themuzicman
Well-known member
Actually, it doesn't. Erasmus didn't even have all of the NT in Greek when he assembled the later named "Textus Receptus", and had to translate part of the NT from Latin back into Greek.
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Actually, it doesn't. Erasmus didn't even have all of the NT in Greek when he assembled the later named "Textus Receptus", and had to translate part of the NT from Latin back into Greek.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Are you ready to see the geometric syllogism that proves that a right angle
is 120 degrees? :chuckle:
Philetus
New member
So you deny the trinity because it is a RCC doctrine. That leaves you little to go on if you hold to that position on everything that is RCC doctirne.
If Christ is deity and God and Christ are not one, just how many gods do you think there are? Two?
I doubt any of us know what it is to be 'the only begotten Son of God according to the flesh'.:crackup:
Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin?
Philetus
Philetus
New member
:nono: He isn't. He might be wrong once in a great while:sigh: , but he is not a lier.
I would really (sort'a) like to hear your non RCC version of who Jesus is.
P
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Clete - any comments on the Romans 11 issue I brought up? I know you agree
with Muz & rulz, but I'd still like to see your comments from the MAD perspective.
with Muz & rulz, but I'd still like to see your comments from the MAD perspective.
Sure. I think it would be interesting to see that.
But is that your answer to the question I asked? That syllogisms are meaningless?
lee_merrill
New member
Godrulz...
Then does God ever speak and then not act, or promise and not fulfill? This would be referring to unconditional statements and promises, certainly. Does God ever give such a word that does not come to pass or does not take place?
Blessings,
Lee
Then does God ever speak and then not act, or promise and not fulfill? This would be referring to unconditional statements and promises, certainly. Does God ever give such a word that does not come to pass or does not take place?
Blessings,
Lee
Wow.
I don't even know where to begin with this. Seriously, I really don't know where to begin. I could respond point for point but I think that doing so would be fruitless because reading the Bible, in this case, isn't the problem. But then again, it sort of is the problem. It's a paradigm issue. Let me explain what I mean.
You see, I strongly believe that one should allow the Bible to say what it seems to be saying unless given strong grammatical/contextual reasons to do otherwise and you can expect that I won't back away from that position here. Indeed, most people agree with this policy and think that they adhere to it, but they don't. The problem is that you can't start taking the Bible for what it seems to say smack in the middle and then interpret the rest of the Bible around it. Or put another way, you can't come to the Bible with a brain full of preconceived ideas about theology and then only directly quote Bible verses that seem to confirm that belief while interpreting the rest of the Bible to conform to that paradigm. This is what is happening with your use of the Romans 11 passage. I know you almost certainly reject that as false but nevertheless that is indeed what is happening.
The idea of exhaustive divine foreknowledge is not in the Bible. It isn't in Romans 11 and it isn't anywhere else either except in the writings of Aristotle, Augustine, The Catholic church, Luther, Calvin etc.
Now, I could spend the next 3 hours typing up something that would establish that but I've done that before, as have many others who are more capable than I, and I'll let those writings suffice for now as I doubt you would read it nor be persuaded by it if you did.
So, what is my response?
My response is that Romans 11 means precisely what it says but that your doctrine is coloring the text in your mind, causing it to mean "Arminianism" instead of what it simply states. Of course, you don't believe me and so I challenge you to do this. Prove Arminian theology from Romans 11. If you try to do that you will fail because it isn't in there. You are reading doctrine into that text that the text itself does not support. What specifically, according to the text itself, does Paul say was foreknown? What does the Bible say is "the election"? Not, what does your doctrine say, what does the Bible say?
Don't be confused about my point here. I am not asking you to write a post in answer those questions, they are rhetorical. Chances are you've already answered them in your head. The point I am trying to make is that you come to this passage with definitions of terms already in your head; definitions that are doctrinal, not Biblical! And it is this preconceived doctrinal paradigm that causes you to see your doctrine everywhere in the Bible. This is why godrulz is permanently stuck in his flesh based, experience based 'charismaticism'. It is why Jim Jones believed what he believed and did what he did. It is why the Pope believes what he believes. Its why the Baptists believe what they believe. Ect, ect, ect. In effect, I am saying that you cannot trust your own reading of the Scriptures. Unless and until you are willing to test your own paradigm and are willing to discard it in favor of a superior one (if a superior one is found), you'll forever be a drift from the moorings of the truth which is based on Scripture and sound reason alone.
"It's why you believe what you believe too, Clete!"
That's what you're thinking, right?!
If so, there's hope! You're absolutely right! My paradigm colors the text just as surely as yours does. There is no such thing as being truly objective, but we can strive to get as close as we can. The difficult part is figuring out what it means to be objective. What tests are there that can be applied to one's paradigm and what criteria exist by which we can declare one paradigm superior to another? That's the big question!
