tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post5493981135335142653..comments2023-10-03T04:23:48.046-07:00Comments on Reformed Mafia: The Image of God In Herschel HobbsMachine Gun Kelleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17501532765910479437noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-58097483301702630542008-06-04T10:15:00.000-07:002008-06-04T10:15:00.000-07:00Throw out the Trinity, then, since simple laws of ...Throw out the Trinity, then, since simple laws of addition tell us plainly that one plus one plus one cannot in any way equal one. God is bound by the law to either be one or three, but not both.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-60394708399006756922008-06-04T08:56:00.000-07:002008-06-04T08:56:00.000-07:00hh-Good to hear from you.I have been trying to wor...hh-<BR/><BR/>Good to hear from you.<BR/><BR/>I have been trying to work out what HHH could have possibly meant by: "Of miracles: ...acts of God contrary to man's knowledge of natural law, but not contrary to God's knowledge of such...pg 36-37."<BR/><BR/>Hobbs seems to be saying that God works miracles through the law of nature. That in reality they are not supernatural, but hyper-natural. While it is true that God can work miracles within natures laws, he is certainly free to act creatively without them. Again, it appears that Hobbs places the effective agency outside of God, divesting himself of some of his power. God is therefore required to operate by these laws, and cannot go outside of them.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-58385720144348660112008-06-04T06:42:00.000-07:002008-06-04T06:42:00.000-07:00Hobbs certainly appears to be teaching the highly ...Hobbs certainly appears to be teaching the highly questionable idea of God having 'Potentia Absoluta' (absolute power), in saying that God's power is governed only by a law, rather than by His own righteous character. This is a view few Calvinists (including high Calvinists) would agree with. Calvin certainly did not.Highland Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205436472908741409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-9967431491399653332008-06-03T19:07:00.000-07:002008-06-03T19:07:00.000-07:00Thanks rev. I know that, but the commentary is cop...Thanks rev. I know that, but the commentary is copy righted 1971. If that was unclear, I am sorry. It is actually called The Baptist Faith and Message. I just added Commentary for clarification. I guess it wasn't all that clear. I'll go back and make it clearer. Then let me know if it is...<BR/><BR/>As far as I know there are later editions of the commentary, and because I do not have them available I'm asking for known changes if any have been made, especially reversals. If you know of any copies freely available, especially of the latest one, 87 or 97, I think, my address is available upon request. Online versions would be great. Let me know, ahright?Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-40500702182497511892008-06-03T18:23:00.000-07:002008-06-03T18:23:00.000-07:00FYI: Herschel Hobbs's commentary on the BFM relate...FYI: Herschel Hobbs's commentary on the BFM related to the 1963 edition (not '71). <BR/><BR/>The 1925, 1963 and 2000 editions may be compared online at:<BR/>http://www.sbc.net/bfm/<BR/>bfmcomparison.aspRev.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01921507566144608199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415658708707994862.post-18146196772739904262008-06-02T05:16:00.000-07:002008-06-02T05:16:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.com