ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

Why does has debate become personal to you? You look for every opportunity to insult people who engage you, and you seem fixated on me, lately.

Muz

You are the new godrulz, due to warnings we have received.

 

[godrulz]

AMR: It seems any classification of attributes and character may be subjective or equally valid (there is more than one way to list these issues).

What I would like to agree on is that God's character and attributes, who He is, is of paramount importance if we are to know Him as He is and make Him known as He wants us to (vs distorted view of God that is a stumbling block to belief or trust).

I believe you need to revisit some of the classical, traditional understandings of some of these items. I guess that is what Open Theism is all about (not just foreknowledgde/free will issues).

 

[patman]

From http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1510143#post1510143

Philippians 1:29 - For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him but also to suffer for Him.

Genesis 50:20
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

The first thing you should realize about the Open View is parts of the future are settled. The problem with the settled view is it assumes all of the future is settled. The SV teaches God knows the entire future.

That is simply an assumption. God does not say anywhere in scripture that he knows the entire future. The typical settled viewer will draw conclusions or stretch the meaning of the verses to the point that the simplest verse means the entire future is known.

In fact, in this verse God tells us quite plainly that he didn't foresee a certain event:

Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’

Another important item is to remember that God cannot even be tempted by sin. How can he be the author of it? When the bible speaks of God working with man, he is not involved with sin. Joseph could have become an Egyptian authority without his brother's help.

How many times in scripture did God reveal in a dream "Get up and go to Egypt?" Why couldn't he have simply sent Joseph to Egypt without his brother's sin? He could have. But his brothers became sinners on their own accord, without God's help.

When Joseph said that, he was trying to say God made the best of a bad situation, not that he caused their sin.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The first thing you should realize about the Open View is parts of the future are settled. The problem with the settled view is it assumes all of the future is settled.

That is simply an assumption. God does not say anywhere in scripture that he knows the entire future. The typical settled viewer will draw conclusions or stretch the meaning of the verses to the point that the simplest verse means the entire future is known.

The "problem" here is that open theism wrongly defines God from a humanistic perspective. In effect, Open theism has misappropriated God's means of communicating with us analogically. God is the source of His anthropopathic means of communicating with us.

Moreover, if God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well. In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, God's statements that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee. But we know that God is not a liar, so the assumptions of God's knowledge by open theists must be incorrect. The "problem" then, lies with open theism's assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty. Scripture is clear about God's exhaustive knowledge. For example, see Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Heb. 4:13; 2 Chron. 16:9; Job 28:24; Matt. 10:29-30; Isa. 46:9-10; Isa. 42:8-9; Matt. 6:8; Matt. 10:30; Ps. 139:1-2; Ps. 139:4; Ps. 139:16; Rom. 11:33

God is continually involved with all of His created things in such that God (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which He created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill His purposes. In other words, God is totally sovereign over all of His creation. Absolutely nothing in God’s creation can act independently of God’s sovereignty. God will always do what He has said, and will fulfill what He has promised. Man may claim sovereignty over his own life, but ultimately God is in control. For example, see Heb 1:3; Col. 1:17; Acts 17:28; Neh. 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matt. 5:45; Matt. 6:26; Num. 23:19; 2 Sam. 7:28; Ps. 33:14-15; Ps. 104:14; Ps. 104:29; Ps. 135:6; Ps. 139:16; Ps. 141:6; Ps. 148:8; Prov. 16:1; Prov. 16:33; Prov. 20:24; Prov. 21:1; Prov. 30:5; John 17:17; Eph. 1:11; Gal. 1:15; Jer. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:7

Jeremiah 32:35
And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’

As above, everything of God's self-revelation is anthropomorphic. Whatever God has revealed to us about Himself, it was revealed anthropomorphically. God's self-revelation is analogical, that is, anthropomorphic because the Scriptures are God's speaking to us in human language. See more here. God Himself is the source of anthropomorphic portraits of Himself by making us in His image and likeness. God made us in His image and He forbids us to cast Him in our image. God is not uninformed at all here. In fact, this passage has nothing to do with things future, but it is more an expression in the same vein as we would say in rebuke, e.g., "I had no idea you were like that." Yet another of the many examples where the open theist casts God's analogical communications to us back in His face, making Him in their own image.

