ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

I could care less if he is Calvinist. He made a point that said the "Gospel of salvation and life has its source in the love of God." One, usually an Arminian, comes to the point then that God loves all so he died for all. It doesn't, however, explain as to how there are those that still perish in the Lake of Fire.

Did Christ die for those whom He knew who go to Hell? Or if you don't believe in the fact that He knew they would go to Hell, then did He die for those who "freely" rejected Him and were condemned to Hell? Either way you have it, you would have to come to the conclusion that His blood was spilled in vain for those who were condemned. (i.e. Judas Iscariot. Did Christ die for his sins too?)

I have found this distinction helpful:

The GROUNDS of salvation (reason for which) is the person and work of Christ (death/resurrection; grace).

The CONDITIONS of salvation (not without which) are repentant faith and continuance in the faith.

Lest you object, faith is not a self-righteous work. It involves a response of the will, intellect, emotions to the truth of God. It involves knowledge, mental assent, and TRUST/love.

One should also not confuse the efficacious provision of redemption with its individual application. Men are culpable for their lostness if they reject the provision of the free gift of eternal life. God's sacrifice or love is not weakened by the wickedness and stupidity of man.

Viewing the atonement as a literal payment or legal commercial transaction also leads to wrong thinking and conclusions. Your objections to the universal love of God seem weak and an attempt to logically maintain a preconceived theology.

 

[godrulz]

English has one word for love (love God and hot dogs). Greeks have several words (agape, eros, philos, storge, etc.). There is not one sentence that defines love.

It is possible for God to love the whole world and love the church in a special way. I believe love, justice, holiness, etc. are impartial, not arbitrary. Electing some and non-electing others may suit a controlling dictator, but it is not consistent with His character.

Gregory Boyd affirms the great doctrines of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. However, He does not define omnipotence as creating square circles. There are areas of power or knowledge that are absurd or logically contradictory (even for God). The issue is with the nature of what is knowable (recognizing possibilities are not certainties/actualities before they happen if free will is involved). It is not with a deficiency in God's knowledge. He correctly knows reality as it is.

I did not say 'world' is translated 'elect' (though some have done that). I do say that some read it as such in their minds or explanations. This is simply not implicit in the word, but is an assumption based on a preconceived theology.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
:think: Funny how that's precisely what the text says....

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Amazing. You don't even have the clarity of sight to recognize when you're being ridiculed or ridiculous. Do you hear yourself? Do you see what you're defending? You're defending a concept of God that is born out of pagan mythology. If the verse actually meant that God didn't know what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah, He would not be God. But Open View proponents are so eager to latch onto anything that denigrates the power and transcendence of God that they take obvious figures of speech and literalize them to suit their mytheology.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Must be another figure of speech, the meaning of which nobody is able or willing to explain.

Wrong, Clete. It's another of literally thousands of figures of speech in scripture that conveys rich and emphatic points of doctrine, seemingly opposite of what the words say in isolation. And like all figures of speech, the figurative meaning and value is ascertained, not in isolation, but in the context of the passage and the overall teaching of scripture. And it's not that nobody is able or willing to explain, but rather that Open Theists have abundantly proven that they really don't want to know or understand what the figures mean, because if they did, they would no longer be able to use their specious and fatuous criticisms.

How would one go about discovering what the verse actually means? One way would be the process of elimination. Consider first what it does NOT mean:

It doesn't mean that God was ignorant of something as basic as what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

It doesn't mean the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were able to hide their behavior from God.

Because I believe God is really God and not some incoherent and self-refuting myth, I conclude that the verse must be figurative. You, on the other hand, are committed to darkening and distorting the character of God, limiting His knowledge and power, bringing God down and exalting man.

"... wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?"

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Heaven forbid we actually read the Bible and take it for what it seems to say! That might put our beloved theology at risk! Oh NO! :shocked:

You just go right ahead and continue to believe in a God who supposedly can hear all the prayers of His people simultaneously, yet He somehow does not know what's going on in a particular city or two.

Can anyone seriously trust a God who challenges Job: "18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all," yet He Himself doesn't know what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah???

By your theology, Clete, Job had an answer: "I might not have 'perceived the breadth of the earth,' but You're not so great if you still need to send angels to find out what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah."

But no, Job did not answer that way. Instead he said, "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee."

This is the God who knows everything without investigation, who hears all prayers simultaneously and holds every atom in the universe together while listening to those prayers.

But the Open Theists don't agree with Job or the scriptures. God can't be that knowledgeable. God can't be that aware, because that would undermine major OV tenets of God being a Big Doofuss. Again, I ask, how does the Open Theist trust this God? And for what? What does He actually do? He says He has done everything He can -- in the past. What is He doing right now? According to OVists here on TOL, God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible (which means He's doing what, exactly?), yet they pray to God and ask Him to do stuff. To do what exactly? More than He is already doing? How can He do anymore when He is already doing everything He can?

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

 

[HopeofGlory]

It seems logical to me that God was using the angels as men to relate to Abraham as a man thus allowing Abraham to express his feelings about God's decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Children need the relationships of their parents and parents must communicate to them on their level.

Gen 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.




The death of an unborn child, exactly how would God determine this child's fate and why? I would like to hear from both sides.

Is sin imputed where there is no experience of sin?

Is judgement based on foreknowledge of what the child would have believed if it had lived?

Does God communicate to it in a way that it can understand and exercise freewill?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

1) The death of an unborn child, exactly how would God determine this child's fate and why? I would like to hear from both sides.

2) Is sin imputed where there is no experience of sin?

3) Is judgement based on foreknowledge of what the child would have believed if it had lived?

4) Does God communicate to it in a way that it can understand and exercise freewill?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

1) Augustine's doctrine of 'original sin' and the Federal Headship of Adam is only a theory. Catholics using infant baptism (sacrament) to deal with this so-called infant sin is specious (not biblical). When David's baby died, he said he would see him again. From conception to newborn certainly cannot make moral choices. They have eternal life because of their non-rejection of Christ (they do not have mental or moral capacity). They have not made wrong moral choices, nor were they lawless (= sin).

Babies, abortions, etc. go to heaven. This is reasonable in light of God's character and our moral make-up. At some point, a child has moral and mental capacity and will be held responsible for chosen sin, selfishness, and unbelief.

2) Do we sin because we are sinners ('imputation')? NO. Sin is not a substance passed on genetically from Adam (physical depravity is inherited; moral depravity is formed through wrong moral choices= sin).