Now, the problem for you is this. I believe strongly that the most superior Biblical paradigm leads inextricably to Acts 9 Dispensationalism, and you, if you are intellectually honest, must admit that I am at least potentially correct about that. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you are willing to set your paradigm aside long enough to examine it thoroughly, knowing that by doing so you might be forced to abandon it forever.
Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to risk your Biblical paradigm in an attempt to establish that paradigm as the most superior one that you've yet been exposed too?
If not, then that's fine. You'll be well within the vast majority of believers and I won't hold it against you. It truly is an astoundingly difficult thing to do. In fact, many are incapable of it. They just don't know how to suspend their belief system in such a way that facilitates an honest evaluation of it. Some even believe it to be sacrilege to even suggest such a thing, never mind actually do it! But if you aren't one of those people and are willing then just say so and we can proceed. You'll have made my month! :jump:
Resting in Him,
Clete
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Clete - sticking to Romans 11 for the time being, can we atleast agree that as of Acts 9, Israel (as a nation) was "fallen" and they were "cast away" by 70ad and dispersed among the nations?
Can we agree that a remnant of that fallen nation was gathered into the Body of Christ before 70ad?
I want to make sure we atleast agree here before I go furthur to explain why I believe God foreknew the remnant of Israel individually.
Can we agree that a remnant of that fallen nation was gathered into the Body of Christ before 70ad?
I want to make sure we atleast agree here before I go furthur to explain why I believe God foreknew the remnant of Israel individually.
Fallen? No. Cut off? Yes!
I don't know how Acts 9 fits along with the timing of 70ad and I'm not sure that such timing is even relevant. It would seem to me that the cutting off of Israel happen about a year after Pentecost as a result of the stoning of Stephen. But we can agree that as of Acts 9, regardless of what the date was, God was no longer dealing with Israel as he had been up to that point. God had put the Mosaic Covenant of Law "on hold", if you'll allow the expression.
Yes and no.
The callings of God are irrevocable. If one was called while under the law then he remained under the law. If one was called under grace then he remained under grace. Those who came to belief in God while under law, (i.e. believing Israel; a.k.a the Twelve and their converts) remained under law until their physical death and were not made members of the Body of Christ, nor will they ever be. They are members of Israel and will remain members of Israel and will eventually rule and reign with Christ in the Earthly Kingdom that God has promised to the nation of Israel. The Body of Christ's calling is not Earthly and physical as Israel's is but rather Heavenly and Spiritual.
Having said that, there were those who were Jews, who had not previously believed in Jesus as the Messiah, who came to faith under Paul's Dispensation of Grace and were thus made members of the Body of Christ. And the critical point here is that when Israel as a nation was cut off and the previous dispensation ended, people from neither group were cut off, regardless of their nationality, but were preserved as a remnant because of grace.
If your reading of Romans 11 is correct, God is unjust, by definition.
If God is unjust the Bible is false.
If the Bible is false, Christianity is false and whatever Romans 11 teaches is a moot point.
Christianity is true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
Therefore the Bible is true.
Therefore God is just.
Therefore your reading of Romans 11 is not correct regardless of your reasons for believing it.
See what I mean STP? Its not a Bible thing, its a paradigm thing. Your Biblical arguments can only provide further proof of this.
Resting in Him,
Clete
If it is truly unconditional, it will come about as promised (due to character and ability, not foreknowledge...even humans can have foreknowledge).
Some contexts appear uncond., but they actually have an implied or inherent condition.
The few proof texts that God will not change His mind in specific cases do not negate the many others ones that show that God can and does change His mind at times, consistent with His character and conditional pronouncements.
lee_merrill
New member
Then the Open Theists agree with all the other theists on this one. :cheers:
Agreed, then God changed his mind would mean God changed his response because of changing circumstances...
Blessings,
Lee
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
So, your mind is closed despite the evidence I can provide from Acts to make a case contrary to your beliefs? If God foreknew who from Israel would believe Paul's gospel, then God is unjust? Are you really willing to adjust your entire understanding of the Bible & world view around a man made syllogism which is questionable at best?
Not necessarily. The point is, however, that your case would have to include evidence that refutes the logic I just presented, which I don't believe is possible from within your paradigm. You seem perfectly comfortable ignoring sound reason in favor of your doctrine.
You need to do some thinking about what your primary principles are and what they mean. Is your allegiance to your doctrine, or to what it means to be true, righteous, just and loving.
Yes.
Man did not make logic, STP and saying something is questionable doesn't mean it is. In what way is it questionable? Where is the flaw in the logic? Words mean things, STP. Is God arbitrary or is He just? He cannot be both. Does God force people into unbelief or does He want all to repent? He cannot do both. Does God give individuals a choice about what they believe or does God know what they will and will not believe before they ever exist? He cannot do both!
Resting in Him,
Clete
I'm not dogmatic on the point but I base it primarily on Luke 13:6-9.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The "acceptable year of the Lord" had ended, but yet instead of bringing in the 70th week, God raised up Saul of Tarsus with a different message.
- Status