Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Dake and Divine Attributes

[patrissimo]

"If Dake does not interpret Scriptures, then why did he give a method for interpreting scripture? (I believe that is lesson #3 from God's Plan for Man) Sorry for the question, but telling others how to do what he doesn't do is nonsensical."

Grandfather brought this up earlier and I decided to read the section in GPFM. I found something interesting and what appears to be a contradiction. Lesson Three in GPFM lists 12 classes of people who contend that the bible is hard to understand. He lists in the 8th class "Those who are unstable and unlearned and wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16)" The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand. Dake admits this in note j. on 2nd Peter 3:16 in the DARB. It says, "The things Peter refers to are not listed, so it cannot be known what he would consider hard to understand." This is a clear contradiction. It is also relevant to the discussion concerning Divine Attributes since Dake bases his theology proper on his literal-whenever-possible hermeneutic.

[bibleman]

It is easy to disagree, but what is impossible is to go to the Scriptures, read them, believe them.... and still disagree!

9. Omniscience (all-knowing) as far as His nature, plan, and work are concerned (Rom. 11:33).

As to free moral agents, God learns certain things about them (Gen. 6:5-7; 11:5-7; 18:21; 22:12; 2Chr. 16:9; Job 12:22; 24:23; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10; Ezek. 11:5; Zech. 4:10; 2Cor. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:27; 1Th. 2:4).

God sends messengers on innumerable errands to help Him carry on His rulership of all things (Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Mt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14).

He permits free moral agents freedom of action as to their conduct and destiny (note, Rom. 8:29).

Finis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1997), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Psalm 14".

Here is one example that cannot be reconciled with the theological opinions that men give concerning the omniscience and omnipresence of God.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Not if one does not accept Dake's methodology for interpreting scriptures.

Dake does not interpret Scriptures.

But that being said where in Genesis 18:21 do you find the liberal modern day understanding of the omniscience and omnipresence of God?

In my experience, I have found that modern liberals tend to deny what they call "Classical theism" which includes the traditional understanding of the Divine Attributes. While they may not have Dake's materialist ontology, they still deny the traditional attributes such as Simplicity, Eternity, etc. They're just more idealist versions of Dake.

Well really to talk about Dake's view of God as "materialist ontology" would not be the correct way to describe it.

Yes Dake did speak of God as having a spirit body that was material. BUT always with the inclusion of the spiritual nature. NOT just a material body as humans have. Something that does have substance and materiality but spiritual in nature, that is just as real as human bodies but greater than just a material body.

"Spirit-beings can and do have real, material, and tangible spirit-form, shape and size, with bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties. Their material bodies are of a spiritual substance and are just as real as human bodies."

Even human bodies after the resurrection will be able to go through material substances, as did Jesus after His resurrection. He had a flesh and bone body (Lk. 24:39), yet in its changed, spiritualized, glorified state, Jesus could transform his body from one form to another at will. He could appear and disappear, go through material substances (including closed doors), be visible and invisible (Lk. 24:16, 31, 34, 36-45; Mk. 16:12-14; Jn. 20:14-18). If this is true of glorified human beings, then it can be seen how God, angels, and other spirit-beings can have bodies of material spiritual substance that are just as real as glorified human bodies that are spiritualized."
Finis J. Dake, God's Plan for Man, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 2004), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 56.

So the idea is that God does have a material body BUT NOT a material body as humans have and not a material body without the understanding of it being a material body of spiritual substance.

[bibleman]

"If Dake does not interpret Scriptures, then why did he give a method for interpreting scripture? (I believe that is lesson #3 from God's Plan for Man) Sorry for the question, but telling others how to do what he doesn't do is nonsensical."

Grandfather brought this up earlier and I decided to read the section in GPFM. I found something interesting and what appears to be a contradiction. Lesson Three in GPFM lists 12 classes of people who contend that the bible is hard to understand. He lists in the 8th class "Those who are unstable and unlearned and wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16)" The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand. Dake admits this in note j. on 2nd Peter 3:16 in the DARB. It says, "The things Peter refers to are not listed, so it cannot be known what he would consider hard to understand." This is a clear contradiction. It is also relevant to the discussion concerning Divine Attributes since Dake bases his theology proper on his literal-whenever-possible hermeneutic.

You said: "The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand."

YES he is BUT NOT that he is the one that is unstable.

Read the Scripture again.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter is NOT referring to himself as a "they."

