ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

You mean man doesn't have to grab the Rope?

Do you agree with muzicman's analogy?

As I pointed out earlier, the analogy is flawed on many levels. A more biblical analogy would acknowledge that you're already dead when the Coast Guard gets there. Lu 9:60 Ro 6:13; 2Co 5:14,15 Eph 2:1,5,6; 5:14; Col 2:13. You couldn't grab the rope, because you're dead. In fact, you've been dead for days, and you stink. That's the analogy the Bible gives us in the story of Lazarus.

The biblical view is that Christ truly saves you from out of death. He regenerates you to life. The biblical teaching is that we were dead; completely unable to respond to God (Ro 8:7). Unable to see with dead eyes. Unable to hear with dead ears. Dead ears cannot hear. Lazarus could not have heard Jesus' voice when he was called out of the tomb unless God made Lazarus' ears work. Lazarus did not "grab a rope." God revived a dead man and restored all his faculties for him to respond and to come out of that tomb. The Biblical view is that we can truly thank God for saving us. He really did it. He didn't just provide a potential salvation for those smart enough to "grab the rope." He really saved us out of death, made us alive. He didn't just save us from dying. We died. He revived us. I can truly say "Jesus saved me." The Open Theist can only say, at best, "Thanks for the assistance."

The Open View teaches that men are their own Saviors. It is a works salvation. It is a self-absorbed, self-gloryifying, self-aggrandizing theology that exalts man and denigrates God (Job 40:8). The Open Theist worships the creature instead of the Creator (Ro 1:25), deifying Man to be His Own Savior, and humanizing god to be only a little higher than the angels (if that). The Open Theist wants the final word. And that's the bottom line: What good is Jesus' sacrifice? If it depends on you, then it's not sufficient. Jesus doesn't save. You do. It takes determination, tenacity, a strong-will to grab and hang on to that rope. Jesus' sacrifice doesn't save anyone. It's just a rope. A rope doesn't save.

What's the difference between the guy who doesn't take the rope and the one who does? The one who does is smarter, better, more reasonable, more thoughtful, more glorified. He has something to be proud of, a badge to wear on his chest, flowing robes, and trumpet to blast. "Great job, Open Theist! Way to go, man! You did it! You grabbed the rope! It's all you, baby! Sure, the rope was there, but what good is the rope if you don't grab it, right? You da man. You. Da. Man!!!" What about Jesus? Oh, Him? He's just a Rope.

How is your view any different than themuzicman's?

"Alittleoldladygotmutilatedlastnight; werewolves of London again",
Jim

I would suggest you are misrepresenting Arminianism or Open Theism.

The Spirit alone saves and regenerates. We cannot save or regenerate ourselves.

God initiates and provides salvation. The grounds (reason by which; objective provision) of salvation are grace and the person and work of Christ. The conditions (not without which) of salvation (subjective appropriation) are repentant faith and continuance in the faith. A condition is not a work, but a response and reception of what God has done (Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 36; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9, 10, I Jn. 5:11-13, etc.).

Repentant faith is man's response to the conviction and convincing of the Spirit. He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe. This would be unreasonable if it was impossible for man to respond to the drawing, persuading, wooing of the Spirit. Total depravity does not mean total inability. Reciprocal love relationships are not coerced nor caused. They must be freely entered into and maintained. Since God provides and initiates, salvation is not of man. We are the other party in reconciliation, so our will and intellect is involved. God gets the glory, but we are morally culpable/responsible/accountable if we reject Christ vs receive Him.

TULIP is a deductive philosophy that is not inherent in Scripture (without proof texting).

The historical narrative about Lazarus relates to Christ being the resurrection and the life. It is not a didactic passage about the nature of salvation. To make it so is eisegesis or sloppy exegesis.

Death is separation, not annihilation or non-existence. Study all uses of death. We have spiritually dead people who are alive; physically dead people who are alive, etc. You are pressing analogies with a wooden literalism. cf. born again is a metaphor for salvation...it is not identical to physical birth...so Calvinists who use it to argue to their doctrines with a wooden literalism go beyond the context or intent of Jesus.

 

[godrulz]

themuzicman,

You're misunderstanding the difference between the straw man fallacy and appropriate mocking. For an example of the former, see the copious treatments of divine immutability by Open Theists on this forum. For an example of the latter, see 1Kings 18:27. The Open Theist God is not much different than Ba'al.