We are sinners because we sin. Sin and rebellion are volitional. There is nothing back of the will causing us to sin (though we have a propensity to sin due to the Fall and flesh). The soul that sins is the one that will did (Ezek.). We cannot blame it on Adam or the devil. We are responsible/accountable because we sin, not because Adam sinned (Federal Headship is one theory of several).

3) This is incoherent. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is not knowable as an actuality/certainty until choices are made. Your thought is philosophical and assumes the 'eternal now'/timelessness concept of God or the simple foreknowledge view of Arminianism. The Hebraic view is that God experiences an everlasting duration of sequence or succession ('time'). If a baby dies in the womb, there is no future to know. This is not Hollywood science fiction. The question is a non-starter and illustrates how problematic the classical understanding of God's relationship to time is. Eternal does not mean timelessness, but everlasting duration (no beginning, no end).

4) The embryo does not have mental and moral capacity. Its spirit could sense God's presence. They are 'saved' based on their non-rejection of God (not possible yet). When they hear and understand the Gospel and conscience, then they are saved by repentant faith or remain condemned by active rejection of truth.

"Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Gen. 18:25 (He does not send babies to hell, nor does He elect some and non-elect others).

Do hyper-Calvinists believe some babies go to heaven and some to hell (since they believe some adults are predestined for heaven and some to hell)? This would be as abhorrent as saying a non-baptized baby goes to hell or that some go to hell that God could have predestined/elected/saved.

TULIP
:down:

 

[natewood3]

Hilston,

All I have to say is amen...

 

[HopeofGlory]

godrulz,

Thank you for your response.

1) Sin is transgression of the law but what about the sin nature, is it not necessary to become a new creature? Adam did not sin until he disobeyed God but the sin nature was already present. Adam was created in God's image but limited by his flesh.

2) At this point I believe sin is not imputed but only Christ was capable of not sinning. The propensity to sin (if I understand your use of the word) was present before the fall. We cannot blame God for our existance, we should thank Him for giving us life as we know it and even eternal life for some.

3) A limited understanding of God's foreknowledge coupled with a limited understanding of freewill would not be able to express the ability of God to righteously judge an unborn child.

4) Can you provide scripture where God saves based on non rejection?

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

godrulz,

Thank you for your response.

1) Sin is transgression of the law but what about the sin nature, is it not necessary to become a new creature? Adam did not sin until he disobeyed God but the sin nature was already present. Adam was created in God's image but limited by his flesh.

2) At this point I believe sin is not imputed but only Christ was capable of not sinning. The propensity to sin (if I understand your use of the word) was present before the fall. We cannot blame God for our existance, we should thank Him for giving us life as we know it and even eternal life for some.

3) A limited understanding of God's foreknowledge coupled with a limited understanding of freewill would not be able to express the ability of God to righteously judge an unborn child.

4) Can you provide scripture where God saves based on non rejection?

1) "sinful nature" is a concept. The Greek word in the NIV is 'flesh', not sinful nature (preconceived theology; eisegesis). I believe Adam and Lucifer were created perfect without a sin nature (i.e. innocent). The only inherent reason to sin was a misuse of their God-given will and freedom. Evil was a possibility due to freedom. It was not a foregone conclusion or necessity (God is not responsible for evil). It is an unnecessary assumption to assume Adam had a sin nature before the Fall. The nature of the Fall is disobedience (volitional), not something causative back of the will. Certainly, the desires of the flesh is a limitation and predisposes us to not live in the Spirit. We form a nature or character through moral choices. It is not a substance lodged in our bodies or genes (anatomy, physiology, genetics=metaphysics; vice and virtue are in the realm of morals=choices).

2) Imputation implies sin and righteousness are 'things'/substance. In fact, they are in the realm of free moral agency (choices).

3) God judges moral choices, not the physiology of a fetus.

4) There may not be a proof text, but it is self-evident and inferential from John 3; Rom. 1-3, etc. that salvation or damnation is based on receiving or rejecting Christ. A baby does not have mental or moral capacity to do these things. It seems reasonable that the blood of Christ is sufficient for those who do not have capacity who do not knowingly reject Christ (babies; mentally retarded; brain injured at a young age, etc....this leads to the concept of the age of accountability, which varies with individuals).

Jesus said to let the little children come for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

When David's son died in the womb (if I recall), he said that he would see him someday when he dies. This implies babies go to heaven (though not a didactic passage).

Your underlying understanding of sin and salvation affect your views. Most theologians agree that babies go to heaven. I think the principle of non-rejection is reasonable. I do not think the Catholic idea of 'original sin' and sacramental infant baptism is biblical, nor self-evident. The Reformed people who believe in 'original sin' also baptize babies. What if you do not sprinkle the kid and what about abortions? I do not think God sends them to hell for lack of a religious ritual. So, I would argue from the character of God and the true nature of sin/salvation to defend my view. Some theological ideas are not explicit in Scripture, but require godly philosophy and reasoning based on general biblical principles.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Amazing. You don't even have the clarity of sight to recognize when you're being ridiculed or ridiculous. Do you hear yourself? Do you see what you're defending? You're defending a concept of God that is born out of pagan mythology.

I'm not nearly as stupid as you seem to take me for Jim, nor am I half as ignorant as you like to insinuate when you don't want to actually argue the issue at hand.
What I am defending is nothing but what the Bible clearly says. You are the one who says that is is saying something other than what it seems to be saying and so it is on you to prove it. My point is proven by simply quoting the text. No linguistic hocus pocus is needed, there is no ripping things out of context going on, it's just simple reading. Taking the words at their face value unless given contextual or grammatical reason to do otherwise.
Further, it is not me who is arguing for a pagan God, but you. The idea of an immutable God is born out of the writings Plato and Aristotle not the Bible. And it is upon this foundation that fate (meticulous predestination) is founded upon, as are the remainder of the tenets of what is commonly referred to as Calvinism. A label which you deny vehemently, but a theology which you embrace with enthusiasm or one so closely resembling Calvinism as makes no odds.
The God I serve is alive and reactive, strong and merciful, just and truly loving. A God who designed the universe to work and so it does. A God who wasn't afraid to take the chance that one of His creations might dare to love Him if given the opportunity.
Your version of God, on the other hand, is an immutable bump on a log; a god who cannot think, move, or feel without blowing completely apart. Your version of God "cannot be moved by love", says C.S. Lewis. He cannot have a new thought in His head because that would destroy not only the doctrine of predestination and/or foreknowledge but would destroy immutability as well. Your version of God is forced to be continuously present and fully aware of every aspect of the goings on in every toilet in the world. Every drop of urine that slashes on the floor, God not only predestined to land there but is consciously and actively causes it to happen.
I quote the Bible and you accuse me of having a pagan type of God. I say put up or shut up. If Gen 18:21 doesn't mean what it says, what does it mean? And I'm as serious as a heart attack Jim, I want to know what it means and I'm calling you out to explain it or stop claiming that you can. This little act you're putting on, blowing smoke up everybody’s backsides is wearing thin. If you have an argument, make it. I know for a fact that I have an argument that is based on historical facts that anyone can easily confirm, the Bible and what a simple reading of the text says, and upon sound reason. If you think you can refute it then do so, you'd be the first that I have ever seen.