Notice the TEV on that verse:

2 Peter 3:16 (TEV) 16 This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.

Peter is NOT saying that HE is the one who is unstable and unlearned.

So where did Dake miss it here?

[Ironman]

Jer 23:24 - God fills the heavens and the Earth. If he fills them, then he is everywhere!
Or
Psalm 139:7. If there is no place to flee from him, there is no place he is not present. A simple reading that is in contradiction to his position.

God does not bodily fill the heavens and the earth. God lives in Heaven, as Jesus, who should know more than anyone in Heaven and earth should know. Jesus clearly said in many Scriptures, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 18:14, Matthew 23:9, Luke 11:13, Mark 11:25, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 12:50, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 18:19, Matthew 10:33, Matthew 18:10, Mark 11:26, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 18:35, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 10:32, God lives in Heaven).

Its God's innumerable angels that fill the heavens and the earth and they report to Him all He wants and needs to know.

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

Genesis 18:21; "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. "

[patrissimo]

"If Dake does not interpret Scriptures, then why did he give a method for interpreting scripture? (I believe that is lesson #3 from God's Plan for Man) Sorry for the question, but telling others how to do what he doesn't do is nonsensical."

Grandfather brought this up earlier and I decided to read the section in GPFM. I found something interesting and what appears to be a contradiction. Lesson Three in GPFM lists 12 classes of people who contend that the bible is hard to understand. He lists in the 8th class "Those who are unstable and unlearned and wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16)" The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand. Dake admits this in note j. on 2nd Peter 3:16 in the DARB. It says, "The things Peter refers to are not listed, so it cannot be known what he would consider hard to understand." This is a clear contradiction. It is also relevant to the discussion concerning Divine Attributes since Dake bases his theology proper on his literal-whenever-possible hermeneutic.

You said: "The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand."

YES he is BUT NOT that he is the one that is unstable.

Read the Scripture again.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter is NOT referring to himself as a "they."

Notice the TEV on that verse:

2 Peter 3:16 (TEV) 16 This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.

Peter is NOT saying that HE is the one who is unstable and unlearned.

So where did Dake miss it here?

I understand that St. Peter is not the one saying he is unstable and unlearned and I never said so.

"The ones who say that the bible is hard to understand are of several classes: ...8) Those who are unstable and unlearned wrest the scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16)"

See? Dake is clearly saying here (GPFM) that "those who are unstable and unlearned" are among the ones who contend the scriptures are hard to understand. In context, there is no other way to understand this. For example, the first class Dake lists is "Those who are ignorant of its contents." The 2nd says, "Those who are too lazy to master its contents." The ignorant and lazy are those who contend scripture is hard to understand. Dake is saying here that the unstable and unlearned who wrest the scruiptures are among those who contend that scripture is hard to understand. But in the passage under discussion, it it St. Peter himself contending that some scriptures are hard to understand.

[patrissimo]

"If Dake does not interpret Scriptures, then why did he give a method for interpreting scripture? (I believe that is lesson #3 from God's Plan for Man) Sorry for the question, but telling others how to do what he doesn't do is nonsensical."

Grandfather brought this up earlier and I decided to read the section in GPFM. I found something interesting and what appears to be a contradiction. Lesson Three in GPFM lists 12 classes of people who contend that the bible is hard to understand. He lists in the 8th class "Those who are unstable and unlearned and wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16)" The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand. Dake admits this in note j. on 2nd Peter 3:16 in the DARB. It says, "The things Peter refers to are not listed, so it cannot be known what he would consider hard to understand." This is a clear contradiction. It is also relevant to the discussion concerning Divine Attributes since Dake bases his theology proper on his literal-whenever-possible hermeneutic.

You said: "The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand."

YES he is BUT NOT that he is the one that is unstable.

Read the Scripture again.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter is NOT referring to himself as a "they."

Notice the TEV on that verse:

2 Peter 3:16 (TEV) 16 This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.

Peter is NOT saying that HE is the one who is unstable and unlearned.

So where did Dake miss it here?

I understand that St. Peter is not the one saying he is unstable and unlearned and I never said so.

