Mystery
New member
I have already addressed this several times, and you still persist in ignoring the text. You are not worth convincing, because I am just throwing more pearls before a flying swine.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
Thanks for the answer and the scolding.
Why do you answer with such venom? If it is ALL about Him why does the text even mention us?
Men are saved because they receive His life. I agree.
Mystery
New member
Sorry, forgive me, I was still trying to escape the smell of burnt bacon. I didn't mean to be so belligerent.
Oh, it mentions us because we are the ones who receive all that God has prepared for those who are in Christ.
themuzicman
Well-known member
I apologize, I added this after the original post:
Paul's point, here, is that death comes to everyone because of Adam's sin, and justification comes to all men because of Christ's sacrifice.
Neither is imposed upon us because of the one man, but are embraced by us: death when we sin, justification when we believe. (See Rom 5:18)
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
I think we all could take a little rebuke from Christ himself:
Mat 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits . Grapes are not gathered from thorn [bushes] nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits .
Mystery
New member
I'm pleased to see that you are willing to admit to being a false prophet, and a wolf in sheep's (or rather pig's) clothing. It takes a big hog to admit when he is wrong.
elected4ever
New member
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
The many who were made sinners and the many shall be made are the all of verse 18.
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
It is important to note the universal application of the text. The text gives an absolute to the sinners all as in, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Why? because of the offence of one. It is a condition that prevails in man, not a choice that man makes anymore than one can choose his parents.
The second part says, " by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The application of the free gift has come upon all men. This is what make Calvinism wrong. The justification has come upon all men. To as many as would receive Him gave he the power to become the children of God". Justification is universally applied but the difference is that we now have a choice to be justified or not. It is there for anyone who will receive it not just for a chosen few or applied regardless of one's choice to receive it.
We had no choice in being a sinner but we do have a choice to accept Christ. A pardon is not a pardon until one accepts it. We must accept God's justification for our sin who is Christ Jesus.
Philetus
New member
So, it is at least partly about us.
Clete, the simple answer would be: God. I know, but that's really too long a discussion to get into with as many other things that require an answer at present. I'll deal with the larger portion of your contentions first.
Time (the last time I noticed) was still happening…Eternity hasn’t passed and everyone is innocent until they aren’t and a God of whim is merely Just until He chooses not to be. If He is free to do so then the fact that He hasn’t yet done so isn’t proof that He won’t. Your premise is flawed and my conclusion remains the only logical one if your standard is accepted.
“Why?” (In response to: If God is free to choose evil then He cannot be perfectly good.)
Because, the two states, good and evil, are incompatible. Freedom in this case implies the possibility of the evil act occurring. For God to choose evil He would either violate His nature or demonstrate that his nature is imperfect. In either event He ceases to be good or God.
“Not a problem since God is indeed perfectly good. A description of God, by the way, which would have no meaning if God did not choose to be so.”
Actually it has no meaning if God indeed, as you suppose, chooses in the first place for the reasons I’ve given more than once now.
“I've already established that this conclusion is unsupported…but even if that weren't the case, your argument would still be invalid.”
There is a vast difference between a declaration and an argument. See?
“Why do you believe godrulz, and by extension yourself, capable of something that God is incapable of?”
For the same reason I would believe that God is incapable of sexually molesting a child, while men are not. But I’m sure you’d argue that God could molest a child if He really wanted to…absurd, but that’s your position by extension.
“Is it your contention that having the ability to choose is an inherent flaw of some kind?”
Read my earlier posts.
“If God cannot choose then in what way is He any different, in the context of being righteous, than the vacuum cleaner in my closet?”
If God is perfect then He is perfectly righteous. That is, he is perfectly right or justifiable…But you’re missing the larger point: in perfection He is the standard by which all other things are judged. If we reduce God to a creature of moral choice then we reduce God to a creature whose actions (and by extension being) can be judged.
And a vacuum cleaner wouldn’t be nearly as righteous…even if it was an upright. Sorry, but this is getting silly so why not?
“You also sarcastically responded to godrulz having stated in refutation of your position that God has a will but while you acknowledge God has a will, you failed to respond to the point godrulz made by having brought that up. That point being that to say someone has a will is only just another way of saying that they choose their actions.”
Only to your way of thinking. When I speak of God’s will I am relating the manifestation of His nature. Again, read my earlier posts. To you it’s a coin flip, however reliable.
And lastly, sarcastic? Me? Can’t be…But I’m glad that you’re resting. I couldn’t help noticing that your arguments were getting tired.
Mystery
New member
If you want to say that, that's fine. I guess that when you give your wife flowers, you can say it's partly about the flowers if you want.
We were created for His glory. So, really, it's still all about Him. Thank God, we get to be a part of that.
An act which was committed by one who was righteous before the act.
Would you like to tell me which dispensation those were written to?
And aren't you one who believes that we cannot lose our salvation, even if we sin? So how is it we are allowed into Heaven, based on our nature and not our sin, and those who are not allowed into Heaven are not allowed based on their sin and not their nature?
Well, I could say they were for a different dispensation, certainly. But I don't know if that would be my only answer, if given time.
Philetus
New member
I understand. But, flowers are inanimate objects; things. So no, I wouldn't say such a gift is about the flowers. And neither my wife nor I are things and we don't treat each other as objects. When you remove either of the parties as 'not about them' you no longer have a relationship, just a transaction imposed on another. Surely the Glory of God is more than a mere transaction between Himself and no one else imposed on everybody else. If you want to exaggerate I guess you could say that there is a sense in which the gift is all bout the receiver. Now that's absurd for sure. One could even argue that GRACE makes it all about us. Did Jesus die for Himself, His Father or us? See, when you make a statement like "It's ALL about Him" to support an argument about God's nature you make Him sound so selfish and self-centered. I know what you meant by the statement, It just didn't seem to support your argument.
elected4ever
New member
God does things because it pleases Him first and foremost. God is sovereign. God is selfish and self centered. He is also loving , kind and gentle. He is also arbitrary and vengeful. But more than any of those He is righteous and by His nature, God.
No, God is not arbitrary!
elected4ever
New member
Want to make a bet?
Mystery
New member
Not because of anything of value in us. He did it for us, for Himself.
My original sin/Overstreet link also brings up this point. Adam and Christ are the occasion, not the cause of sin or salvation. A literal parallel interpretation would lead to universalism, which is not true. Our 'friend' quotes one with a wooden literalism, yet adds the word faith in the next one when it is not in the text (though it is understood from other places).
Romans 5 does not just deal with one kind of death. Some verses talk about physical death, while others talk about spiritual or eternal death.
Here is Overstreet's point on the proof text:
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs02.htm
Roman numeral VI deals with the univeralism problem and the Romans passage.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You're either "in Adam" or "in Christ". In Adam all die. In Christ all live.
- Status