If the verse actually meant that God didn't know what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah, He would not be God.

By what logic did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you going to tell God that He is not allowed to turn His back on even the most vile of human activity? Are you going to go tell God that He isn't allowed to be God unless He persists in being a first person witness to the perversion of Sodomy? I'd like to see that!

But Open View proponents are so eager to latch onto anything that denigrates the power and transcendence of God that they take obvious figures of speech and literalize them to suit their mytheology.

Obvious? Which hermeneutical principle are you employing to insist that Gen. 18:21 is a figure of speech? What portion of the context of the passage indicates the presence of a figure? Which common Hebrew idiom is employed, if any? What grammatical construct is present that indicates that the passage doesn't mean what it says?
Give me something Jim, anything.
Can you?

Wrong, Clete. It's another of literally thousands of figures of speech in scripture that conveys rich and emphatic points of doctrine, seemingly opposite of what the words say in isolation.

What specific point of doctrine is this passage conveying that is not in direct opposition to not only this "figure of speech" but the entire context of the passage. Or are you suggesting that the whole 18th Chapter of Genesis is a figure of speech?

And like all figures of speech, the figurative meaning and value is ascertained, not in isolation, but in the context of the passage and the overall teaching of scripture. And it's not that nobody is able or willing to explain, but rather that Open Theists have abundantly proven that they really don't want to know or understand what the figures mean, because if they did, they would no longer be able to use their specious and fatuous criticisms.

And you are no longer able to make such a statement without blatantly lying. I tell you now before everyone hear and before God Himself that if such passages can be explained in some reasonable way I do want to know it. I just told a leader in my home church, not two days ago, that if someone, anyone can show me from Scripture or by sound reason or both that I am wrong then I want them to do just that. I am not lying, I am not blowing smoke or posturing, if you can show me then do so.

How would one go about discovering what the verse actually means? One way would be the process of elimination. Consider first what it does NOT mean:

It doesn't mean that God was ignorant of something as basic as what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Jim. You've not eliminated anything you've simply said what you don't want it to mean.

It doesn't mean the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were able to hide their behavior from God.

No one suggested that they were able to hide anything from God. This point is not in dispute. The OV position is that God knows everything that is knowable, that He wants to know. Nothing that God wants to know can be hidden from Him but He also cannot be forced to be a present first person witness if He decides that He doesn't want to be.

Because I believe God is really God and not some incoherent and self-refuting myth, I conclude that the verse must be figurative.

You have not established that God must be a know it all in order to be God. You have presented nothing to suggest that the OV theology proper is incoherent or self-refuting. And as I have pointed out already, the immutable God of Calvin, Arminius, Luther, and Augustine is derived directly from Aristotelian Greek mythology, not the God of the OV.

You, on the other hand, are committed to darkening and distorting the character of God, limiting His knowledge and power, bringing God down and exalting man.

Nothing I've said exalts man in any way, unless you're saying that giving man a truly free will is exalting him. And as for limiting God's power, I do no such thing, God's power and knowledge are what they are. I just don't buy your illogical and unbiblical overstatements concerning the nature of God and am more than happy to follow the God presented to me in the pages of Scripture which He has infallibly inspired.

"... wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?"

Excellent example of just how not to use the Bible, Jim. Is this how you've formulated the entirety of your theology?

You just go right ahead and continue to believe in a God who supposedly can hear all the prayers of His people simultaneously, yet He somehow does not know what's going on in a particular city or two.

I not only believe that but believe also that God could hear honest prayers if they were to come out of those couple of cities. My God is great at multitasking! He can ignore you completely while paying total attention to the guy next to you on the couch.

Can anyone seriously trust a God who challenges Job: "18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all," yet He Himself doesn't know what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah???

Straw man city!
It's not as if God got duped or something. God chose to ignore Sodom and Gomorrah, no one got away with anything.

By your theology, Clete, Job had an answer: "I might not have 'perceived the breadth of the earth,' but You're not so great if you still need to send angels to find out what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah."

This is stupid. No response is even required. I would simply ask, whether or not this is the sort of logic you intend to use to refute the Open View? If so, you're fixing to get crushed to powder (in the debate). You might actually get to be familiar with the OV position before saying such silly things.

But no, Job did not answer that way. Instead he said, "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee."

Wow! Pretty neat how Job's response lines right up with what the OV teaches! God know everything that He want to know!
Do you always argue so effectively?

This is the God who knows everything without investigation, who hears all prayers simultaneously and holds every atom in the universe together while listening to those prayers.

Can you establish Biblically that God does not investigate anything? Not without finding an adequate way of explaining away Gen 18:21 you can't!

But the Open Theists don't agree with Job or the scriptures. God can't be that knowledgeable. God can't be that aware, because that would undermine major OV tenets of God being a Big Doofuss.

Which OV tenets would that be exactly, Jim? I've already stated plainly that I agree completely with what Job said, are you going to ignore me and put your blinders on and insist that I don't agree with it or are you going to admit that you either misunderstood or intentionally mischaracterized the OV position?

Again, I ask, how does the Open Theist trust this God? And for what? What does He actually do? He says He has done everything He can -- in the past. What is He doing right now? According to OVists here on TOL, God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible (which means He's doing what, exactly?), yet they pray to God and ask Him to do stuff. To do what exactly? More than He is already doing? How can He do anymore when He is already doing everything He can?