"The ones who say that the bible is hard to understand are of several classes: ...8) Those who are unstable and unlearned wrest the scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16)"

See? Dake is clearly saying here (GPFM) that "those who are unstable and unlearned" are among the ones who contend the scriptures are hard to understand. In context, there is no other way to understand this. For example, the first class Dake lists is "Those who are ignorant of its contents." The 2nd says, "Those who are too lazy to master its contents." The ignorant and lazy are those who contend scripture is hard to understand. Dake is saying here that the unstable and unlearned who wrest the scruiptures are among those who contend that scripture is hard to understand. But in the passage under discussion, it it St. Peter himself contending that some scriptures are hard to understand.

[bibleman]

"If Dake does not interpret Scriptures, then why did he give a method for interpreting scripture? (I believe that is lesson #3 from God's Plan for Man) Sorry for the question, but telling others how to do what he doesn't do is nonsensical."

Grandfather brought this up earlier and I decided to read the section in GPFM. I found something interesting and what appears to be a contradiction. Lesson Three in GPFM lists 12 classes of people who contend that the bible is hard to understand. He lists in the 8th class "Those who are unstable and unlearned and wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:16)" The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand. Dake admits this in note j. on 2nd Peter 3:16 in the DARB. It says, "The things Peter refers to are not listed, so it cannot be known what he would consider hard to understand." This is a clear contradiction. It is also relevant to the discussion concerning Divine Attributes since Dake bases his theology proper on his literal-whenever-possible hermeneutic.

You said: "The problem is, the St. Peter's 2nd Epistle, it is St. Peter himself who is here referring to some scriptures being hard to understand."

YES he is BUT NOT that he is the one that is unstable.

Read the Scripture again.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter is NOT referring to himself as a "they."

Notice the TEV on that verse:

2 Peter 3:16 (TEV) 16 This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.

Peter is NOT saying that HE is the one who is unstable and unlearned.

So where did Dake miss it here?

I understand that St. Peter is not the one saying he is unstable and unlearned and I never said so.

"The ones who say that the bible is hard to understand are of several classes: ...8) Those who are unstable and unlearned wrest the scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16)"

See? Dake is clearly saying here (GPFM) that "those who are unstable and unlearned" are among the ones who contend the scriptures are hard to understand. In context, there is no other way to understand this. For example, the first class Dake lists is "Those who are ignorant of its contents." The 2nd says, "Those who are too lazy to master its contents." The ignorant and lazy are those who contend scripture is hard to understand. Dake is saying here that the unstable and unlearned who wrest the scruiptures are among those who contend that scripture is hard to understand. But in the passage under discussion, it it St. Peter himself contending that some scriptures are hard to understand.

OK I think I see what you are trying to say: "But in the passage under discussion, it it St. Peter himself contending that some scriptures are hard to understand."

OK so what is wrong with that?

But keep Dake's list in context, Notice what Dake said:

The simplest beginners can understand the Bible one line at a time, for this is the way it was given, and it is the best way to understand it (Isa. 28:9-13). No man can get all the vastness of the Bible at once. It is the seemingly infinite scope of truth that causes some men to think the Bible is hard to understand. It is like a man arguing that he cannot understand water because he cannot drink the ocean dry at one drink. Naturally, it takes time to get a simple knowledge of the whole Bible, but what we contend is this: it cannot be hard to understand if a person will take it a line at a time, a verse at a time, or one truth at a time. One cannot look at any big book and get all of its contents at a glance. A man is foolish to say the Bible is hard to understand until he gets into it and gets acquainted with its contents. If a man will do this he will find the Bible truths opening up beyond his fondest dreams. The ones who contend that the Bible is hard to understand are of several classes:
Finis J. Dake, God's Plan for Man, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 2004), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 37.


(8) Those who are unstable and unlearned and wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
Finis J. Dake, God's Plan for Man, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc., 2004), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 38.

YES some of those who think the Bible is hard to understand but NOT all!
Like: beginners, those who have not put in the time, those who have not read it line at a time, those who have ONLY glanced, those NOT acquainted, etc.

[Grandfather]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

Genesis 18:21; "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

[Ironman]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

Genesis 18:21; "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

And you repeating your personal pet theories also does not prove anything, God was told things were going on in Sodom and He plainly and clearly said, "I will go down to see for myself, if what I have been told is true, if not I will know."

[Grandfather]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

Genesis 18:21; "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

And you repeating your personal pet theories also does not prove anything, God was told things were going on in Sodom and He plainly and clearly said, "I will go down to see for myself, if what I have been told is true, if not I will know."

What theory? I quoted scripture