I would say that all mankind gets God’s love but itis more like a goodwill type of love for the unredeemed. The redeemed on the other hand would get a Father/child type of love. If we were to rank priorities of God’s nature then my contention would be that God’s nature puts justice far above Love for his creation this includes Father\child and goodwill. So the question of If God is a loving God why would He send someone to hell becomes a moot point. After all if God loves Justice more than it will take priority.
I liked Pookie’s interpretation of your remarks better ;). I was nodding my head in agreement until you clarified. lol
Do you also believe in Divine punishment w/i our lives on Earth. For example: As Falwell believed Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the “sinners” in N.O.?[/quote]
remember though, I have not completed all my thoughts on it and as I said I think the whole thing is over my head, but I want to see where it leads me. So my descriptions are not as full as I would like them to be. The idea was started by a series I have from RC sproul on Hell.
To you question my answer is yes and no. Do I think the hurricane was the result of God’s punishment? I would say yes, but more to do will the fallen nature of man. Not because God thought I am going to get this city because of x…
Falwell was out there in my opinion. I think his biggest crime was talking in public. I state that because after he died. Larry king tried to get Larry flint, and Al sharpton to talk about what a hate monger he was.
They reply was basically Jerry fallwell never hated anyone, in fact he had more love and compassion than most people.
My take on that Jerry was a horrible public speaker, but probably a really great guy one on one.
now back to your question. You know if God was to punish us in our life time Some of us would make it really easy for him to do. Most of the bad things that happen to me usually are because of a stupid choice I made. So in that instance it becomes a cause and effect type of thing. I would say that based off of how God treated Israel He has alot of long suffering so his intervention is usually after a very long time.
So in summary I would say God does do some direct intervention punishment\correction, but it is after a long period of time. Most of the time though it is just our own stupid fault, and it is easier to blame God.
I feel bad for the people of New Orleans, but in hidsight they lived in a flood zone it was bound to happen.
I doubt this is a very satifying answer, I have to get going so I am short on time. If you need me to clarify let me know, and I will try to rephrase something in a more appropriate way. If anything in the post comes off as harsh, that is not my intention so please overlook it.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote: sigh
What does 2 Timothy 3 tell you?
You’re misunderstanding Holding. He’s not saying that the Bible contains errors, he’s saying that the Proverbs contain truths that don’t apply in every circumstance.
[/quote]
No on more than one occasion I have read holding say that wisdom sayings are just that. They are not infallable. They are gee duh things.
and when did they do that? wasn’t Israel in shambles? I guess Israel wasn’t mocking GOd with the worship of other idols.
Once again you are picking a fight where there is no need to. why continue? you want to keep twisting my intentions to fight over what? I think scripture is divinly inspired.
SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Holding’s point, in so far as he’s on the Biblical side of things, is that the original monographs ONLY were divinely inspired. He would say that these have been transcribed accurately to such a degree that no textual variant leaves confusion about Christian doctrine.
The issue of inerrancy is the watershed of the modern Christian faith, that’s why I think it is important. I think you’re trying to make a point about the genres of Scripture. Actually, I can’t really tell what your point is.
[quote]and when did they do that? wasn’t Israel in shambles? I guess Israel wasn’t mocking GOd with the worship of other idols.
[/quote]
What point are you trying to make here? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
How was I supposed to take this?
I believe all of it, but wise sayings fall out of the pale of Divinly inspired. A historical narritive would not be considered divine it would be considered historical. As I said you could make a case for it but is there truly a need to say history is divinely inspired? Does the whole of the Bible rest on this story being divinely inspired? This piece is a history of the kings. Therefore the important part of it is that it records the history of Israel.
[/quote]
Take it for what it says. History does not have to be considered divinly inspred in the textual sense, but if you wanted to you could make a case for it. Proverbs could be left out of the Bible. WE would miss something but it would not have an impact on the true message of the Bible if it was lost.
Did I talk about inerrancy? So that whole paragraph reply of yours has no point concerning what I said.
[quote]
and when did they do that? wasn’t Israel in shambles? I guess Israel wasn’t mocking GOd with the worship of other idols.
What point are you trying to make here? Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? [/quote]
I am saying you are painting with a broad brush and not answering anything. Your point in response to mine says God quickly deals with those who mock the propeht of God, but at that time the whole land was mocking God. So this is more a piece of history than it was anything else.