People have a free will Jim. God cannot make somebody love Him despite what your theology teaches. So God works through and sometimes in spite of His people in whatever ways He can to bring as many people as will to come to Him in faith. How hard is that to understand?
It would be just like a parent whose child is lost in sin. That parent would do everything (assuming they are a good parent) they could to get their child saved. They would use every resource at their disposal in a variety of ways but at the end of the day, they do not have the power to make their child love God, they just can't do it! And neither can God. God has a lot of power and a lot of resources at His disposal and He will do everything that can be done that is right and just but at the end of the day, if someone chooses to hate God then God can't do anything about that. Love must be volitional in order to be love. It cannot be forced by definition. I cannot imagine how this could be disputed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No time for thorough editting! Please excuse any errors of grammar. Thanks!

 

[godrulz]

Is God creative, responsive, relational, providential, loving, free, omnicompetent, dynamic, etc.?

OR is He impassible (no feelings), strongly immutable (does not change in any sense), static, etc.?

The former is the biblical God (Hebraic) who is alive; the latter is a philosophical God (Greekish).

In fairness, modern theology has toned down the rhetoric on classical Greek ideas of what a perfect Being should be (deductive vs inductive).

Does sovereignty mean meticulous control (blueprint model) or providential control with other free moral agents (warfare model)?

The former is closer to Calvinism (human construct); the latter is exemplified in the life and ministry of Jesus, the representation of the Father and His kingdom.

 

[Balder]

I can't remember where, and I'm too lazy to look it up this late at night, but somewhere in the OT Jews are instructed to bury their excrement because God walks frequently around in their camp and no one would want God to accidentally ...

You get the idea.

Is this literal or figurative?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Poly

My answers to your above questions and comments can be found in posts #1 and #4 of this thread.

Poly,

From what you wrote of your former church, it's no wonder you never truly learned what the anthro' figures mean. I'd almost go as far as saying it's no wonder you became an Open Theist. It's kind of like how some women choose to become lesbians because they've had bad relationship after bad relationship with men who are losers, users, players, and lecherous swine. They get so disgusted and assume that all men must be that way and decide to become lesbians. You've obviously made the same mistake regarding Calvinists. You falsely assume that all Calvinists are like the theological losers, users, players and religious swine you experienced at your former church, and you've decided to throw the theological baby out with the pseudo-religious bathwater and became an Open Theist.

I hasten to say that I'm not a Calvinist, nor do I defend them. My criticism is of those who claim to be ebating Calvinism but don't know what they're talking about.

Poly writes in the other thread:One thing that stands out about a Reformed Baptist is that you'll always hear them say how humbling the sovereign grace message is. They say this because they are supposedly humbled at themselves being one of the "elect" that God chose to be saved.

Do you understand why this is true? Sure, the fakers and poseurs you were involved with had no clue, but whatever your experience, people who have been saved from disasters truly know this reality. Sole survivors of plane crashes can tell you: It is utterly humbling to know that you could've died with everyone else, but you didn't, and through no talent or effort of your own.

It's sad to say, but from what you wrote about anthro' figures in the other thread, the theological meat-heads from your former church didn't help you one bit with understanding them. So your Calvinistic background is useless to your anti-Calvinism arguments, and you're basically in the same boat as the rest of the Open Theists here on TOL who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Originally posted by godrulz

1) "sinful nature" is a concept. The Greek word in the NIV is 'flesh', not sinful nature (preconceived theology; eisegesis). I believe Adam and Lucifer were created perfect without a sin nature (i.e. innocent). The only inherent reason to sin was a misuse of their God-given will and freedom. Evil was a possibility due to freedom. It was not a foregone conclusion or necessity (God is not responsible for evil). It is an unnecessary assumption to assume Adam had a sin nature before the Fall. The nature of the Fall is disobedience (volitional), not something causative back of the will. Certainly, the desires of the flesh is a limitation and predisposes us to not live in the Spirit. We form a nature or character through moral choices. It is not a substance lodged in our bodies or genes (anatomy, physiology, genetics=metaphysics; vice and virtue are in the realm of morals=choices).

2) Imputation implies sin and righteousness are 'things'/substance. In fact, they are in the realm of free moral agency (choices).

3) God judges moral choices, not the physiology of a fetus.

4) There may not be a proof text, but it is self-evident and inferential from John 3; Rom. 1-3, etc. that salvation or damnation is based on receiving or rejecting Christ. A baby does not have mental or moral capacity to do these things. It seems reasonable that the blood of Christ is sufficient for those who do not have capacity who do not knowingly reject Christ (babies; mentally retarded; brain injured at a young age, etc....this leads to the concept of the age of accountability, which varies with individuals).

Jesus said to let the little children come for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

When David's son died in the womb (if I recall), he said that he would see him someday when he dies. This implies babies go to heaven (though not a didactic passage).

Your underlying understanding of sin and salvation affect your views. Most theologians agree that babies go to heaven. I think the principle of non-rejection is reasonable. I do not think the Catholic idea of 'original sin' and sacramental infant baptism is biblical, nor self-evident. The Reformed people who believe in 'original sin' also baptize babies. What if you do not sprinkle the kid and what about abortions? I do not think God sends them to hell for lack of a religious ritual. So, I would argue from the character of God and the true nature of sin/salvation to defend my view. Some theological ideas are not explicit in Scripture, but require godly philosophy and reasoning based on general biblical principles.

1) Adam was created a perfect human but not with the perfection that God requires. Creation was in it's infancy and man lacked the capacity to resist sin but God had a plan before the foundation of the world to complete or put man in final conformity with His law which is an expression of His nature. The freewill of man must conform to the will of God and this perfection is only found in Christ. Adam was not deceived but he could not give up his existence as he knew it because of his flesh. Adam said that Eve was flesh of his flesh or his body, a perfect union. We are perfected in a Spirtual body of Christ and receive circumcision made without hands which separates who we are in the flesh from the new creature created in Christ.

Adam had the freewill to do all that was possible until God commanded "do not eat". The knowledge of evil came from the tree that God provided. Sin was a possibility due to God's law. The nature of the fall was in Adam's flesh or existence as he knew it, he could not refuse Eve.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. --Gen. ii. 24.

Who was Adam's father?

2) Sin is not imputed but the nature of it resides in our very existence as it did with Adam. We are slaves to sin by existing in a body of flesh and held captive by it's nature. It is a mortal existence suject to death but when freed from the body it is immortal or everlasting. Christ's life is imputed to us through spiritual circumcision removing the body of the sins of the flesh.