Another important item is to remember that God cannot even be tempted by sin. How can he be the author of it?

When Joseph said that, he was trying to say God made the best of a bad situation, not that he caused their sin.

You misunderstand much. God is not the author of sin. But God can certainly exercise His providential control to bring good out of the self-determined, wrongful, actions of others.

 

[Clete]

Many people performed acts of love and righteousness, but they still fell short of the glory of God. They are still as filthy rags. Unless it is His Spirit working in you, it is still an operation of the flesh. God is the source of life, and it is His life alone that qualifies as righteous and as genuine love.

Mystery! I can hardly believe that you wrote this. This is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest, half baked, response I've ever seen you post. Come on man! You're no coward. Don't be afraid to accept what the Bible clearly states.

You said "...actions that come from God, such as Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control, are the fruit of the Spirit. They result from the nature of God, who is Spirit. You and I do not simply choose to love because God chose to perform an action of love towards us, and now we imitate it, but rather because He has given us His Spirit, without which, love is impossible."

And if love is impossible then by extension so are all of the things listed as fruits of the Spirit! I presented Scripture that flatly proved this misapplication of Scripture to be just that but I don't even think that it was necessary to do so. Isn't it obvious that there are patient unbelievers in the world? Doesn't it go without saying that a mother loves her children and would, in many cases, give her very life for any one of them?

That doesn't mean, nor did I even suggest that such people don't miss the mark and fall short of God's glory, of course they fall short, but that doesn't mean that every unbeliever doesn't love at all and is totally impatient, unkind and hateful toward the people in their lives. It is not a zero sum, all or nothing sort of situation. It's not that evil people don't do some good things, its that they fall short of being perfect as God is perfect. And even saved people who have the Spirit of God living within them do things they shouldn't all the time! They are impatient and unkind, they are anything but gentle and often hate those that they should love.

And so for all these reasons along with the fact that you now concede that "Many [unsaved] people performed acts of love and righteousness", the point you were making when you brought the fruit of the Spirit up is nullified. That nullified point being...

"This tells me that it is the nature which preceeds the action, and therefore God loves because He is love. The one who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. You must first be righteous for the righteousness to come."

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

You misunderstand much. God is not the author of sin. But God can certainly exercise His providential control to bring good out of the self-determined, wrongful, actions of others.

So God predetermined all things before time began AND the sinful actions of others were self-determined by those individuals who performed them.


OH! If I only had the time and the patience to point out every lie and contradiction in AMR's blasphemous worldview!

 

[Lighthouse]

Want to make a bet?

Yeah. How much?

 

[lee_merrill]

And if love is impossible then by extension so are all of the things listed as fruits of the Spirit!

Certainly, what God asks are impossibilities, any act of goodness is a miracle.

Isn't it obvious that there are patient unbelievers in the world? Doesn't it go without saying that a mother loves her children and would, in many cases, give her very life for any one of them?

But there are different forms of love, and agape love comes from God, says John, so how do unbelievers love with the love of God?

It's not that evil people don't do some good things, its that they fall short of being perfect as God is perfect.

Then righteousness could have come through the law, if evil people can really do righteous deeds, of the same sort of deeds as believers can do, and this would mean Christ died needlessly.

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Gal. 2:21)

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Mystery]

Mystery! I can hardly believe that you wrote this. This is perhaps the most intellectually dishonest, half baked, response I've ever seen you post. Come on man! You're no coward. Don't be afraid to accept what the Bible clearly states.

That would be you, not me.

"... for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one."

Paul is clear, and goes against your faulty view of man. There is no one who does good. There is no one who is righteous.

You want to say that man is righteous because he is not always as bad as he can be, or that he loves because he is not always apathetic. It does not matter if man does those things that YOU judge as love or as righteous, because without the Spirit of God in them, they are worthless (useless). Man is literally dead to God, and nothing man does qualifies him to be righteous, no matter how many "acts" you attempt to attribute to him. You can deny or dispensationalize away 1 John all you want, but the fact remains...

