premise other things that are not facts or truth but personal opinion. Calvinism in double predestination or otherwise does not say that God damns everyone without a reason simply because in His sovereignty He can. It is a laughable statement. And to say that God values His love more than all His attributes, suggesting that even His sovereignty would bow to love (and your idea of love, for it is not defined). The fact is that many people will go to hell.

Here are a few examples that would surely not fit your idea of love. All the times God sent Israel into other nations with instructions to kill every men of a certain age and take the rest captive and take all the wealth. On at least one occasion the command was to kill everyone.

He sent the king of Assyria to destroy the northern kingdom and sent His people into captivity as judgement.

He sent Babylon to destroy the temple and send Judah into captivity.

He brought famines. What about what He did to Egypt?

He sent His Son to the cross and it is called love.

So if we want to get a truthful theology we must find out why God does those thing and why without violating one iota of any of His character. Instead of just acting like they aren't there. Then we can start putting the whole Bible together and dismiss many of these false doctrines that plague Christ's church. And there can be no fruitful legitimate debate if the starting premise is based entirely on one parties pretty cockeyed view of God. It will just be another Calvin/Arminius quarrel.

 

[civic]

No to start a fight. But aren't you being extremely controlling right now?

No I don’t ban anyone or edit their posts

 

[Arial]

No I don’t ban anyone or edit their posts

You just won't allow them in and shut down all pm's. And you also already knew Ladogger was gone when you started the debate and according to you couldn't get back in if he wanted to. So why did you start it with him? He is blocked and so is foghorn and I don't know who else. You said but I don't remember.

 

[civic]

You just won't allow them in and shut down all pm's. And you also already knew Ladogger was gone when you started the debate and according to you couldn't get back in if he wanted to. So why did you start it with him? He is blocked and so is foghorn and I don't know who else. You said but I don't remember.

No you have no idea what’s going on in fact carbon snd I were just talking this afternoon offline . We are friends . He is also Duncan, Foghorn, Darby and Carbon with several soc accounts( and tester his newest soc ) with the same I.P. Anyone on any forum gets banned for soc accounts.

FYI- they shut down their PM's as well. You as a moderator over their is the pot calling the kettle black.

And LA was still active when I started the debate at 10am in the thread and he was online here late that evening. He left and I didn’t ban anyone . I’m not an administrator nor moderator.

Carbon said this to me today :

“ I do not want to argue with you. We are both right and we are both wrong. We are right in having a desire to share what we believe in the truth. And we both, for a few reasons go about it the wrong way.
I believe you and I are very much alike. But one big difference is I’m better looking than you. But you can’t help that.

“ You know, even after all this nonsense. I still like you. Must be the brotherly love scripture teaches, even though you’re a little funny looking. “

 

[civic]

You just won't allow them in and shut down all pm's. And you also already knew Ladogger was gone when you started the debate and according to you couldn't get back in if he wanted to. So why did you start it with him? He is blocked and so is foghorn and I don't know who else. You said but I don't remember.

And just so you know I’m done discussing them with you . The 3 of us have each others cell phone numbers and we communicate offline from our forums. Carbon is foghorn and Darby among several other soc accounts under the same IP.