Anyone can go around asserting "straw man," it's another thing to demonstrate it. So far, no one has cogently opposed my characterization of Open Theism. If you think I'm being inaccurate, I welcome your counterargument. Prove to me that your view doesn't make you your own savior. Show me the logic.

The same question applies to Godrulz. Prove to me that you don't cheapen the work of Christ by making yourself your own savior.

Walk-ins welcome,
Jim

I Kings 18 is not a typical text for immutability. Even classical theologians are rejecting traditional strong immutability as a platonic, unbiblical concept that reduces the personal God to an impersonal blob. I support biblical, 'weak' immutability: God changes in some ways (relations, experiences, thoughts, actions, incarnation, etc.), but does not change in other ways (essential character and attributes).

For a difficult discussion and revisitation on these issues (he is not an Open Theist):


http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/083082734X/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-1326351-2272750#reader-link (click next page for contents)

Boyd also simplifies this issue with biblical exegesis of your pet proof texts that are taken out of context...

 

[godrulz]

Where does the bible claim that this story is representitive of salvation by grace through faith?

Exactly. He is misusing a historical narrative and wrongly applying it to individual salvation. People who hear and respond to the gospel are physically alive. In Acts, some believed, some procrastinated, and some sneered when Paul preached the gospel.

 

[godrulz]

Au contrare. Your analogy shows how a person saves himself. He must grab the rope. He must hang on. He must want to live. He must believe that the rope will save him. All these things rely upon the person being saved. This undermines the Biblical analogies of one being dead, spiritually unresponsive, having dead ears unable to hear, needing to be given life, not merely resuscitated. It is the logical conclusion of your analogy. Show me I'm wrong.

The only thing you made obvious is that you're confused about the sufficiency of Christ's finished work. It really is finished, Michael. On your view, it's not. Jesus should not have said, "It is finished!" when He died, but rather, "Let's see if this works."



Since Lazarus was truly dead, how was he able to hear? What made his 4-days-dead ears function? Anyone?

His hair was perfect,
Jim

If Christ's work is finished, and we all agree that it is, they why is not everyone saved? We are suggesting why not everyone is saved. Are you going to pin the culpability on God's sovereign, hidden will where He supposedly elects some, but damns others that He could save if He wanted to? God's love is not arbitrary. It is impartial. Individual salvation or damnation was not decreed before creation.

 

[godrulz]

See? You don't get it. Jesus isn't the rope. Faith is the rope.



Do dead men walk?



Once again, you demonstrate your unique powers in being unable to get the point. The story of Lazarus has no relevance to soteriology. None.

Muz

It is relevant to bodily resurrection and foreshadows future glorification. It was a profound miracle showing that Jesus has power over death as the Resurrection and the Life. Saying it does not apply to regeneration does not mean it is meaningless. Cmon, Hilston. Quit being an egg head and use your noodle/coconut.

 

[godrulz]

:wave:

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Was this before or after Jesus handed the bread to Judas?

Rob

Judas was chosen as a disciple to be in the inner circle of Jesus after Jesus prayed to the Father for wisdom. Judas was entrusted with the things of God. At some point, he became a devil. He was not predestined to be one, nor was he one from the beginning. When Jesus spoke these words, Judas was already on the path of destruction. It was finalized publicly when Jesus handed him the bread. Judas was a 'devil' early in the ministry, but this does not mean he was such in eternity or when he was chosen. He became a son of perdition/hell, but was not chosen in this state. His betrayal was the end of a downward progression. A no risk model of sovereignty makes God responsible for evil. God's sovereignty is providential and involved risk. Judas was a failed project. Jesus would have hoped he would repent in the end. Scripture would have been illustrated or fulfilled in someone else. The OT does not prophecy the individual Judas of Iscariot. The NT writers, under the inspiration of the Spirit, illustrated or applied dual fulfillment prophecies to Judas after the fact.

 

[godrulz]

=RobE Did the Devil make Judas do what Jesus foretold Judas would do,

or

Did God arrange for Judas to betray Christ,

or

Did God simply foresee what Judas would do?

Precisely Please,
Rob

The devil did not MAKE Judas do anything. He influenced and tempted a weak area in Judas' volitional/thought life.