"The one who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous"​

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who does righteousness is born of Him."​

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin (Michael Jackson does not count), or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil."​

John says that those who do what is righteous are born of God. Some it was accounted (by faith) until the seed should come (Abel, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Enoch, Rahab, Moses, Joseph, David, etc.) However, The promise of life was not given until Jesus was glorified. Without His life, righteousness is only accounted to those who believed God, until they are born of God.

Simply because man is dead to God does not mean that he is inanimate. Man can still choose to perform moral or immoral acts (none of which makes a man righteous). Even Mormons can be kind, compassionate, patient, charitable, etc. Heck, even Mother Teresa did more tham most could ever dream of doing unselfishly, but she was not righteous.
Any act that is not from faith is sin Romans 14:23.

All men are sinners. All men fall short of the glory of God. And, as pointed out, Romans 5 clearly says that all men are made sinners because of one man's disobedience, and they are made righteous because of One Man's obedience. Righteousness is a gift.

And if love is impossible then by extension so are all of the things listed as fruits of the Spirit! I presented Scripture that flatly proved this misapplication of Scripture to be just that but I don't even think that it was necessary to do so.

So those are not the fruit of the Spirit? And what does it matter that somone performs an act of patience or compassion? What does that mean to you? They are righteous as He is righteous? Is that they leap that you want to make? Are you like godrulz, and you are righteous because you can occasionally be patient or compassionate? Are you then unrighteous when you don't? Surely you do not think that being righteous is the result of self acts.

 

[Lighthouse]

He was righteous before that particular act but not before He acted at all. There has never been a time before God the Son loved the other members of the Trinity. Love is a righteous act of the will (i.e. it must be chosen) thus God's righteousness cannot be divorced from an act of His will (i.e. His chosen action).

When was His first act? Was He made righteous by the act?

Justice is a transdispensational principle Lighthouse. It is completely irrelevant which dispensation these passages where written too. Justice remains an unchanged principle and attribute of the unchanging nature of the Living God.

I know that justice is trans-dispensational, but righteousness by account, regardless of acts, is not.

This is completely off topic because you somehow got the idea that this is a dispensational issue but nevertheless, the answer to you question is that where there is no law, sin is not imputed. For those who are in Christ, the law has been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. Thus sin is not imputed to the believer because Christ has taken our punishment upon Himself. God thereby JUSTLY allows the believer into heaven on the basis of the one Man's righteous act at Calvary. It is not on the basis of our nature, nor is it on the basis of our lack of sin, but rather on and only on the basis of Christ's righteous action on our behalf.

It also says that where there is no law, there is no transgression. It is on the basis of His nature. Which He imputes to us. Only righteousness can exist in Heaven, Clete. It is not because He no longer counts our sins, that we are allowed into Heaven, it is because He accounts His righteousness to us, and that is also the reason He no longer counts our sins against us.

Well its good that it wouldn't be your only answer because as I pointed out, the fundamental principles of justice do change from one dispensation to the next. The particular rules (i.e. the house rules i.e. the oikonomia) might change but never has God condemned anyone for anything but their very own sin. No one will go to Hell for Adam's sin except perhaps for Adam. A principle affirmed by both Jeremiah 31 and Romans 5.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No one goes to Hell for sin anymore, Clete.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Then righteousness could have come through the law, if evil people can really do righteous deeds, of the same sort of deeds as believers can do, and this would mean Christ died needlessly.

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Gal. 2:21)

Indeed!

Persons seem to start from the human experience instead of from the Word of God, ignoring clear revelation while exalting their own ability to find out God and determine His nature. In other words, they reason poorly, making God in the image of man.

As anyone reading Job must conclude, any attempt to demonstrate by purely intellectual processes the truth of God's nature is absolutely hopeless. We do not elicit knowledge from God as we do from other topics of study. Furthermore, in the case of Job, no clear answers were even given to him by God to explain why he was experiencing his travails. God reveals Himself to us in the Scriptures but that is not an exhaustive revelation of His nature. God analogically conveys knowledge of Himself to man through the Scriptures—this is a knowledge which man can only accept and appropriate.