Could you learn a spiritual truth from it? Yes, but not the one you tried to claim from the children getting mauled by bears.
Honestly…
"These particular Israelites decided to mock God’s mouthpiece, which is the same thing as mocking God, in His theocracy, which in one sense served as a typological New Heavens and New Earth, where no evil was to be found. So he wiped them out, as He will the rest of the unbelievers at the day of judgment.
So it tells us several things: God is not mocked, He will act sooner or later against those who live in rebellion against Him, and especially against those in the house of God, for judgment begins at the house of God (the Church). It serves as a warning against unbelief and hardening your heart towards God and His Gospel, which is the free gift to all who repent and believe."
This is such a horrible piece of exegessis that I don’t even know where to begin.
The text doesn’t give a reason for why God chose to act, or to allow the bears to attack them. For you to claim a full theology around it is down right irresponsible on your part.
I truly don’t have the time to continue this discussion. Something I stated earlier. So either you will have to accept my word that I believe the text is inspired, or you can continue arguing over something that we mostly agree fully upon.
And since you did state
" Actually, I can’t really tell what your point is. "
I think it is best you ask me to clarify next time rather than spout off your assessment of how wrong I am.
[quote]I am saying you are painting with a broad brush and not answering anything. Your point in response to mine says God quickly deals with those who mock the propeht of God, but at that time the whole land was mocking God. So this is more a piece of history than it was anything else.
Could you learn a spiritual truth from it? Yes, but not the one you tried to claim from the children getting mauled by bears.
Honestly… [/quote]
Didn’t God send a bunch of different peoples into Israel to oppress them when they turned to idolatry in the period of the judges?
[quote]This is such a horrible piece of exegessis that I don’t even know where to begin.
The text doesn’t give a reason for why God chose to act, or to allow the bears to attack them. For you to claim a full theology around it is down right irresponsible on your part.[/quote]
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Perhaps my description is not quite as accurate as I had hoped for. I begin to point it out in an earlier post concerning the doctrine of Hell. In modern times we equate God with good, and Love for mankind. Those tend to be the primary focus. I think it is actually off the mark.
I would say that all mankind gets God’s love but itis more like a goodwill type of love for the unredeemed. The redeemed on the other hand would get a Father/child type of love. If we were to rank priorities of God’s nature then my contention would be that God’s nature puts justice far above Love for his creation this includes Father\child and goodwill. So the question of If God is a loving God why would He send someone to hell becomes a moot point. After all if God loves Justice more than it will take priority.[/quote]
Maybe love and justice don’t have to be seen as separate concepts. I remember reading an interpretation of Hell as being not a physical place of literal fire, but as being “removed,” through your own decision, from God’s presence.
To use your parent/child analogy, it’s as if doing evil - sinning - takes you further and further away from God until you’re so lost that you can’t find your way back. God still loves you as He loves everything; but “justice” has been brought down on you by your own doing.
[quote]How would you know, though, if your understanding is in conflict? Can you ever be sure?
can anyone ever be sure? Some of it is just fun to think about. [/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Perhaps my description is not quite as accurate as I had hoped for. I begin to point it out in an earlier post concerning the doctrine of Hell. In modern times we equate God with good, and Love for mankind. Those tend to be the primary focus. I think it is actually off the mark.
I would say that all mankind gets God’s love but itis more like a goodwill type of love for the unredeemed. The redeemed on the other hand would get a Father/child type of love. If we were to rank priorities of God’s nature then my contention would be that God’s nature puts justice far above Love for his creation this includes Father\child and goodwill. So the question of If God is a loving God why would He send someone to hell becomes a moot point. After all if God loves Justice more than it will take priority.
Maybe love and justice don’t have to be seen as separate concepts. I remember reading an interpretation of Hell as being not a physical place of literal fire, but as being “removed,” through your own decision, from God’s presence.
To use your parent/child analogy, it’s as if doing evil - sinning - takes you further and further away from God until you’re so lost that you can’t find your way back. God still loves you as He loves everything; but “justice” has been brought down on you by your own doing.
How would you know, though, if your understanding is in conflict? Can you ever be sure?
can anyone ever be sure? Some of it is just fun to think about.
Very.
