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

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Christine
I don't think God would draw unbelievers to himself, he'd only draw the called or elect.

Christine,

Are we to believe that the words at John 12:32 should be interpreted in the following manner?:

"And I,if I be lifted up from the earth,will draw all the elect unto Me"(Jn.12:32).

I agree with what godrulz said earlier:

I am staring at an Interlinear by Zondervan. It is based on the reliable Nestle's Greek NT (also based on Westcott and Hort, etc.). The Greek word is not 'pas', but 'pantas'. Perhaps you are using a different Greek text (nope) or confusing a root word from a concordance # with the actual related word in the text?


(Vine) 'pas' is an adjective meaning 'all'. Without the article it means 'every', every kind or variety....used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning 'everyone' or 'anyone'.

'pantas' is the accusative (case), masculine (gender), plural (number)....hence 'all men' is grammatically defensible (cf. mood, voice, etc. of verbs).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Hilston
Just like Bush, you'll never get an Open Theist to admit he was wrong. Just like Kerry, we should never expect logic to have anything to do with the positions Open Theists espouse.

I find it amusing that those who deny an open view would dare to speak about "logic".

Here is an example of their logic.The Apostle Paul says that the Lord "will have all men to be saved,and to come to the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

Despite the fact that the Lord would wish that all men would come to the knowledge of the truth,those who deny an "open view" say that the Lord only gives some the gift of faith.

So according to them the Lord wants all men to come to the knowledge of the truth but at the same time He witholds the one thing that can give them that knowledge--faith.

And then these same people speak of "logic"!!

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Here is an example of their logic.The Apostle Paul says that the Lord "will have all men to be saved,and to come to the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

The KJV is quoted here, where "will" means "desires to" rather than "is going to," though we rarely use "will" in that way today. I know you alluded to this Jerry, but I just wanted to clarify for those watching at home.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

I find it amusing that those who deny an open view would dare to speak about "logic".

Here is an example of their logic.The Apostle Paul says that the Lord "will have all men to be saved,and to come to the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4).

Despite the fact that the Lord would wish that all men would come to the knowledge of the truth,those who deny an "open view" say that the Lord only gives some the gift of faith.

It's easy! Just change "all men" to "all the elect" or "all called men" in this verse, too!

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Turbo

It's easy! Just change "all men" to "all the elect" or "all called men" in this verse, too!

Close. Just exegete "all" to "all kinds of" and that'll put you in the ballpark. Refuse to exegete consistently and you're left standing in the parking lot.

Notice how the Open View makes God out to be a Big Loser. He wants this, He needs that, He longs for people to just love Him, He wants so badly to save more and more, but He just can't do anything about it. He has done all He can, say the Open Theists, yet they still pray for Him to do more stuff. They say "Praise the Lord" when things go their way. Why? He doesn't really do anything. But the other hand, Open Theists claim He is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible, yet the Open Theists still pray for Him to do stuff, as if He forgot about some things and He needs to be reminded by their prayers. And most curious of all, the Big Loser doesn't have the horse-sense to cut His losses, wanting to save all, but losing the vast majority to Hell, and scores more hellbound folks are born and die every day. How is it that God's pinnacle creation, man, is so poorly designed that the vast majority don't want anything to do with Him? The Open View probably should be reslugged "The Big Loser View."

 

[natewood3]

Hilston,

Close. Just exegete "all" to "all kinds of" and that'll put you in the ballpark. Refuse to exegete consistently and you're left standing in the parking lot.

Notice how the Open View makes God out to be a Big Loser. He wants this, He needs that, He longs for people to just love Him, He wants so badly to save more and more, but He just can't do anything about it. He has done all He can, say the Open Theists, yet they still pray for Him to do more stuff. They say "Praise the Lord" when things go their way. Why? He doesn't really do anything. But the other hand, Open Theists claim He is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible, yet the Open Theists still pray for Him to do stuff, as if He forgot about some things and He needs to be reminded by their prayers. And most curious of all, the Big Loser doesn't have the horse-sense to cut His losses, wanting to save all, but losing the vast majority to Hell, and scores more hellbound folks are born and die every day. How is it that God's pinnacle creation, man, is so poorly designed that the vast majority don't want anything to do with Him? The Open View probably should be reslugged "The Big Loser View."

