I do not think a gun or knife would cause an angel, Christ, or resurrected saints to bleed.
Using your logic, do we also urinate and defecate?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I do not think a gun or knife would cause an angel, Christ, or resurrected saints to bleed.
Using your logic, do we also urinate and defecate?
Angels are spirits, not physical beings. And I never said anything about bleeding. Only that blood could be in the body. Moron.
The sad part is that you are not using logic at all in this discussion. All you're doing is jumping to conclusions off of foundations that are yet to be solid. And that only leads to failure.
Pam Baldwin
New member
Don't you all say/believe that God puts people (i.e. "witnesses")/things(i.e. certain Scripture verse) /events(i.e. an illness) in a person's life to try and get them to accept His gift.....to try and convince them to "accept" Him?.....
But more than that, I've heard it said by some, that "God is not willing that any should perish"....... yet, they do. So.....if it is God's Will for them to be saved.........something went wrong, and since God's Will was not done----whose will was?? That one must be more powerful ....than God?
Is anyone here familiar with AA? Al-Anon?
I think the first step is to realize that you are powerless againts the disease...and that in Al-Anon they say that you didn't cause it, you can't control it, and you can't cure it. In essense, you have to leave the person be--- it is their life to do with as they wish. IS this the same sense that you are saying God acts?
God didn't cause it, He can't control it, and He can't cure it? It seems that freewill does such. Only that would seem to admit that first part....I am powerless , and that, just is not true or God.
Pam
Angels are creatures.
Their bodies are shown to differentiate from ours in that wings are often attributed to them. Not all angels have the same number of wings (Ezek. 1:6; Rev. 4:8).
They are given names: Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer.
Some angels are greater in beauty and strength as compared to others. These angels are called “cherubs”.
Lucifer is described in terms that exceed any other Biblical description of a creature (Ezek. 28:14-15)
Angels will be involved in a war (Rev. 12:7)
Hebrews 2:2 indicates that angels had a choice of whatever means of salvation existed for them.
In Gen. 6 fallen angels had sexual relations (with the daughters of men).
Lucifer means “bright and shining one ‘’
Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7 and 9 all use the phrase 'made a little lower than the angels' to describe Jesus.
Angels have a hierarchy.
Wrong assumptions about sovereignty, God's will, free will, monergism, predestination, etc. lead to wrong conclusions.
God can restrain the use of His power or sovereignly choose to not always get His way in order to foster genuine, loving, reciprocal, significant relationships without ceasing to be omnipotent. God can create significant others with a say so without abdicating His place on the throne. God can providentially vs meticulously control creation without ceasing to be God or the creature usurping God or being more powerful than God.
Your thinking does not compute. Some of your conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
So the 12 Apostles were not guaranteed salvation?
C'Mon!
You force a false distinction of Christ's words directed to all His own . . .who indeed were first Apostles, then disciples; which includes all His Elect saints
No, God does not choose "among His disciples," but rather, chooses whom His disciples will be . . .those would be the Elect saints chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. (Eph. 1:3-5)
What born again Christian is not a disciple of Christ? What born again Christian is not a prophet? Not all Christians are Apostles (those who were eye-witnesses of the incarnated Christ), but all Christians are His disciples and prophets and indeed reign with Him as spiritual "kings." (I Peter 6-10; Rev. 20:4-6)
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
No . . .wrong definitons of "sovereignty, Divine will, etc. lead to wrong conclusions.
And your personal definitions of all these theological facts and terms are all wrong!
If this were truly so, God would not be sovereign or omnipotent.
Yet, this is your claim against God which attempts to dilute His magnificent and infinite attributes.
Creation was a work of sovereign God; not a limitation upon sovereign God.
Well, duh . . .for sure this is so!
Your knee-jerk reaction and vague answers do not measure up to, let alone legitimately address Pam's post.
Nang
Lon
Well-known member
The appointment came after or alongside being chosen.
He said the same thing to them just after calling them to follow:
and further here
and yet again
and also
Calvinists beg the question (circular reasoning) by assuming their definition of sovereignty is the only possible one and then using that to prove other views wrong. God can be sovereign and omnipotent without being omnicausal or tightly controlling of everything. In fact, omnicompetence is the key, not omnicausality.
Pam Baldwin
New member
"God's ability"??
.....but it seems that His ability was not as good as He hoped, since there are a lot of people who resisted.......
Pam Baldwin
New member
godrulz- Am I right to understand that you think the ultimate and the overriding goal of creation (of man) was so that God could have a relationship (loving, genuine, reciprocal ) with man?
....and not for God's Glory?
Phil 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This group of things includes the reprobate and fallen angels, does it not?
But if God's goal was to have that relationship that you mentioned, shouldn't this scene be one of great grief for God when He must ban them from His presence- in Hell ? No, it is a scene of God being glorified.
