ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, of course not. Let us look at the verse again:
"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" (Ro.5:18).
The Greek word translated "unto" in the phrase "free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" is a preposition which speaks of "direction":
" 'eis', a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
The word 'tendency" is a synonym for the word "direction" and "a TENDENCY is an inclination toward a certain line of action (whether or not the action follows), and is often the result of inherent qualities, nature and habit" (The American College Dictionary).
Now let us look at the verse again:
"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" (Ro.5:18).
Since in the first instance where the words "all men" are used they obviously refer to all men everywhere then common sense dictates that the second time those same words are used the meaning is also all men everywhere. Therefore Abel cannot be excluded so His blessings are dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ.
But you deny that truth!
genuineoriginal
New member
So, in the second instance where the word "unto" (eis) is used to mean all men have a "tendency towards" justification, then common sense dictates that the first time that same word "to" (eis) is used the meaning is that all men have a "tendency towards" condemnation?
Do you not understand that if all men are not justified then all men are also not condemned?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That is right and it is the act of sinning which brings that condemnation. And earlier in the same discourse Paul makes it plain that all have sinned:
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).
All men are not justified because all men do not believe. all men are condemned because all men sin. But that does not answer how Abel could be just in the eyes of God APART from the Lord Jesus since the following verse demonstrates that no one receives that blessing APART from the Lord Jesus:
"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" (Ro.5:18).
Since in the first instance where the words "all men" are used they obviously refer to all men everywhere then common sense dictates that the second time those same words are used the meaning is also all men everywhere. Therefore Abel cannot be excluded so His blessings are dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ.
But you deny that truth!
genuineoriginal
New member
But that is not what that verse demonstrates, as shown by the following verse.
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 verses state that Adam's offense gave all men the tendency towards condemnation and that many were made sinners because of that.
However, the Bible also states this:
Ezekiel 18:21-23 21But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? |
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, the verse says that it was a result of Adam's sin that "many" were made sinners and it was the result of the obedience of One that "many" are made righteous. The word "all" is not even used in that verse.
You have said what the following verse does NOT mean so now tell me what it does mean:
"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" (Ro.5:18).
genuineoriginal
New member
That is my point.
The verse does not say "all" were made sinners, it says "many" were made sinners, which implies that "some" were not sinners.
It means that Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. |
However, Jesus talks about others that are not ungodly and need no repentance:
Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. |
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you not believe what Paul said just a few verses earlier?:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Ro.5:12).
Since all have sinned then all are sinners. The word "many" does not rule out the idea of "all."
the lord there was making reference to the Pharisees who 'thought" themselves righteous so in their mind they did not need to repent:
"And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance" (Lk.15:2-7).
Of course all men need to repent, as witnessed by the words of Peter here:
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet.3:9).
The verse says nothing about Christ dying for the ungodly since the word "ungodly" is not even found in the verse:
"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" (Ro.5:18).
Please tell me who the words "all men" in the verse are referring to and the relationship of those words to "justification" and the "righteousness of one."
I am amazed by just how far you are willing to go in an effort to try to prove that Abel's justification and salvation was not dependent on the Lord Jesus in any way! Your ideas are contradicted by the following words:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim.4:10).
According to you the Lord Jesus was not the saviour of Abel, even though he believed and was declared righteous:
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).
genuineoriginal
New member
That verse does not contradict anything I said.
Deuteronomy 5:26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? |
Abel's name was written in the book of life before the book was given to Jesus. After the book of life was given to Jesus, only Jesus determined the names that would be written in the book and the names that would be blotted out.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course you must deny that the reference to "God" in the following verse is in regard to the Lord Jesus Christ:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim.4:10).
But when we look at other verses we can KNOW that the Saviour spoken of in this verse is the Lord Jesus:
"And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (Jn.4:42).
"For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil.3:20).
"But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim.1:10).
Of course we both know why you will not acknowledge that the Saviour spoken of in the following verse is the Lord Jesus:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim.4:10).
You deny this truth because you say that the Lord Jesus had nothing to do with Abel's salvation despite the fact that the Lord Jesus is the Saviour of all who believe, and that must include Abel:
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).