God did not arrange from eternity past for Judas to do this. Judas did it on his own accord, but it was woven in God's plan to have the Lamb of God die for the sins of the world. His death would still take place if Judas did not do what he did, if someone else betrayed Christ, or if no one betrayed Christ. Your retrospective view is not the same as a view looking from before creation.

God did not foresee what Judas would do before he even existed trillions of years ago (remote, exhaustive foreknowledge). He did have proximal knowledge since He knows the past and present perfectly. He would know Judas' heart and see his rebellion developing before any human would. This is not proof of simple foreknowledge of all future free will contingencies.

 

[Hilston]

The Big Rope Dangler in the Sky

The Big Rope Dangler in the Sky

See? You don't get it. Jesus isn't the rope. Faith is the rope.

So Jesus isn't even the rope? It won't be long before Open Theists get rid of the Savior completely.

Do dead men walk?

No. Nor do they grab ropes.

Once again, you demonstrate your unique powers in being unable to get the point. The story of Lazarus has no relevance to soteriology. None.

Ooooookay. :up:

It is you who limit God and refuse to allow His glory to shine in the transformed lives of believers.

How does God do that?

Your God is too small. Too limited.

Strange. There is not a religion on the planet that sits in judgment of God the way Open Theists do. The God of Open Theism is finite, bound by time, bound by logic, bound by the wap and woof and whims and wills of sinful fallen men. The God of Scripture is infinite, without limitation, completely arbitrary, in absolute total meticulous and exhaustive control of all creation without exception.

Some things are just beyond you, Hilston.

Your posts seem to equate being ‘spiritually dead’ with total non-function instead of dis-function. God is able. If he can make himself heard by a four-day-dead guy, ...

How did He do that, how did He make Lazarus hear if here was truly dead?

... surely he can make himself heard by those who have been blinded by the god of this age.

Not only blind, but spiritually dead; spiritually incapable of responding to God.

It’s not really that complicated, but, it does require a thimble of faith.

Faith is not contrary to knowledge. This is a legitimate and answerable question: How does a dead man hear?

Hilston asked: What's the difference between the guy who doesn't take the rope and the one who does?

He drowns.

What is the difference that would make one choose to take the rope and the other not choose to take the rope?

Not only does the God of the open future allow for people like Stalin and Bin Laden to exist, God’s future is not threatened by their existence even if they refuse His offer of salvation.

Sure, you say that. But how can you know? God might be surprised by a turn of events He didn't see coming. Why does the Open Theist trust God? God can't even trust God, because He is in the dark.

If your mocking OVT then you are neither accurate nor entertaining.

It's both actually. It's more than that. It's instructive as well. For that I have plenty of proof.

If you understand OVT then you know that it even allows for monstrous blowhards.

"Allows for?" God had no choice, not if He is living, loving, relational, personal, and good. It had to be this way. Do you see that? Your God is a prisoner of His own creation. Furthermore, what Open Theists blithely ignore is that such a God as the OV espouses is a Big Loser. Every day scores of people plunge into hell, and the OV God is unable to lift a finger to do anything about it. Is God doing everything He can to save as many people as possible? If so, then why do you pray? What are you asking God to do if He is already doing everything He can?

“Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Acts 2:40

Brilliant. Do you apply this to saving yourself from hell as well?

If a man is drowning and someone on a boat says to him, "I'll pull you out if you grab hold of this rope!"

If the man refuses to grab hold of the rope, is the boat pilot, the rope, or the man himself responsible for his own death?

The phrasing of this question suffices to demonstrate the misguided and distorted thinking that attends Unsettled Viewers. And quite frankly, it is wrong question. Here's the right question: Is the rescuer's effort alone sufficient to save a drowning man? The answer to this question will reveal what kind of Savior you believe in: (a) a Savior who could really say, "It is finished, or (b) a Savior who could only say, at best, "Let's see if this works."

If the man grabs the rope, who should get credit for having saved his life?

Once again, the question itself reveals more than could any answer to that question. Working for a newspaper, I hear such stories all the time: One person helps another out of a life-death situation. The rescued person thanks the rescuer for saving her life. But the rescuer will also commend the rescued person for being strong-willed, tenacious, brave, courageous, etc. Both get credit. The rescuer's efforts alone were not sufficient; the rescuee had to cooperate and be brave and be strong etc., etc.

Wouldn't the saved man sound like a lunatic if he went around bragging about how he saved his own life by gropping frantically for that rope?