Pam Baldwin
New member
Hi tetelestai :wave:
I've not thought much about this subject, interesting!
I had a few questions about your statements:
I read Heb 2;2, but I'm not sure how you got that out of it....could you elaborate?
Scripture does say they are "spirits", but I agree that they do have some type of body. I liked your references. It seems that angels had the power to take on a human form and they did in Gen.2.
I've not thought much about this subject, interesting!
I had a few questions about your statements:
I read Heb 2;2, but I'm not sure how you got that out of it....could you elaborate?
Scripture does say they are "spirits", but I agree that they do have some type of body. I liked your references. It seems that angels had the power to take on a human form and they did in Gen.2.
No. Calvinists, i.e. you, do that.
Now here is where your idiocy shines through. You're not thinking things through. God has certain things that He wants. Some things He wants more than others. And sometimes those things He wants more means He cannot have the things He wants less.
God wants us to love Him of our own will, therefore He will not force us to love Him. And that means He will not save us if we do not love Him. So His will for all of us to be saved is not accomplished, because we are not all willing to love Him.
This is not our wills being more powerful than God's, it is God allowing us to have a will. And making sacrifices in order for His greater will [that we have wills of our own] to be accomplished.
As for us letting other people make their choices, yes. But we, and God, are free to make our voices heard in regard to their choices. But we cannot make their choices for them. We can only lay the consequences at their feet.
But AA is wrong in that we didn't cause our problems or that we can't control them or "cure" them. And I put cure in quotations because our problems are not a disease [and that includes alcohol.
Now, if someone does get a disease then those things are true, except the control one. Most of them can at least be managed.
Of course God's not powerless. But He chooses not to use His power. Why? Because He is sovereign over Himself.
And? I still can't see the ones around me. So they're not physical.
Angels exist in two categories: the elect and the unsaved angels. The elect angels, which were always sinless, even before man was created, are generally designated in Scripture by one of two names: “holy” (Mark 8:38), and “elect” (1 Tim. 5:21).
The fallen or unsaved angelsare divided into two groups: the imprisoned angels, those “which kept not their first estate” (Jude 6), and the operative fallen angels, generally called “demons”(Mark 5; 1 Cor. 10:20,21; 1 Tim. 4:1, etc.). The imprisoned angels were involved in the infiltration of the human race of Genesis 6. They are locked up in Tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4) until a point of time indicated in the Revelation.
These two categories did not always exist. Prior to history, there was a conflict in heaven among the angels and a division ensued. Angels were originally in a state of innocence, just as man was; then, when Satan fell by exercising negative volition toward God and toward grace, a great portion of the angelic structure chose to go along with him. “And his tail drew the third part of the stars (angels) of heaven, and did cast them to the earth . . ) (Rev. 12:4). The angels which followed Satan had the opportunity to reverse their decision, and over a period of possibly a million years refused to do so.
P.S. If Calvinists and Open Theists would pay more attention to what happened before man was created, it is my opinion there would be less Calvinists and Open Theists.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I concur, brother T.
These verses are very clear and easy to understand. Judas was chosen and yet was not saved, so his apostleship did not guarantee his salvation. Jesus chose from among his disciples who would be his apostles, Luke 6:13 "And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles." You're arguing against scripture if you disagree.
--Dave
"God's ability"??
.....but it seems that His ability was not as good as He hoped, since there are a lot of people who resisted.......
I have the ability to physically control and lock up babies. I can kill babies. This does not mean I must exercise all my abilities all of the time.
In your view, God's ability does not save billions of people. Was His ability not good enough? Power is one thing, but love is another matter.
Causation/coercion are not relational issues. Salvation is more relational than metaphysical.
I desire many things for my children. They can resist my will for them. I could force my will on them, but it would not be reciprocal love. I have the ability to do certain things, but at what cost to personhood and relationship?
Omnicausality is simply an unbiblical view of sovereignty. You should know this because it would make God the ultimate cause of evil, contrary to His revealed character and ways.
You are not as extreme as Nang, beloved57, Zman, etc., but you need to get out of their deterministic boat.
You are wrong to pit God's glory, power, sovereignty, etc. against his love, freedom, and relationship.
There is a difference between fallen beings being forced to bow their knee to God and those who voluntarily, lovingly do so. The former go to hell, while the latter go to heaven.
Why is unconditional reprobation seen to be as much to the glory of God as unconditional election? In light of impartial love, how can one defend this biblically (you cannot)?
The goal of creation is the glory of God. This is why it is so tragic when man fell and men continue to reject Him. The highest glory of God and good of man is not achieved when we spurn His love.
As to creation, God's desire is to call out a people in relationship, not by coercion or brute force. God is glorified when we bow to Him, but grieved when we do not (Gen. 3). It robs God of glory to have some perish, contrary to His will. This is why we preach the gospel with authority and the power of love. We are not Muslims or Constantine trying to convert by force.