3) Now your being silly, God does not judge flesh for flesh alone is dust. But mix it with a soul that depends on it for it's very existence and you have life as we know it. If you did not have a body of flesh what would you desire?

4) You're free to believe as you will but salvation is not based on not rejecting Christ. You do not understand that man was not created with God's righteousness or His will. Sin is not being able to conform to His law. It is not an act but a will. The law was given to reveal sin but sin was already there in it's dormacy. God judges the heart of man not a muscle that pumps blood to his body giving him the power to act. It is impossible for a creature of flesh to conform to God's law if given freewill. Adam was not created a God.

If you did not limit God's foreknowledge you would not have a problem with His ability to righteously judge an unborn child. I do not believe anyone will go un-judged. All must be born again or become a new creature and circumcision is a must. In Abraham's day newborns needed to be circumcised on the eighth day or before they knew sin. Why do you suppose God required such a thing? What seems reasonable to you does not reflect God's will.

You believe the mentally retarded are at liberty to commit sin? Where is this concept found in the bible?

Jesus did not make an all inclusive statement about little children. When you say "Jesus said" you need to be more careful.

Chapter and verse concerning David's statement about his child?

 

[godrulz]

HG: 1)Adam had the freewill to do all that was possible until God commanded "do not eat". The knowledge of evil came from the tree that God provided. Sin was a possibility due to God's law. The nature of the fall was in Adam's flesh or existence as he knew it, he could not refuse Eve.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. --Gen. ii. 24.
Who was Adam's father?



RULZ: Adam did not have an earthly father. God is the father of humanity in a sense. He becomes our Heavenly Father when we come to Him through Christ (Jn. 1:12; 14:6).

Adam could refuse God, Satan, or Eve. He was not forced to disobey. This is why he was also culpable for his own fall into sin. He did not have to disobey since he had free moral agency.



HG: 2) Sin is not imputed but the nature of it resides in our very existence as it did with Adam. We are slaves to sin by existing in a body of flesh and held captive by it's nature. It is a mortal existence suject to death but when freed from the body it is immortal or everlasting. Christ's life is imputed to us through spiritual circumcision removing the body of the sins of the flesh.



RULZ: This sound like the Greek heresy that the body or flesh is inherently evil compared to the spiritual nature. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. NT use of 'flesh' refers to sin and putting the demands of the body ahead of the glory of God. Adam's fall was related to the misuse of his will, not a God-given nature that was deficient. Like Lucifer, he was created innocent and perfect. Freedom involves the potential for good or evil, either wise we are mere robots incapable of a love relationship with the Creator.


HG: 3) Now your being silly, God does not judge flesh for flesh alone is dust. But mix it with a soul that depends on it for it's very existence and you have life as we know it. If you did not have a body of flesh what would you desire?





RULZ: Lust is legitimate desire gone awry. Sex is very good unless it is outside God's parameters. Gluttony, not eating, is a sin. He judges what we do with our bodies. Hands can murder or they can help. God judges our wrong moral choices=sin.



HG: 4) You're free to believe as you will but salvation is not based on not rejecting Christ. You do not understand that man was not created with God's righteousness or His will. Sin is not being able to conform to His law. It is not an act but a will. The law was given to reveal sin but sin was already there in it's dormacy. God judges the heart of man not a muscle that pumps blood to his body giving him the power to act. It is impossible for a creature of flesh to conform to God's law if given freewill. Adam was not created a God.

If you did not limit God's foreknowledge you would not have a problem with His ability to righteously judge an unborn child. I do not believe anyone will go un-judged. All must be born again or become a new creature and circumcision is a must. In Abraham's day newborns needed to be circumcised on the eighth day or before they knew sin. Why do you suppose God required such a thing? What seems reasonable to you does not reflect God's will.

You believe the mentally retarded are at liberty to commit sin? Where is this concept found in the bible?

Jesus did not make an all inclusive statement about little children. When you say "Jesus said" you need to be more careful.

Chapter and verse concerning David's statement about his child?




RULZ: I did not imply that adults are saved by non-rejection of Christ. Romans 1-3 says all men stand condemned by rejection conscience and creation. Babies do not have the moral or mental capacity to receive or reject Christ, so the principle is that they are innocent. If they could reject Christ they would be condemned further for rejecting truth. Since they cannot reject Christ, logically they are not sent to hell based on non-rejection of Christ (theoretical principle to account for reality of baby's destiny).

An act involves the will.

Circumcision is no more necessary for salvation than water baptism is. The Bible teaches believer's baptism, not infant baptism.

I did not say the mentally retarded are free to commit sin. Severely vegetative people do not have the moral or mental capacity to receive or reject Christ, so it seems reasonable that God would not hold them accountable. Some mentally handicapped people know right from wrong and are able to live for God or Self (e.g. many Down's Syndrome). The Bible does not address this explicitly anymore than it talks about the heathen who never heard about Christ. We must infer principles.

David: I was unclear if it was a fetus or a newborn. It turns out is was a young child (soon after birth?). II Sam. 12:23 "But now that he is dead...can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

(v. 14 the son born to you will die...)

Ps. 23:6 David dwelled in the house of the Lord forever.

Though not a proof text, we can infer that babies go to heaven (Jewish expectation).

A baby does not have sins to judge. They do not exist unless he grows up and makes them. God judges actualities/reality, not theoretical future possibilities that never come to pass if the baby dies.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

nate, i am hoping to respond to your posts sometime this week. i was at home all weekend and was too busy to respond. sorry for the delay.

Peace,

GIT

 

[Yorzhik]

First, I'd like to thank Hilston for consistent thinking. Also, unlike so many people who believe God has declared/works/knows exhaustively the future, Hilston gave a straight answer.

Here is what Hilston said a few pages ago:

The kosmos refers to the order of God's elect.

16 For God so loved the kosmos [the order of the elect], [hina -- to the intent] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him [i.e. each believing-on-Him one] should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the kosmos [the order of the elect] to condemn the kosmos [the order of the elect]; but [hina -- to the intent] that the kosmos [the order of the elect] through him might be saved.

When the scriptures speak of God's intentions, we can be assured of their certainty of coming to full and precise fruition. This further strengthens the subjunctive verb because God always gets what He intends. He sent His Son to the intent of saving each one that believes on Him, not to condemn the elect, but to the intent that the elect through Him will certainly be saved.