: )
[/quote]
Pookie, you sir, are a deist\theist in Atheist clothing.
As Jesus said
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.
As I move further along with this information gathering I will keep you posted. I am sure we will have a great deal to talk about.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I am saying you are painting with a broad brush and not answering anything. Your point in response to mine says God quickly deals with those who mock the propeht of God, but at that time the whole land was mocking God. So this is more a piece of history than it was anything else.
Could you learn a spiritual truth from it? Yes, but not the one you tried to claim from the children getting mauled by bears.
Honestly…
Didn’t God send a bunch of different peoples into Israel to oppress them when they turned to idolatry in the period of the judges?
This is such a horrible piece of exegessis that I don’t even know where to begin.
The text doesn’t give a reason for why God chose to act, or to allow the bears to attack them. For you to claim a full theology around it is down right irresponsible on your part.
I’m interested in your take, obviously.
I truly don’t have the time to continue this discussion. Something I stated earlier. So either you will have to accept my word that I believe the text is inspired, or you can continue arguing over something that we mostly agree fully upon.
Fair enough. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.[/quote]
To answer your first question. Yes, but the period of the judges can’t be compared to the time of a monarchy. When the kingdom divided the full theocratic society basically crumbled. So while the levitical law set the stage for a theocracy the crowning of a king trumped that.
It is an interesting piece of Bible to say the least, but to draw a full theology around it is impossible. We just don’t know why God struck them down, but let Ahab kill most of the prophets just a few years earlier.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Pookie, you sir, are a deist\theist in Atheist clothing. [/quote]
I’m interested in what is True. If truth ultimately leads to God, I’m fine with that. If it leads to no God, so be it.
I used to claim agnosticism, but that generally got interpreted as “believer who’s temporarily confused…” which gets tiring.
And the mentions of pantheism earlier in the thread got me interested in checking it out again. I’ve been reading ol’ Baruch and there is a lot of interesting thoughts there too.
Fighting to defend a descriptive label is losing sight of the goal.
[quote]As Jesus said
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. [/quote]
I liked Pookie’s interpretation of your remarks better ;). I was nodding my head in agreement until you clarified. lol
Do you also believe in Divine punishment w/i our lives on Earth. For example: As Falwell believed Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to punish the “sinners” in N.O.?
remember though, I have not completed all my thoughts on it and as I said I think the whole thing is over my head, but I want to see where it leads me. So my descriptions are not as full as I would like them to be. The idea was started by a series I have from RC sproul on Hell.
To you question my answer is yes and no. Do I think the hurricane was the result of God’s punishment? I would say yes, but more to do will the fallen nature of man. Not because God thought I am going to get this city because of x…
Falwell was out there in my opinion. I think his biggest crime was talking in public. I state that because after he died. Larry king tried to get Larry flint, and Al sharpton to talk about what a hate monger he was.
They reply was basically Jerry fallwell never hated anyone, in fact he had more love and compassion than most people.
My take on that Jerry was a horrible public speaker, but probably a really great guy one on one.
now back to your question. You know if God was to punish us in our life time Some of us would make it really easy for him to do. Most of the bad things that happen to me usually are because of a stupid choice I made. So in that instance it becomes a cause and effect type of thing. I would say that based off of how God treated Israel He has alot of long suffering so his intervention is usually after a very long time.
So in summary I would say God does do some direct intervention punishment\correction, but it is after a long period of time. Most of the time though it is just our own stupid fault, and it is easier to blame God.
I feel bad for the people of New Orleans, but in hidsight they lived in a flood zone it was bound to happen.
I doubt this is a very satifying answer, I have to get going so I am short on time. If you need me to clarify let me know, and I will try to rephrase something in a more appropriate way. If anything in the post comes off as harsh, that is not my intention so please overlook it.
[/quote]
It is a very thoughtful and honest answer. Not harsh at all. Thank you for taking the time to humor me.
As far a my own thoughts go…I too don’t claim to know. I just think it is an interesting question and I think I can tell a lot about people by their answers…
Generally, I think people’s religious beliefs and interpretations of holy texts are reflections of their own character. People who continuously talk about sin and punishment are spiritual sadists.
I believe the Bible and Christ’s teachings are more about this life we have been given and not the next. The next life will be what it will be and we won’t know what that is until we get there (assuming there is one.) It is an affront of our current life to obsess about the next. Our duty to the Divine is to make every attempt the become the person we ought to be in this life.