Not at all! I know rock climbers. They brag all the time about how they grabbed this rope and that and prevented themselves from falling.

Would anyone in their right mind give this guy credit for saving his own life? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous in the Unsettled Theist's bizarro world in which one must pretend to be helpless just so God can get all the glory, when in reality, the Open View only thanks God for being a Rope Dangler. The rest is left up to you.

He was saved by the pilot of the boat who could have just as easily ignored him and left him there to fend for himself.

See how the Open Theist can't make up his mind what kind of God to believe in. Is this idea of a boat pilot who ignores drowning men the Open Theist's view of God? If not, then of what relevance is the statement? Could a living, personal, relational, good and loving boat pilot duly ignore a drowning man? Like a dog who wraps his chain around a tree and can't figure out why it keeps getting shorter, Open Theists get so twisted around their own arguments that the ability to reason gets farther and farther out of their reach.

High above the mucky-muck,
Jim

 

[godrulz]

Strange. There is not a religion on the planet that sits in judgment of God the way Open Theists do. The God of Open Theism is finite, bound by time, bound by logic, bound by the wap and woof and whims and wills of sinful fallen men. The God of Scripture is infinite, without limitation, completely arbitrary, in absolute total meticulous and exhaustive control of all creation without exception.

Sure, you say that. But how can you know? God might be surprised by a turn of events He didn't see coming. Why does the Open Theist trust God? God can't even trust God, because He is in the dark.

"Allows for?" God had no choice, not if He is living, loving, relational, personal, and good. It had to be this way. Do you see that? Your God is a prisoner of His own creation. Furthermore, what Open Theists blithely ignore is that such a God as the OV espouses is a Big Loser. Every day scores of people plunge into hell, and the OV God is unable to lift a finger to do anything about it. Is God doing everything He can to save as many people as possible? If so, then why do you pray? What are you asking God to do if He is already doing everything He can?


Jim

The God of Open Theism is infinite. The god of process thought is finite. Straw man caricature and lack of understanding of the Open view.

The God of Calvinism is responsible for heinous evil and the damnation of the masses that He could save if He wanted to. His love is limited. He is not impartial, but arbitrary (I cannot believe you ascribe this to God).


God knows the past and present exhaustively. He settles some but not all of the future. He can also predict much of the future. Regardless, He is omnicompetent. Due to His great ability (exhaustive foreknowledge is precluded in the type of creation He sovereignly chose= freedom/significant others), He is fully trustworthy. He can and does intervene as much as necessary. Making me eat toast instead of cereal is not something He micromanages nor does it affect His overall plans and purposes.

Your view of God also has the problem of scores of people in hell. At least we blame Hitler, not God for his joining the devil's losing team.

 

[Lighthouse]

Paul was making a true statement about his experience. I do not think it is a sinless perfection statement. He is referring to his identification with Christ in death and resurrection. We die to Self and experience new life in Christ as Christ lives in and through us. This must be balanced with other verses (I Jn.) and other exhortations/warnings in his letters about believers who lived in the flesh or sinned. Romans 6-8 is also instructive about flesh vs spirit. It is a powerful verse, but is not a proof text in itself.

I am not sure what you are suggesting from it. Paul was yielded to the indwelling Christ and walking in His love and power. He also was obeying the light he had (search use of 'obedience' in Pauline thought...2 Cor. 7:2; Rom. 6, etc.). This should be the normative experience of believers. It does not mean that a pastor cannot commit adultery. I am sure you are not saying that a person has no genital control after salvation or that Jesus is living His life through the person causing them to sin and sleep with the church secretary.

What 'm suggesting is that those who are in Christ are not the ones living, but Christ is living in them. HE is the one who abides/remains, because we are incapable of doing so, ourselves,.

 

[godrulz]

What 'm suggesting is that those who are in Christ are not the ones living, but Christ is living in them. HE is the one who abides/remains, because we are incapable of doing so, ourselves,.

True, but last I checked, I am very much alive. Paul said that we can yield our members to the Spirit or to the flesh (Rom. 6). He abides in us, but He does not use our bodies like a sock puppet. Men resist the drawing of the Spirit in salvation. Believers are warned to not quench or grieve the Spirit. Some have shipwrecked their faith. Love relationships are not coercive nor unilateral. The picture of Christ standing at the door and knocking (Rev. 3) is not an evangelistic text for unbelievers (common use). The context is Him at the door of the believer's or church wanting to fellowship. God is not a divine rapist. He is faithful, but that does not preclude us from affecting intimacy by our selfishness (our will and mind are not eradicated when we become new creatures in Christ).