It fits within the bounds of a lay-persons ability to understand Greek. But I thought we should ask Tim McMahon, a Greek scholar, for more than a lay-person's take on the passage. Here is the most pertinent part he responded with, if need be I'll post the rest, but it is just supportive material for the Calvinist viewpoint as it relates to this topic, and not Hilston's translation directly:

On Hilston's idea that kosmos means 'the elect':

It's inconceivable to me that anyone could propose the idea that kosmos in the NT means 'the elect' unless trying to prove something. The word kosmos in ancient Greek certainly can mean 'order', but I know of no examples where that usage denotes a specific group of persons by calling them an 'order'. The most original sense of the word is denote something well crafted, assembled well from its constituent parts (e.g., the Trojan Horse). In Greek thought, the ultimate example of that is the universe. From there, the scope is focused on the earth, then specifically on the human race, the population of the world. The sense of kosmos for 'human race, all of humanity' is so well recognized in Greek I won't even cite the references. Perhaps the best example in the NT is Romans 3:19, "that all the world might become accountable before God." Hilston needs to provide an unequivocal example --i.e., a theologically neutral example, where the text has no direct bearing on the issue at hand -- of kosmos in the sense of 'the elect' before I would be willing to entertain the possibility the word could have that meaning. I have never seen a legitimate dictionary or lexicon that would support this claim. It was invented to rationalize the biblical material on God's "love for humans" (Titus 3:4) in order to sustain the doctrine of limited atonement.

So there you have it. Hilston should be able to provide a theologically neutral example of 'kosmos' meaning "the elect". Or, we could start with a theologically neutral example where 'kosmos' means a subset of humans.

----------------------------

edited to add Hilston's original quote

 

[godrulz]

I'm confused. Are you commending Hilston's view and conclusions, while giving evidence that they are problematic?

I detailed word study on 'kosmos' will not support TULIP (unconditional election of the elect only and limited atonement).

God's condemnation of the human race (world) is universal as is His impartial love for His creation. He died for all, He does not want anyone to perish. This is the impetus of the imperative of the Great Commission. All are not saved due to their rejection of the provision, not because they are non-elect in the will of God before they existed.

 

[Yorzhik]

godrulz writes:
I'm confused. Are you commending Hilston's view and conclusions, while giving evidence that they are problematic?

Answering what I bolded in the above quote... I said Hilston is consistent and straightforward. I'll stick with the scholar in commending (or not), Hilston's view.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,

All of us do know God exists and that we should give Him glory. However, the text you gave shows that ALL people reject God, exchange Him and His glory for other things. The essence of sin is trading and exchanging that which is infinitely valuable (Christ) for the deceitful and fleeting pleasures of this world. I would have to say all of us would continue to refuse God if it was not for the Spirit.

If the spirit doesn’t convict us of that sin and if the father doesn’t begin to draw us towards him, then yes, no one will come to Christ. I agree.

However, what do you mean by “combined�? I would say we would NOT have this sorrow for sin and even acknowledge our sin if it wasn’t for the work of the Spirit. When this is brought to our attention by the Father’s drawing and the Spirit’s conviction, then we become aware of our sinful state, which is why the glory of Christ in the Gospel looks absolutely irresistible: it is that which we have been searching for our entire lives, so why would we ever reject it now that we have found it? That would be foolishness and absurd…

Once we are convicted of sin and drawn the father, we must still make up our mind that we are going to take the salvation that is being offered. Remember, I hold that one fully understands and sees Christ in all his glory AFTER he repents and believes, not before. The repenting and believing are able to be done with the help of the father and the spirit.

So you admit that there must be a gracious work of the Spirit BEFORE we can ever come to repentance…This does NOT just make it easier; it ENABLES us to see our sinfulness and the beauty of Christ. It IS still the sinner’s choice to repent and believe, but as I said above, it would be foolishness and absurd to think that we would reject the gift we have been searching for our whole lives, especially when we see our sinful state and that the Gospel can save us and enable us to know and love Christ, the One for whom we were made.

I agree totally that “godly grief is what one experiences when they see Christ and his sacrifice with joy and beauty,� but I see nowhere in the text that says it does not necessarily lead to repentance. It says that it DOES, not it might not. I think it would be a presupposed inference to draw that from that text.

I admit that there is work done by the spirit before we repent. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. However, I don’t think it enables us to do anything we couldn’t have done before in the sense of us having a new capability or something. Rather, it helps us do what we should have done the whole time—repent and believe.

I agree with you; it wasn’t for doctrine’s sake. He is not necessarily giving a treatise on salvation. He does start from eternity past until the present to show them what Christ had done for them. I see no reason to insist that we put in “He did this after we accepted the Gospel� or “This is what happened because they believed� or anything like that because the text doesn’t do that.

I completely agree that the things were done to “us� from the creation of the world. But my point is that they are general things decided to be done to the people of God. It was not decided who would make up that group. That would be reading into the text.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this text:

1Pe 2:2 desire the sincere milk of the Word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it.

This text COMMANDS us to desire the sincere milk of the Word. As far as I know, I cannot make myself desire ANYTHING. I cannot make my self desire foods I do not like, let alone God and His Word. That alone is a work of God.

1 Peter 2
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

can we long for something that we don’t really desire? I think we can in a sense, as a part of our mindset. I think we can tell ourselves that we want something and to go searching for it and to think about it, even though we don’t have the feelings to go with it yet. So in that sense, I think we can long for something even though we may lack the emotions.

That is irrelevant. The point is that WE are commanded to do it, yet we are told in other places that GOD will be the One who circumcises our hearts.

Well if that’s the case then I think it makes sense for us to let go and let God. In other words, our part is to recognize what God is going to do and open our hearts for him to do it while God is the one who actually does it.

Is looking to Christ and reliance on Christ of grace? Is it not of grace that we have the desire to look and rely on Christ?

Everything in this world is done by grace!

Who in their sinfulness, even after salvation, would ever recognize the goodness of God? I forget and ignore the goodness of God in my Christian life a lot. You know why? Because I am sinful and blind and arrogant! If God doesn’t remind me, then I doubt I will see it.

I cannot just be sitting there and be unthankful, and suddenly make myself be thankful if I am really not. If God doesn’t open my eyes and let me see His goodness, and I not see it, and as a result, will not be thankful. Thankfulness and gratitude is an emotion that when you have it, you have it, and when you don’t, you just don’t. Whether or not it is MORE than an emotion, I could probably agree, but the principle exists.