Unlike our human conventions of love, God's goodness exercised towards his creatures assumes the higher character of love. God's love can be thought of as that perfection of God by which God is eternally moved to self-communication. God's love cannot and will not find complete satisfaction in any object falling short of absolute perfection, for God is absolutely good in Himself. God loves His creatures for His own sake, or, expressed differently, God loves in them Himself, His virtues, His work, and His gifts.

God is an integrated being with attributes that are harmonious. Defining God’s attributes in isolation from the other attributes of God leads to many conflicts, especially with respect to justice and love. We should be defining God’s attributes in the light of one another. Hence, justice is loving justice and love is just love. There is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that conceives of God’s love apart from God’s justice. It is not biblical. One cannot fully understand love unless love is seen as including justice. If love excludes justice, what remains is sentimentality.

Some may even say that justice is love distributed—to all our neighbors, those at hand, and those even far removed. Justice means that love must always be shown, whether or not some situation presents an immediate and vivid need. Biblically, love is not simply indulgence of the near at hand for love inherently involves justice. What I mean by this is that there is a concern for the ultimate welfare of all of humanity, a passion to do what is right, and enforcing the consequences for actions that are wrong. There is absolutely no tension between God’s justice and love.

 

[Philetus]

You have not been written off . . .you have been told off.

I have not put you on my Ignore List. I just don't like being compared to murderers and religious fanatics, because I am a Calvinist.

However, if you persist in showing me disrespect and insult, like Mystery did, I will write you off.

Have a nice day . . .

Nang

I'm having a great day, thank you, (except that I just lost my standing as the heretic of the month.):sigh:

Nang:
What worth do you bring to God? What virtue or righteousness can you offer Him?

ABSOLUTELY NONE! I bring no worth to God. God places value on me and ascribes infinite worth to me as He does each and every human being created in His image regardless of their stats as sinners! While we were still sinners sinning Christ Jesus died for us. No one is worthless in God’s sight! Our righteousness, goodness, virtue is all totally worthless in comparison to God’s righteousness. But, we are not worthless. Living a godly life isn’t without merit … it just won’t save us. Being totally unworthy is not the same as being totally worthless. If you believe that Jesus died for ALL (not just the pre-elect individuals) the cross proves it. If election is seen as Jesus dying for some and not for others then I guess not. This is the watershed issue between us, isn't it? If Jesus died for all and their salvation includes their acknowledgment of His grace (faith) then it follows that ALL are of worth to God even if they do not value His gift of life. If on the other hand one holds to limited atonement then those Jesus did die for are as worthless to God as those He didn't die for.
If the first is true the future is open pending the response of individuals. If the later is true then the future is settled. I don't think there is a question as to where either of us stands.

Quote: Philetus
No wonder the world (and the people in it) aren't buying your version of 'truth'. The same people who are on the one hand saying that human beings are worthless to God are on the other hand building a case against abortion based on the sanctity of life so they can execute abortionists.

Nang:
Don't you dare attempt to put that one on me. "Thou shalt not murder" has nothing to do with admitting we are worthless sinners.

I think it does when 'worthless sinners' is equated with worthless human beings.

Quote Philetus:
Go figure. While fundamental Calvinists scratch their heads and wonder how fundamental extremist Muslim suicide-bombers can blow people up physically they continue to blow them off spiritually. I’m not sure which is more destructive.

Nang:
Now you went and got real ugly . . .I will not respond to your posts any longer, if you are going to ignorantly make such nasty comparisons. I do not deserve to receive such from you or anyone else.

Nang

Hang in there Nang. I told you early on not to personalize everything I say. Just because I think your thinking is wrong doesn't mean I think your heart is wrong. I hope you can accept the same about me. So lets not get into the name calling and personalizing that is so prevalent on this thread. The comparison has everything to do with the value of a life. Ignorant? I don't think so. Nasty? Yes, but not in the sense that it is a personal attack on you. Get the speck out of your eye; I’ll work on the log in mine. :noid: :shut:


Why would God forbid one human being from murdering another???? … to keep the murderer from becoming more evil and more worthless or because God values human life? Calvinism is given to such extremes. God values human lives … each and every one. God is the giver of life and doesn’t give or make worthless junk.