 

[Lighthouse]

Not what I meant, at all.

 

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

There's a vast difference between allowing Satan to influence someone in a particular direction (see Job), and God overriding their free will to make them do something.

Remember that when Jesus handed the bread to Judas, Satan entered into him.​

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Was this before or after Jesus handed the bread to Judas?

Michael: After.​

Did the Devil make Judas do what Jesus foretold Judas would do,

or

Did God arrange for Judas to betray Christ,

or

Did God simply foresee what Judas would do?

Precisely Please,
Rob

God knew Satan's intent regarding Jesus, and Judas' belief regarding the Messiah (present knowledge), and all the possible courses of the future, which led to Judas' betrayal of Christ.

Michael

 

[themuzicman]

Yet this would be cooperation. God wouldn't have ALL the glory in this scenario would He?

Why not? God's intent for creation is fulfilled. End of story. To God be the glory.

Do you honestly think you get credit for doing(believing in Jesus) what you were told to do?

No. If anything, I should be humbled because I had to do what I did to receive eternal life. I'm the guilty one, remember? I sinned, I condemned myself, I put myself in a condition of needing saving. The fact that I put my faith in Christ is no reason for glory for myself, because I am the guilty one. To GOD be the glory for sending Christ to be the propitiation for my sins!

If not, then why would you get discredit for not doing what you were told to do?

Because I'm the guilty one that required sending Christ to suffer and die, so that I might be saved.

Guilty as charged. Pardoned because of Christ.
Michael

 

[themuzicman]

So Jesus isn't even the rope? It won't be long before Open Theists get rid of the Savior completely.

Jesus is the Coast Guard, silly. He's the diver.

No. Nor do they grab ropes.

Really? You need to bone up on your scripture, then:

2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

LOOK! DEAD MEN WALKING! :up:

Zombie hunter?
Michael

 

[Clete]

The phrasing of this question suffices to demonstrate the misguided and distorted thinking that attends Unsettled Viewers. And quite frankly, it is wrong question. Here's the right question: Is the rescuer's effort alone sufficient to save a drowning man? The answer to this question will reveal what kind of Savior you believe in: (a) a Savior who could really say, "It is finished, or (b) a Savior who could only say, at best, "Let's see if this works."

Notice that Jim is unable to answer a simple question. Rather than answering the question, he changes the subject entirely.

Jim, it was an analogy, okay? I didn't quote the story out the of the Bible nor was it given to me by divine inspiration. It was a simple analogy intended to convey a single principle, which it did well enough to cause you to avoid answering the question.
Further your so called "right question" isn't even on the same subject. No one is debating what God is able to do, God can do all sorts of things. He could, for example, turn me into an automaton with no ability whatsoever do so anything other than what He has preprogrammed me to do. He could create a world in which no one could ever do anything contrary to that which would make life pleasant and blissful. He could do __________ (fill in the blank). The question isn't about what God could do, its about what He decided to actually do.
Further, I happen to know for a fact that you know more about the open view than you pretend to know. I count your idiotic, "(b) a Savior who could only say, at best, "Let's see if this works.", as an outright lie. You know that we do not believe this and that it can in no way be made to fit into any open theist's worldview. It is an intentional misrepresentation, and is flatly a lie, whether I count it as such or not.

Once again, the question itself reveals more than could any answer to that question. Working for a newspaper, I hear such stories all the time: One person helps another out of a life-death situation. The rescued person thanks the rescuer for saving her life. But the rescuer will also commend the rescued person for being strong-willed, tenacious, brave, courageous, etc. Both get credit. The rescuer's efforts alone were not sufficient; the rescuee had to cooperate and be brave and be strong etc., etc.

Notice again that Jim ignores the question and goes off on an unrelated tangent in an effort to avoid dealing with the principle conveyed in the analogy.

Once again Jim...

It. Is. An. Analogy! It is not meant to be perfect but only to attempt to show you the line of reasoning by displaying someone who is helpless being saved by someone else whom the victim has no ability to coerce.

Not at all! I know rock climbers. They brag all the time about how they grabbed this rope and that and prevented themselves from falling.