If I have a belief about the next life, it is that we will be able to see our past errors and fullfil our full potential. We will learn to self-actualize. In so doing, we will see our wasted potential in our past life. That is my concept of heaven and hell. Right or Wrong.
As far as my original question to you:
I don’t want to put limits on what a Divine being will and will not do but I don’t agree with Falwell. I think we live in a world with certain natural laws. Hurricans, flood plains, etc are simply that.
Do I think God intervenes in our lives. Yes, but not by sending hurricanes that kill children and good people along with the rest of his “target”. I think God would be more of a sniper, not some maniac blasting a sawed off shot-gun into a crowd in the dark of night.
But again, I don’t know for certain and I’m okay with that.
I more agree with what you say about how most of the “bad” stuff that happens in my life occurs because of my own poor decisions. That’s something I need to continuously work on.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I am saying you are painting with a broad brush and not answering anything. Your point in response to mine says God quickly deals with those who mock the propeht of God, but at that time the whole land was mocking God. So this is more a piece of history than it was anything else.
Could you learn a spiritual truth from it? Yes, but not the one you tried to claim from the children getting mauled by bears.
Honestly…
Didn’t God send a bunch of different peoples into Israel to oppress them when they turned to idolatry in the period of the judges?
This is such a horrible piece of exegessis that I don’t even know where to begin.
The text doesn’t give a reason for why God chose to act, or to allow the bears to attack them. For you to claim a full theology around it is down right irresponsible on your part.
I’m interested in your take, obviously.
I truly don’t have the time to continue this discussion. Something I stated earlier. So either you will have to accept my word that I believe the text is inspired, or you can continue arguing over something that we mostly agree fully upon.
Fair enough. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
To answer your first question. Yes, but the period of the judges can’t be compared to the time of a monarchy. When the kingdom divided the full theocratic society basically crumbled. So while the levitical law set the stage for a theocracy the crowning of a king trumped that.
It is an interesting piece of Bible to say the least, but to draw a full theology around it is impossible. We just don’t know why God struck them down, but let Ahab kill most of the prophets just a few years earlier.
[/quote]
It was Rehoboam who split the kingdom, after the monarchy had been going for awhile.
I can’t find any evidence from Scripture that the monarchy caused the Sinai covenant to become void. 1 Samuel 8:7 says,
God gave them a king to reign over Israel as His visible proxy, rather than ruling over them directly as before.
The text of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 reads as follow:
[quote]8 "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. 9 I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. 10 And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders [a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" ‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ "[/quote]
V 14 indicates that God will punish the king (Solomon) visibly when he disobeys. Later on in V 24, David responds:
So it doesn’t seem that David believed the Sinai covenant became null with the establishment of his royal line. Several times in the monarchy, YHWH brings a lawsuit against Israel through various prophets in reference to the Sinai covenant. Some examples are:
The entire book of Hosea
Isaiah 1:2 and 21
Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the 6th century BC, after the monarchy had been going for about 500 years.
I can’t see a reason to believe that YHWH nullified the covenant at Sinai after his institution of the monarchy.
“The foregoing generations beheld God face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have . . . a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past?” [RWE-Nature]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
haney1 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I am saying you are painting with a broad brush and not answering anything. Your point in response to mine says God quickly deals with those who mock the propeht of God, but at that time the whole land was mocking God. So this is more a piece of history than it was anything else.
Could you learn a spiritual truth from it? Yes, but not the one you tried to claim from the children getting mauled by bears.
Honestly…
Didn’t God send a bunch of different peoples into Israel to oppress them when they turned to idolatry in the period of the judges?
This is such a horrible piece of exegessis that I don’t even know where to begin.
The text doesn’t give a reason for why God chose to act, or to allow the bears to attack them. For you to claim a full theology around it is down right irresponsible on your part.
I’m interested in your take, obviously.
I truly don’t have the time to continue this discussion. Something I stated earlier. So either you will have to accept my word that I believe the text is inspired, or you can continue arguing over something that we mostly agree fully upon.
Fair enough. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
To answer your first question. Yes, but the period of the judges can’t be compared to the time of a monarchy. When the kingdom divided the full theocratic society basically crumbled. So while the levitical law set the stage for a theocracy the crowning of a king trumped that.