The comparison isn’t between you (personally) and a murderer. The question is about the worth of a living soul. When Calvinists take the extreme view that a living soul is absolutely worthless to God and then argue for the sanctity of life they send a double, contradictory message. But, total spiritual depravity isn’t total inability or total worthlessness.

I sat for four hours with a Muslim cleric who argued basically the same thing as Calvinism. Only they divide humanity into Muslim and infidel rather than elect and non-elect. It’s the same fatalism and it translates into seeing ‘others’ as worthless objects of wrath. I’m not arguing that we have anything to offer God. I’m arguing that God places infinite worth/value on all human life and that His unconditional love for each and every one is expressed at great expense to Himself. God has not only gone to great lengths and effort to ‘prevent/forbid’ us from destroying ourselves and our neighbors, but has paid the ultimate price to redeem us even when we do. We may see our selves and others as totally worthless, but God values us and our relationship to Himself and others.

It isn't you I'm addressing. I'm taking issue with the position that because we are all sinners (and we are) any particular life doesn't matter to God (it does). I actually like you! For a Calvinist, you're alright.

Philetus

 

[Mystery]

I think it does when 'worthless sinners' is equated with worthless human beings.

:squint:

You know some human beings that are/were not sinners?

 

[themuzicman]

Unlike our human conventions of love, God's goodness exercised towards his creatures assumes the higher character of love. God's love can be thought of as that perfection of God by which God is eternally moved to self-communication. God's love cannot and will not find complete satisfaction in any object falling short of absolute perfection, for God is absolutely good in Himself. God loves His creatures for His own sake, or, expressed differently, God loves in them Himself, His virtues, His work, and His gifts.

Another fine example of a Calvinist redefining a word to fit his theology.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Some may even say that justice is love distributed—to all our neighbors, those at hand, and those even far removed. Justice means that love must always be shown...

Excellent, yes, "love does not wrong to its neighbor," and thus "love fulfills the law."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

John says that those who do what is righteous are born of God.

Good point, so everyone is now saved? Well ... no.

... So those are not the fruit of the Spirit?

They certainly are, and without the Spirit, there can be no fruit of the Spirit, "and if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Rom. 8).

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

The "problem" here is that open theism wrongly defines God from a humanistic perspective. In effect, Open theism has misappropriated God's means of communicating with us analogically. God is the source of His anthropopathic means of communicating with us.

Moreover, if God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well. In other words, God's knowledge of His own actions in the future is at best probabilistic. Thus, God's statements that He will ultimately triumph over evil is no absolute guarantee. But we know that God is not a liar, so the assumptions of God's knowledge by open theists must be incorrect. The "problem" then, lies with open theism's assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty. Scripture is clear about God's exhaustive knowledge. For example, see Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Heb. 4:13; 2 Chron. 16:9; Job 28:24; Matt. 10:29-30; Isa. 46:9-10; Isa. 42:8-9; Matt. 6:8; Matt. 10:30; Ps. 139:1-2; Ps. 139:4; Ps. 139:16; Rom. 11:33

God is continually involved with all of His created things in such that God (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which He created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill His purposes. In other words, God is totally sovereign over all of His creation. Absolutely nothing in God’s creation can act independently of God’s sovereignty. God will always do what He has said, and will fulfill what He has promised. Man may claim sovereignty over his own life, but ultimately God is in control. For example, see Heb 1:3; Col. 1:17; Acts 17:28; Neh. 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matt. 5:45; Matt. 6:26; Num. 23:19; 2 Sam. 7:28; Ps. 33:14-15; Ps. 104:14; Ps. 104:29; Ps. 135:6; Ps. 139:16; Ps. 141:6; Ps. 148:8; Prov. 16:1; Prov. 16:33; Prov. 20:24; Prov. 21:1; Prov. 30:5; John 17:17; Eph. 1:11; Gal. 1:15; Jer. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:7

As above, everything of God's self-revelation is anthropomorphic. Whatever God has revealed to us about Himself, it was revealed anthropomorphically. God's self-revelation is analogical, that is, anthropomorphic because the Scriptures are God's speaking to us in human language. See more here. God Himself is the source of anthropomorphic portraits of Himself by making us in His image and likeness. God made us in His image and He forbids us to cast Him in our image. God is not uninformed at all here. In fact, this passage has nothing to do with things future, but it is more an expression in the same vein as we would say in rebuke, e.g., "I had no idea you were like that." Yet another of the many examples where the open theist casts God's analogical communications to us back in His face, making Him in their own image.