You're an idiot Jim. The analogy had nothing to do with rock climbers who saved themselves by their own power. The whole point, which is obvious to anyone who isn't trying to poke holes in the analogy, has to do with someone who is helplessly at the mercy of another who has the means to save them.

It's only ridiculous in the Unsettled Theist's bizarro world in which one must pretend to be helpless just so God can get all the glory, when in reality, the Open View only thanks God for being a Rope Dangler. The rest is left up to you.

This is lie number two (in this portion of this post).
This is the idiotic nonsense that you get when you take what is obviously only intended to be a very simple analogy and stretch it so far out of whack that no one can recognize it any more. Way to go Jim! You’re excellent at refuting points that no one has made.

See how the Open Theist can't make up his mind what kind of God to believe in. Is this idea of a boat pilot who ignores drowning men the Open Theist's view of God? If not, then of what relevance is the statement? Could a living, personal, relational, good and loving boat pilot duly ignore a drowning man? Like a dog who wraps his chain around a tree and can't figure out why it keeps getting shorter, Open Theists get so twisted around their own arguments that the ability to reason gets farther and farther out of their reach.

God would have been perfectly within His rights to destroy Adam and Eve the moment the fruit from that tree touched their lips. God is not good because He saves us. God was good long before He saved us and would have remained so had He decided that He wanted to display His glory in justly destroying the human race when Adam and Eve rebelled. He didn't offer salvation to Lucifer or any of the angels who fell that day, nor did He have to offer it to us. He did so because He wanted to not because He was compelled to do so by anything but His own will. Had God decided to physically put Adam to death, Adam would not have been able to say to God, "Well God, you suck because the fact that you are loving means that I am entitled to be saved. You claim to be this perfectly loving God but refuse to save me and thus you are a liar and not worthy to be worshiped anyway!" That would not be a valid argument! God decided to die for us BECAUSE He was/is loving, and would have remained so, had He decided otherwise. God's love is not contingent on His having saved sinful mankind. If it were then why isn't it contingent on His having saved the angels? Does God's decision concerning Lucifer's eternal damnation make Him less loving than He would have been had He devised a method by which he could have been saved along with mankind? Of course not!

Now, I will attempt this once again, only this time without as much detail. When I get home this evening, I am going to ask my 5 years old daughter to answer this exact same question and promise to report her answer here later tonight (assuming that I have the time to be online this evening).
Who would like to bet me that my daughter will not only give me a straight answer, but that it will be totally in line with not just the Biblical message (i.e. the gospel) but with open theism? (My daughter is five years old. She wouldn't know open theism from a recipe for apple cobbler.)

Let's say you are in need of rescue and are at the mercy of a king who has both the means and opportunity to rescue you and could justly choose to either do so or not. If the king decides that he is willing to rescue you from your certain death under certain conditions and then decides to open his mouth and communicate those conditions to you. Who gets credit for rescuing you if you decide to comply with the kings stated conditions which he come up with himself without any input from you whatsoever?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Jesus is the Coast Guard, silly. He's the diver.

Then why does He need a rope? Is the diver alone sufficient to save the life of a man who has drowned and has been dead for 4 days?

Really? You need to bone up on your scripture, then:

Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Dead men walk in trespasses and sins. Living men walk in righteousness and faith. How do the dead men become living men? By grabbing a rope? Or by being made alive by Christ?

I gotta little black book to my poems in,
Jim

 

[themuzicman]

Then why does He need a rope?

Because that's how Christ has chosen to offer salvation.

Is the diver alone sufficient to save the life of a man who has drowned and has been dead for 4 days?

Umm.. The analogy was that they arrive before the guy dies.

However, the diver is sufficient to save all who grab the rope.

Dead men walk in trespasses and sins.

Oh, so Lazarus was walking around in that tomb?

Living men walk in righteousness and faith. [How do the dead men become living men?

Gee, since your version of what Paul is saying here isn't exactly working out (unless you you're going to introduce a zombie theory, here), maybe what Paul means is that we were "dead" (meaning condemned to eternal judgment) in our sins in the same way that we talk about a person on death row as a "dead man walking."

Then we can have those who are condemned to death walking around, and we don't have all that egg on our faces.

By grabbing a rope? Or by being made alive by Christ?

How about through the propitiation sacrifice Christ made upon our behalf, which brings salvation to all who believe?