If you were paralyzed from the neck down tomorrow, and could not do anything except sit in a wheel chair, could you MAKE yourself thank God for that?

Do we not see it when we read the bible? When we converse with fellow Christians? Are we not reminded in those ways as well?

I said:

God has the right to command of us what we OUGHT to give even if by virtue of our profound rebellion and corruption we cannot give it. The problem is with US, not the command or with God. We should give thanks whether we are able to or not, and we are responsible for doing so. Ingratitude is still sin because the very nature of ingratitude is arrogant and hateful; it matters not whether we can produce it on our own. Either way, we are still responsible.

You said:


You agree that God can command of us what we ought to give even if by virtue of our profound rebellion and corruption we are unable to give it?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, that’s an interesting way of putting it. What I think I was getting at is that even though we may not feel thankful, we should still give thanks. In other words, our actions should not be dependent on how we feel, but what we know we should do. I’m not sure I agree that God can still command of us what we cannot do. I think that’s unjust.

For example, if I command my cat to swim the Atlantic Ocean knowing full well that it cannot, am I not being cruel? And would I not be even more cruel if I then punished it for not doing what it couldn’t do? It’s because all men can do what is right and repent that we are held responsible for our sins. If all we could do is sin, our whole nature was inherently evil such that repentance and good work were impossible, then to punish us for not repenting and for simply doing what we can do is simply wrong and cruel, as the example I gave showed.

Your statement that “someone is controlled by something it means that they are submitting themselves completely to it� is totally false. They may submit to it, but it does not follow that this submission is voluntary and willful (Holocaust maybe?). Your entire response in this part above was based on that assumption, which I see totally false and inconsistent with reality.
You seem to ignore that we ARE slaves to sin before we are saved…

You seem to be insisting that slaves have absolutely no will or desires of their own. Slaves in the days of the NT were still free people! They had masters whom they served and did their will, but they were not under lock and key such that they had no free will. A slave to sin just means that our actions are always done to serve our sinful nature. It is our master while we are slaves to it. but there is no reason, none whatsoever to think that one can’t serve another master whom comes along who is better.

The heart is just as sinful as the mind…that was the point.

Agree, which is why God gives us a new one…..

Your idea of the “will� is, at least to me like this: I have my soul and heart and mind, then over here, I have a completely different part of me which is not in association with any of the other parts of who I am. The will is not a separate part of a person, acting in complete disassociation with the other parts of who the person is. All parts work together. The will is not a separate entity with a human, working apart from the mind and heart.

um, what I meant was that all parts do work together, but no part has complete control over what action is taken. That decision is always left up to the soul who is influenced by all those things.

I see the intellect, emotion, and will as part of the soul, not separate from it. The soul was created in the image of God, which is the exact reason why we have intellect, emotions, and will. Once, again, the will does not act apart from these other parts of the soul…

I think the will is free in that the heart and emotions do not dictate what is willed. They influence it, persuade it at times, but do not necessitate a course of action. The will is then subject to the soul of the person who ultimately decides whether to do what he wills or to do apart.

Is the Gospel not the “wisdom of God�???

No.

You make out to sound like there are a bunch of terrible, sinful and corrupt people in the world, and then there are those who are ok people, and they don’t really do much bad, and they are smart enough to choose to NOT sin and choose Christ. THERE ARE NO SUCH PEOPLE! EVERYONE rejects the cross and the Gospel. It is utter foolishness and folly and a stumbling block to them. We are idiots to them! That is not just some people, that is ALL people: moral, immoral or amoral.

Yes, when the Holy Spirit convicts and the Father draws, this all changes. Hence, we see our sinfulness, the beauty and all-sufficiency of Christ, which produces godly sorrow, repentance, and faith.

I agree with most of this. the only thing I disagree with is that we always repent when the father draws us and the spirit convicts us. I think that one can reject that if they so choose.

No. I am simply saying that there are two aspects: a sense in which God has ALWAYS known us (foreknew), and a sense in which God comes to know us (in time and in reality).

So you don’t hold that God exists in all times? In other words, he doesn’t exist in the future right now? He’s not in an eternal now?

The verse does equate “coming to know Him� with “being known by God.� Hence, the word “rather.� It further explains what Paul meant. We came to know God, which is to say that in a sense, God came to know us, and came to make us His people.

The word rather indicates the other perspective of things. It says that as we came to know God, or from the other side of things, as God came to know us, that’s Paul’s point.

We were not a part of the people, but God always had a people and Christ came to die for that SPECIAL people, not a general unknown people.

Christ’s death is only applied to those people, I completely agree. However, given that most of the people didn’t even exist at the time of Christ, the only way he could provide for them is to make a general way for all people to come so whoever believed would be saved.

This is not in any way a strawman. Look at the verse:

Phi 4:6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

You say this does not say anything about whether or not God knows them, but I am drawing the same kind of inference you are: Let them “be made known� to God. If we are to make them known to God, then He must not know the present needs of His people. What else could “let them be made known� mean? If we must make them known, they cannot already be known!

The problem here is what we are saying by “made known�. I say it’s meaning “bring to light�, it’s being discussed and talked about. When something is made known, it’s brought forth and seen. It doesn’t have to mean something new or something that was hidden before.

I did not say that is why you hold to it. It is one of the supposed benefits, which I do not think it is consistent in doing.

GIT, I thought you were smarter than that?! You judge the Bible by your experiences?! I agree that is what OVers do, but I have never seen them say it! If I start with Scripture, I have it backward??? There is something more authoritative and more sufficient than Scripture??? You seem to be getting out of the realm of orthodoxy and evangelicalism. You have the audacity to judge the Word of God by your puny and limited experience?
The OV does logically have to hold to a low view of Scripture, but it is the logical implication, not what they actually state. At least you are consistent, and at least you admit where your entire problem lies.

Why would anyone interpret a book to lead them to contradictory ideas about reality? In case you forgot, the writers of the bible also lived in reality! You cannot deny free will as it takes it to deny it which is contradictory. That said, any doctrine which leads us to say that we have no free will MUST be discarded and any texts indicating such things must be interpreted in this light. Do you honestly interpret scripture with no regards to reality?

God is a logical being. He’s not going to contradict himself. He can also not create a contradiction like a square circle. Thus, any logical contradiction cannot exist and since free will and exhaustive foreknowledge are contradictory concepts together, I discard EFK for I cannot discard free will.