It is an interesting piece of Bible to say the least, but to draw a full theology around it is impossible. We just don’t know why God struck them down, but let Ahab kill most of the prophets just a few years earlier.
It was Rehoboam who split the kingdom, after the monarchy had been going for awhile.
I can’t find any evidence from Scripture that the monarchy caused the Sinai covenant to become void. 1 Samuel 8:7 says,
And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
God gave them a king to reign over Israel as His visible proxy, rather than ruling over them directly as before.
The text of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 reads as follow:
8 "Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. 9 I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. 10 And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders [a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" ‘The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’ "
V 14 indicates that God will punish the king (Solomon) visibly when he disobeys. Later on in V 24, David responds:
24 You have established your people Israel as your very own forever, and you, O LORD, have become their God.
So it doesn’t seem that David believed the Sinai covenant became null with the establishment of his royal line. Several times in the monarchy, YHWH brings a lawsuit against Israel through various prophets in reference to the Sinai covenant. Some examples are:
The entire book of Hosea
Isaiah 1:2 and 21
Jeremiah and Ezekiel in the 6th century BC, after the monarchy had been going for about 500 years.
I can’t see a reason to believe that YHWH nullified the covenant at Sinai after his institution of the monarchy.
Meredith Kline is a very good read on this subject.[/quote]
You tend to be all over the map from what I am reading.
I never said it nullified a covenant.
You brought up the theocratic society
You brought up the time of the judges which would have been a theocratic society. IE God is the ruler by using aprophet as his proxy.
A monarchy would no longer be Ruled by God so you can’t compare them. Monarchy and theocracy not intertwined. It is individual based (see my defintion below on theocracy)
You didn’t answer why what those boys did was worse than Ahab killing the prophets. Which is part of my problem with your exegessis.
The covenant was fulfilled in full with Christ.
So with those point in mind. It was no longer a theocracy. Unless you are defining a theocracy differently than the dictionary
government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.
So while we can say some were divinly guided IE David, and a few misc others. Most of the history of the Kings can be ruled out as divinly guided, and was not adhering to Godly laws.
Now that doesn’t mean God let them out of the deal, It just means I am being literal when it comes to the term theocracy.
[quote]new2training wrote:
It is a very thoughtful and honest answer. Not harsh at all. Thank you for taking the time to humor me.
[/quote]
Thanks.
Interest. Jonathan Edwards in modern day is considered a sadist because of his constant talk about Hell in his message. Although I think that is a bit of an overstatement on our part. If you read a lot of his writings it is very evident that He considered Hell to be such an aweful place that he went out of his way to describe it. From what I can tell he genuinely wouldn’t wish that on any one.
However this is a much different time and I truly see your point that many Christians today can’t wait until they are vindicated of all these “sinners”.
One thing is for sure from Christ’s teachings…
Next to loving God we are suppossed to love our fellow man.
Something that alot of Christians are quick to over look.
I have heard that description as a personal hell of sorts being able to see what you wasted… Certainly makes you want to live a life of purpose.
I would say we are in agreement on this issue.
I wish you peace as well. Till the next deep theological Thread comes up have a good one.
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Pookie, you sir, are a deist\theist in Atheist clothing.
I’m interested in what is True. If truth ultimately leads to God, I’m fine with that. If it leads to no God, so be it.
[/quote]
We both have the same objective, but we come at it from different angles. Sometimes conversations with you are just spookie.
I could see how that would get old real quick.
have not looked at that one yet, but I will plan on checking it out.
I think you are more open than you give yourself credit for. Although I think it would be a very long time before you would ever be considered Orthodox.
[quote]
As I move further along with this information gathering I will keep you posted. I am sure we will have a great deal to talk about.
Their still ruled by God, through through a vassal king. The king of Israel was a vassal king of YHWH. Why bring did the prophets during the monarchy bring a covenant lawsuit against Israel on several different occasions? The Sinai covenant was still in effect, which was a theocracy.
The period of Ahab was marked by God’s judgment:
Chapter 18:
Here’s how YHWH dealt with the prophets of Baal whom Jezebel introduced:
Later on in chapter 21, Elijah says to Ahab:
[quote]20 Ahab said to Elijah, “So you have found me, my enemy!”