Just the context, ma'am
Muz

 

[RobE]

A couple of clarifications for me, please.

A couple of clarifications for me, please.

See? You don't get it. Jesus isn't the rope. Faith is the rope.

If faith is the rope what is Grace?

I said: Yet this would be cooperation. God wouldn't have ALL the glory in this scenario would He?

Michael: Why not? God's intent for creation is fulfilled. End of story. To God be the glory.​

Couldn't the same thing be said if God foreordained all of creation and every action?

We are unable to come, until God draws us. What is God's drawing? It is being taught of God. Thus, we must hear and learn from the Father in order to come to Christ.

John 6:37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.​

Draws or gives?

John 6:64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.​

If drawing is required to be able to come, then some weren't drawn.

Known before?

John 6:70Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

I wonder how Jesus foreknew this?

I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him.

It was all part of the plan.

So God chose those who would come and those who wouldn't by drawing or not drawing them.

Are you saying that God made Judas betray Him?

"Made" is a bit strong. I think it was intended that Judas wouldn't be drawn as the other disciples were, and that he would be influenced by Satan to betray Christ.

The Holy Scripture
John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Yet Open Theism/LFW doesn't allow God to know from the beginning that one was doomed to destruction, do they?

Sure we do. It's just a matter of having the right circumstances and right influences at the right time. Rather than fixing the end game from the beginning, God works to bring about His purposes. If you mean knowing exactly who would betray Christ hundreds of years BC, then there's no necessity to know exactly who.

Then why wasn't Judas drawn like the other apostles?

God didn't draw him.

So God fixed the game beforehand according to you.

Huh? There's a far cry from determining the entire course of history and arranging circumstances for His purposes to come about.

Not really. It makes God responsible for the betrayal of Judas in your theology. That's why you reject foreknowledge---responsibility.

There's a vast difference between allowing Satan to influence someone in a particular direction (see Job), and God overriding their free will to make them do something.

Remember that when Jesus handed the bread to Judas, Satan entered into him.

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

Was this before or after Jesus handed the bread to Judas?

Before.

Did the Devil make Judas do what Jesus foretold Judas would do,

Remember that when Jesus handed the bread to Judas, Satan entered into him.

or Did God arrange for Judas to betray Christ,

If drawing is required to be able to come, then some weren't drawn.

There's a vast difference between allowing Satan to influence someone in a particular direction (see Job), and God overriding their free will to make them do something.

Sure we do. It's just a matter of having the right circumstances and right influences at the right time. Rather than fixing the end game from the beginning, God works to bring about His purposes.

or Did God simply foresee what Judas would do?

I never said God was dumb. In fact, He's smart enough to bring about events in such a way that 11 of the 12 disciples become true to Him, and one of them, who was known from the beginning, betrays Him.

And your last response to these questions.........

God knew Satan's intent regarding Jesus, and Judas' belief regarding the Messiah (present knowledge), and all the possible courses of the future, which led to Judas' betrayal of Christ.

...........Is this your final answer?

Thanks,
Rob

 

[RobE]

The NT writers, under the inspiration of the Spirit, illustrated or applied dual fulfillment prophecies to Judas after the fact.

How do you know this?

God did not arrange from eternity past for Judas to do this. Judas did it on his own accord, but it was woven in God's plan to have the Lamb of God die for the sins of the world. His death would still take place if Judas did not do what he did, if someone else betrayed Christ, or if no one betrayed Christ.

And how do you know this?

What 'm suggesting is that those who are in Christ are not the ones living, but Christ is living in them. HE is the one who abides/remains, because we are incapable of doing so, ourselves,.

Flesh begets flesh. Spirit begets spirit. Good point! I wish I'd thought of it!

Rob o you honestly think you get credit for doing(believing in Jesus) what you were told to do?

Michael: No. If anything, I should be humbled because I had to do what I did to receive eternal life. I'm the guilty one, remember? I sinned, I condemned myself, I put myself in a condition of needing saving. The fact that I put my faith in Christ is no reason for glory for myself, because I am the guilty one. To GOD be the glory for sending Christ to be the propitiation for my sins!​

Then why are you punished when you don't do what you were told to do?

Rob: If not, then why would you get discredit for not doing what you were told to do?

Michael: Because I'm the guilty one that required sending Christ to suffer and die, so that I might be saved.​

Are you able to justify these two contrary statements?

Thanks for listening,
Rob