I am not talking about the sins themselves. There could be no wrath concerning these sins for Christ to bear since the sins were not yet committed. Jesus could not have took upon Himself the death I deserve because I was not yet existent and did not deserve such a death yet. There was not price for Christ to pay concerning me, for I did not exist.

Well then how did Christ die for you? Unless you are now agreeing with me?

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

These “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia� are SPECIFIC people, not just a general group. Peter was writing to specific people, not just whoever happen to read. How can Christ “foreknow,� which seems to have come before predestination in Romans 8, the “body of Christ� which did not even exist?

Huh?

You want to know why Christ died?

Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Who is this “us�? Is this just a general people? It is a special people, a peculiar people, a people for His own possession.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

Christ died to give life to ALL THOSE GIVEN to Him by the Father?

General people? I don’t think so.

Try reading 1 John 2:2 or Hebrews 2:9.

No, I am suggesting what I said: God is not like you and me. We are like Him.

Well I completely agree with this sentence.

Our sins didn’t have to be bore? Show me where that is not so…
Our death and wrath was a result of our sin! There would be no death and wrath to bear since we did not yet exist to sin. God would not have any wrath toward “us� because “us� did not exist. When Christ died, He would have had to bear on the wrath of those who lived before and those up until the time of His death. We had no “punishment� for Him to take upon Himself.

You’re misunderstanding me. I completely agree that Jesus had to bear the penalty of our sins for their to be hope for us to be saved. However, that doesn’t mean he literally bore them in his flesh. How could he? For they had not been committed yet and the entire idea of them being literally placed on him seems illogical to me.

General predestination? A group of “people� before they exist�? To predestine a “group of people� would presuppose you knew there would be a group of people that would exist. It would also presuppose a specific people, for it would have to be a “group� of people out of humanity. Why would God only predestine a “group� of people if He loved everyone?

Yes, a person can predestine a group before they exist. Why is that so hard to understand? I think its because of how you understand “predestine� and the things it entails which I don’t hold to. The reason God only predestines that group is BECAUSE of love. The group is open to everyone. Admission is free! Faith in Christ is the key and is available to all. To force what is done to those who freely choose Christ also on to those who rejected Christ would not be right, for there would be no reason to choose Christ.

Can you show me a couple text where it speaks of God working with us to bring about good or nothing God does contradicts our free will or a couple texts that define our will?

Those my questions, and you ran with a philosophical assumption of what free will is. I do not deny, nor do any Calvinists, that we make choices and have a will. Those verses show me nothing new. God doesn’t force us to love Him.

Well, Romans 8:28 comes to mind, as well as Philippians 2:13. are you looking for things like that? The reason I don’t think God ever takes away our free will is because if he ever did, it was never free to begin with. Free means just that, free. If it can be taken away at any time then it wasn’t free, it just had some freedom and I don’t hold that our will just has some freedom, I hold that it is free, truly free.

If God were to go against our wills, then how do you explain your comments concerning the Proverbs passages that God can work to NOT let us do something He doesn’t want to happen?

God will never take away our free will. God does work in this world as well, doing things like say thunderstorms, or anything else he likes. If God doesn’t want me to get to my class tomorrow then he can cause me to stay asleep through my alarm in the morning or he can cause my alarm to not go off at all. Things like this, that’s what I was talking about earlier.

The desire and strength are from God? That is all Calvinists teach when they speak of irresistible grace…

And there again is a difference, I hold that it comes after, you hold that it comes before.

Well, lets take the command to do “that which is pleasing in His sight.� Are ALL people
not under obligation to do that?

where is this found?

If so, then all must have the ability to do it, according to your logic. However, you said earlier that unbelievers

“are not capable of living a Godly life for Christ and loving as he loved.�

So can they all do that which is pleasing in His sight or can they not? If they cannot, then God can still command all to do something that they are totally unable to do in and of themselves. Besides, you have admitted that we are unable to repent unless God works in us first…Thus, you are being inconsistent in saying the above, namely, “if it's given to everyone then we all have the ability.�

I need to first know where you are getting this from.

Blessings,

GIT

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,

Yes, they are getting long.

Phew! We should start dropping some topics as these are beginning to feel like war and peace

I agree, but OVers seem to use this whenever it fits their theology best, not whenever we can. Who judges when it leads to “problems� or “contradictions�? Obviously, this “straightforward� reading can lead to inconsistencies in other views.

It should be read straightforward so long as it doesn’t lead to absurdities, IMO. Open theists use hermeneutics too you know

If God does not want you to drive to the store necessitates that God knows you are going to drive to the store. What if God does not want you to think an evil thought? Can He stop that as well?

Can? Definitely. Will he? No because that would mean he’d have to take away my free will and he will not do that.

I think God can ordained that something be while not directly doing the actions or necessarily causing them to happen. However, I do think God can ordain and cause something to happen through secondary causes and not be responsible for the actions, as if He was the One doing the actions, such as the death of Christ.

So how much of the process was ordained by God and from how long ago was it ordained? Lets’ just keep this to the cross for now.

I agree God is not ignorant of the present. Once again, can God stop you from thinking an evil thought, if He so chooses?

Can he? Yep, but he won’t.

I think Prov. 16:9 defines it as “set up, prepare, or render sure.� So how does God does this and not violate our “free will�?

Well, he did all those for the cross through various means. I’m not sure what kind of an answer you are looking for here. All I know is that he can do things like that without violating our free will.

He hardened Pharaoh ultimately to make His power known. How is this consistent with our “free will�? Can God create and give desires to our hearts?

The hardening was a judgment. God is allowed to judge those in this lifetime as well as the next who refuse him. However, a hardening does not mean one has lost free will. It only means that one’s heart is now less inclined to do the will of God than it was before. As I stated in the other post, the heart does not necessitate the course of action the individual will take.

You didn’t really answer. “Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would NOT choose Him? Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would do that which is pleasing in His sight, which we would NOT have done otherwise?�

I’m confused here. What are you asking?

I say sin is in a sense done by His power, but not by Him. We are the ones responsible, yes. I agree with you. ALL things are from Him and through Him and to Him, so that He would get the glory forever and ever.

By his power, but not by him, I completely agree.

Let me see you responses to both of my last posts, and I will see if you stay consistent with what you have been saying throughout these posts…

How’d I do?

Blessings,

GIT