“I have found you,” he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. 21 ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel�??slave or free. 22 I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.’[/quote]
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Ahab:
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Jezebel, who killed His prophets:
{0 Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window. 31 As Jehu entered the gate, she asked, “Have you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?” [d]
So God acted, He just did it when he felt like it. He also didn’t use bears this time around.
I think we should accept the definition in Deuteronomy, however all of the kings received word from God through the prophets, so I think it even fits your definition.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
4. A monarchy would no longer be Ruled by God so you can’t compare them. Monarchy and theocracy not intertwined. It is individual based (see my defintion below on theocracy)
Their still ruled by God, through through a vassal king. The king of Israel was a vassal king of YHWH. Why bring did the prophets during the monarchy bring a covenant lawsuit against Israel on several different occasions? The Sinai covenant was still in effect, which was a theocracy.
The period of Ahab was marked by God’s judgment:
1 Kings 17:1 Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.”
Chapter 18:
Now the famine was severe in Samaria, 3 and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, who was in charge of his palace. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the LORD.
Here’s how YHWH dealt with the prophets of Baal whom Jezebel introduced:
40 Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Later on in chapter 21, Elijah says to Ahab:
20 Ahab said to Elijah, “So you have found me, my enemy!”
“I have found you,” he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. 21 ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel�??slave or free. 22 I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.’
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Ahab:
34 But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” 35 All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. 36 As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town; everyone to his land!”
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Jezebel, who killed His prophets:
{0 Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window. 31 As Jehu entered the gate, she asked, “Have you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?” [d]
2 Kings 9: 32 He looked up at the window and called out, “Who is on my side? Who?” Two or three eunuchs looked down at him. 33 “Throw her down!” Jehu said. So they threw her down, and some of her blood spattered the wall and the horses as they trampled her underfoot.
So God acted, He just did it when he felt like it. He also didn’t use bears this time around.
So with those point in mind. It was no longer a theocracy. Unless you are defining a theocracy differently than the dictionary
I think we should accept the definition in Deuteronomy, however all of the kings received word from God through the prophets, so I think it even fits your definition.
[/quote]
I love how you quote scripture at me as if I didn’t know it… truly priceless.
As for the rest of it. God even said when they asked for a king they were rejecting Him. How else do you interpret that? IE the people said we don’t want to be a theocracy anymore. Saying God acted through the evil kings is the same as saying God works through all government. It is a no duh Biblical concept, but we don’t consider all governements a theocracy. Unless you are now arguing that God did put the people in government through out the ages and that counts as a theocracy…
I detect either a double standard in your wording, or you are questioning the Soverignty of God
As for the rest your whole idea was that God dealing with the Children through the bears was this huge eschatological discourse when the simple answer was I don’t know. God does things when He chooses to. What,
you couldn’t find the verse in Romans 9 to back that position up? If you would have just said that then this last half of the conversation could have been avoided.
I wish I could say it was overly fruitful for me, but honestly we are arguing over the definition of a theocratic society. What could be gained from that?
Simple answer of why God chose to act. We don’t know.
Why take the long way around to get to the easy answer?
We don’t know why God was long suffering with Ahab anymore than we know why bears came and attacked kids after Elisha cursed them.
To claim that you can Biblically know the reason for His actions in some of those situations is to contradict scripture itself. After all God’s way are higher than ours.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m interested in what is True. If truth ultimately leads to God, I’m fine with that. If it leads to no God, so be it.
I used to claim agnosticism, but that generally got interpreted as “believer who’s temporarily confused…” which gets tiring.
And the mentions of pantheism earlier in the thread got me interested in checking it out again. I’ve been reading ol’ Baruch and there is a lot of interesting thoughts there too.
[/quote]
Well, Pook ol’ buddy, just for you, the Scientific Pantheist’s Prayer.
Our Father who art within us,
Myriad be thy names,
Thy theories be one, thy laws be done
On Earth and indeed in the Heavens.
Give us this day, our daily macronutrients,
And forgive us our illogic,
As we forgive those who use illogic against us.