You misunderstand much. God is not the author of sin. But God can certainly exercise His providential control to bring good out of the self-determined, wrongful, actions of others.

Hey AMR,

Thanks for the post. I hope pwhines will address it too, though I am glad you said some of the things you said. It helps me understand where you are coming from. I haven't kept up with this thread lately, so I haven't had a chance to read much from you.

I have a standard answer to your critique of the OV. You may have read it before.

The problem most S.V.ers have is that they do not feel guaranteed for a perfect future in heaven. Yet no O.V.er ever said this is a problem for them. It isn't as if no one ever asked us about it, it is that it is a non issue because we feel our future is secure in God, even though God didn't look at the future.

My standard answer is just to look around you. Look at your computer, your hand, your house. God provided all the materials needed to construct all you see. He designed your hand. Every cell that is in it he assigned it's place. Beyond your four walls exists a world of complex systems and creatures all working together to maintain a balance that was ingeniously designed. Man hasn't even scratched the surface of understanding it yet. Beyond this world is a vastly amazing system of planets and stars with elements and mechanisms that blow the mind. And it goes on and on forever and ever, and we can't even conceive of what really means. "Forever".

Yet God created it all with only a word. With nothing more than a sand sculpture he created man. What isn't too hard for God? If his right hand could be tied behind his back he could manifest 10000 universes with nothing more than a pinky of his left hand.

Why, then, if God doesn't know the future, is he unable to make good his promises?

Above, you posted a lot of verses that show God's vast knowledge of the present and of his knowledge of future plans. Where is the verse that says "I am God, I know the entire future?" You left that one out because it isn't there.

I agree that Gods knowledge is complete, but only in respect to what can be known. The future can't be known because it doesn't exist.

And one last thing. I hope you think about this before you reply. But because of your theology, you have to read verses like the one I posted as "anthropomorphic." But on the other hand I can take a verse like the one above and say "God meant the words he said." In that verse he wasn't talking about a body part he doesn't have. It never entered his mind that this event would happen. I take it to mean that because I think God speaks truth. I know you do too, but you have to take these verses that are so straight forward and change them to fit a theology. Just think about it.

 

[Mystery]

Good point, so everyone is now saved? Well ... no.


They certainly are, and without the Spirit, there can be no fruit of the Spirit, "and if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (Rom. 8).

Blessings,
Lee

Are you pointing those things out because you agree with me? Because you basically repeated what I said.

 

[lee_merrill]

The comparison isn’t between you (personally) and a murderer. The question is about the worth of a living soul. When Calvinists take the extreme view that a living soul is absolutely worthless to God and then argue for the sanctity of life they send a double, contradictory message. But, total spiritual depravity isn’t total inability or total worthlessness.

"All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Rom. 3:12)

"This is what the Lord says: 'What fault did your fathers find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves.'" (Jer. 2:5)

Yes, those who follow false gods of any sort have no worth, they are worthless, useless, unprofitable, Scripture says this.

God values human lives, we should too, and should indeed not be like Muslim terrorists who blow up people indiscriminately without regard for human life. For people are created in God's image, but to say there is worth apart from Christ and the presence of God, is a mistake.

"Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy" (Rev. 3:4). This would imply that those who have soiled their clothes, including unbelievers, are not.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Philetus]

:squint:

You know some human beings that are/were not sinners?

Lighthouse is not a sinner, ask him.

There is no such thing as a human being who is without sin ... except for Jesus, of course.

Nor is there such a thing as a worthless human being.