You say that the Lord Jesus is not Abel's Savior, and you must say that to defend the discredited ideas put forward by those in the "Open Theology" community.
genuineoriginal
New member
It has nothing to do with the "Open Theology" community and everything to do with rightly understanding how covenants work in the Bible.
Now, if you will stop trying to stretch the Bible like taffy in order to fit your preconceptions, can we get back to a discussion on Open Theism?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why should anyone believe anything that you say since you run from verses which do not fit your ideas and worse than that you are ignorant that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Then despite the fact that He is the Saviour of all who believe, which must include Abel, you deny that He is Abel's Saviour.
You deny the things which cannot be denied so that you can cling to the fable invented by men called "Open Theology."
genuineoriginal
New member
Like I said, it has nothing to do with "Open Theology" no matter how much you want it to.
Jesus proclaimed that Abel was righteous, so why are you calling Him a liar?
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. |
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If you remember I was the first one to quote the following verse which says that Abel was righteous:
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).
So why would I be calling the Lord Jesus a liar since I brought up the fact that Abel was righteous in the eyes of God?
Of course we both know why you will not acknowledge that the Saviour spoken of in the following verse is the Lord Jesus:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim.4:10).
You deny this truth because you say that the Lord Jesus had nothing to do with Abel's salvation despite the fact that the Lord Jesus is the Saviour of all who believe, and that must include Abel:
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).
You say that the Lord Jesus is not Abel's Savior, and you must say that to defend your discredited ideas, ideas which are shared by those within the "Open Theology" community.
genuineoriginal
New member
You are calling the Lord Jesus a liar so you can justify calling God a liar.
You are saying, "However...God lied when He said that."
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You are pitiful!
I never said anything that even hints that I ever called God a liar.
Since you have no answer you attack me!
Now, I will ask you a simple question.
With the following verse in view who is the Saviour?:
"And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (Jn.4:42).
Is it not the same Saviour spoken of here?:
"But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim.1:10).
Is the Saviour not the same one spoken of here?:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim.4:10).
Of course the Saviour is the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is the Saviour of all men who believe so we can KNOW with certainity that He is the Saviour of Abel because Abel believed:
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).
These facts are so simple so it puzzles me why you continue to insist that Abel's salvation was not dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ in any way whatsoever.
Worse than that, instead of offering anything that resembles an "intellegent" answer you just attack me by saying that I am calling God a liar.
genuineoriginal
New member
Read these verses:
Genesis 6 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. |
When did God decide to destroy man, before the creation or after?
When did God see how wicked man had become, before the creation or after?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The answer to both your questions is "after."
Now please answer my question:
With the following verse in view who is the Saviour?:
"And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (Jn.4:42).
Is it not the same Saviour spoken of here?:
"But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim.1:10).
Is the Saviour not the same one spoken of here?:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Tim.4:10).
Of course the Saviour is the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is the Saviour of all men who believe so we can KNOW with certainity that He is the Saviour of Abel because Abel believed:
"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).
These facts are so simple so it puzzles me why you continue to insist that Abel's salvation was not dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ in any way whatsoever.
Now please answer me. Who is the Saviour spoken of in the verses which I quoted?
genuineoriginal
New member
Jesus the Christ
Yes
No
No
The problem you are having seems to stem from your lack of understanding of God's delegation of authority to Jesus and when that happened.
Abel's name was written in the book of life before God delegated that authority to Jesus.
His inclusion was based on the criteria God used at the time (Malachi 3:16), not on the criteria Jesus now uses (Romans 10:9).
In two verses it is Jesus the Christ, in one verse it is the living God, and in the last verse there is no saviour mentioned.
If you believe that, then what is your problem with Open Theism?
Lon
Well-known member
Open theist question:
Gen 22:12 And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, nor do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me.
If God doesn't know our minds, how can He know if we are a new creation or not? How could He know if we won't rebel in heaven, like the angels did or not? (Knight's angels thread had me thinking which brought this passage to mind) How could He know if there will be no more sorrow in heaven or not?
Gen 22:12 And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, nor do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me.
If God doesn't know our minds, how can He know if we are a new creation or not? How could He know if we won't rebel in heaven, like the angels did or not? (Knight's angels thread had me thinking which brought this passage to mind) How could He know if there will be no more sorrow in heaven or not?