And lead us not into false conclusions,
But deliver us from superstition,
For ours is the Kingdom, and the Phylum,
And the Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species,
Forever, or until we are edged off of our evolutionary high horse,
Amen.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
4. A monarchy would no longer be Ruled by God so you can’t compare them. Monarchy and theocracy not intertwined. It is individual based (see my defintion below on theocracy)
Their still ruled by God, through through a vassal king. The king of Israel was a vassal king of YHWH. Why bring did the prophets during the monarchy bring a covenant lawsuit against Israel on several different occasions? The Sinai covenant was still in effect, which was a theocracy.
The period of Ahab was marked by God’s judgment:
1 Kings 17:1 Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain in the next few years except at my word.”
Chapter 18:
Now the famine was severe in Samaria, 3 and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, who was in charge of his palace. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the LORD.
Here’s how YHWH dealt with the prophets of Baal whom Jezebel introduced:
40 Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.
Later on in chapter 21, Elijah says to Ahab:
20 Ahab said to Elijah, “So you have found me, my enemy!”
“I have found you,” he answered, "because you have sold yourself to do evil in the eyes of the LORD. 21 ‘I am going to bring disaster on you. I will consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel�??slave or free. 22 I will make your house like that of Jeroboam son of Nebat and that of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.’
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Ahab:
34 But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel between the sections of his armor. The king told his chariot driver, “Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I’ve been wounded.” 35 All day long the battle raged, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Arameans. The blood from his wound ran onto the floor of the chariot, and that evening he died. 36 As the sun was setting, a cry spread through the army: “Every man to his town; everyone to his land!”
Here’s how God eventually dealt with Jezebel, who killed His prophets:
{0 Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window. 31 As Jehu entered the gate, she asked, “Have you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?” [d]
2 Kings 9: 32 He looked up at the window and called out, “Who is on my side? Who?” Two or three eunuchs looked down at him. 33 “Throw her down!” Jehu said. So they threw her down, and some of her blood spattered the wall and the horses as they trampled her underfoot.
So God acted, He just did it when he felt like it. He also didn’t use bears this time around.
So with those point in mind. It was no longer a theocracy. Unless you are defining a theocracy differently than the dictionary
I think we should accept the definition in Deuteronomy, however all of the kings received word from God through the prophets, so I think it even fits your definition.
I love how you quote scripture at me as if I didn’t know it… truly priceless.
As for the rest of it. God even said when they asked for a king they were rejecting Him. How else do you interpret that? IE the people said we don’t want to be a theocracy anymore. Saying God acted through the evil kings is the same as saying God works through all government. It is a no duh Biblical concept, but we don’t consider all governements a theocracy. Unless you are now arguing that God did put the people in government through out the ages and that counts as a theocracy…
I detect either a double standard in your wording, or you are questioning the Soverignty of God
As for the rest your whole idea was that God dealing with the Children through the bears was this huge eschatological discourse when the simple answer was I don’t know. God does things when He chooses to. What,
you couldn’t find the verse in Romans 9 to back that position up? If you would have just said that then this last half of the conversation could have been avoided.
I wish I could say it was overly fruitful for me, but honestly we are arguing over the definition of a theocratic society. What could be gained from that?
Simple answer of why God chose to act. We don’t know.
Why take the long way around to get to the easy answer?
We don’t know why God was long suffering with Ahab anymore than we know why bears came and attacked kids after Elisha cursed them.
To claim that you can Biblically know the reason for His actions in some of those situations is to contradict scripture itself. After all God’s way are higher than ours.
[/quote]
So why did God bother sending prophets in to rebuke Israel if Israel was just another government? Why the covenant lawsuits? If the covenant was cancelled, why bother? God never stated he canceled the covenant because Israel asked for a visible king. Rather, he is continuing the covenant with David’s line ruling.
God acted just the way he said he was going to act when dealing with his people under the Sinai covenant, which are spelled out in Deut. 27:1 - 30:20. The sanctions for disobedience are there, and God acted accordingly when dealing with the various people we’ve discussed. I’m not making things up when I’m simply interpreting events in light of what Scripture itself says about Israel and especially Deuteronomy 28:15-68. How does one understand the various exiles Israel underwent aside from this?
If we’re not allowed to read about God’s actions in Israel in light of the covenant He Himself made with Israel, then of course we cannot understand them.
Quoting Romans 9 doesn’t help your case, because the New covenant Mediator fulfilled the Old, the latter being the promises to Abraham, Israel, and David, and abolishing the Law - meaning the treaty at Sinai.