I probably get more of a kick out of reading your responses to the OVers rather than reading the posts of the OVers themselves! I rarely find a post from you that is not hilariously true...keep it up!

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Hilston


Notice how the Open View makes God out to be a Big Loser. He wants this, He needs that, He longs for people to just love Him, He wants so badly to save more and more, but He just can't do anything about it.

Since when has any Open Theist around here ever said that "He just can't do anything about it" in the sense that you're implying, as if He doesn't have the ability? You've been shown this before and conveniently overlook it. Why do you think that just because He is capable of making man love Him (I use the word "love" loosely here) that He wants to? You don't give God any other possibilities. Why? As far as your concerned His hands are tied and He had to be the director of man's will. There is no other way to get around God not giving us a free will other than He had the ability but chose not to or He simply wasn't capable.

I think you need to ask yourself just who it is that's making God out to be "a Big Loser" here.

 

[natewood3]

Since when has any Open Theist around here ever said that "He just can't do anything about it" in the sense that He doesn't have the ability? You've been shown this before and conveniently overlook it. Why do you think that just because He is capable of making man love Him (I use the word "love" loosely here) that He wants to? There is no other way to get around God not giving us a free will other than He had the ability but chose not to or He simply wasn't capable.

It is posts like these that seem to make the OV make distinctions that the Bible does not make. Could you please give me Scriptures concerning the statement:

God is capable of "making" man love Him, but He does not want to do that.

BTW, our view does not have God "making" anyone do anything. OVers consistently show that they do not even understand the "Calvinistic" view by continually proclaiming that God "makes" or "forces" us to be saved. Is that a purposeful misrepresentation? Do OVers enjoy saying things that are simply not true? We might be able to debate and discuss these issues if the misrepresentations were thrown out (I am not implying I am never guilty of such, for I am). I would challenge any OVer to find me a quote from a "great Calvinist," someone such as Calvin himself, Edwards, Spurgeon, Hodge, Murray, Berkhof, Gill, Lloyd-Jones, Sproul, Piper, Grudem, and show me that they believe God "forces" or "coerces" or "makes" us get saved against our will.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Hilston
Notice how the Open View makes God out to be a Big Loser. He wants this, He needs that, He longs for people to just love Him, He wants so badly to save more and more, but He just can't do anything about it.

Jim,

I cannot understand why you would accuse those of us who support the "open view" of thinking that the Lord "just cannot do anything about it".

Does the Lord not send His stewards out to preach the gospel message so that all those who believe that message can be saved?:

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?"(Ro.10:13-15).

He has done all He can, say the Open Theists, yet they still pray for Him to do more stuff. They say "Praise the Lord" when things go their way. Why? He doesn't really do anything.

I do not know why you say that the open theists say that He really does not do anything.He does in fact send out His stewards to preach the gospel of salvation.

But the other hand, Open Theists claim He is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible, yet the Open Theists still pray for Him to do stuff, as if He forgot about some things and He needs to be reminded by their prayers.

You know that Paul tells Christians to make our requests made known unto the Lord:

"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God"(Phil.4:6).

And it is certain that Paul made a request to the Lord that the Lord take away the thorn in his flesh.We also know that the LOrd did not answer His request,saying:

"For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness"(2Cor.12:8,9).

I know that you say that Paul was not "praying" here,but in order to believe that we must believe that Paul told Christians to make their requests made to the Lord through "prayer",but at the same time he made requests that were not through prayer.

How is it that God's pinnacle creation, man, is so poorly designed that the vast majority don't want anything to do with Him? The Open View probably should be reslugged "The Big Loser View."

The Lord made man with a "free will" and therefore man is prone to go his own way instead of God's way.

And the reason that the vast majority want no part of Him can be summed up in the following words:

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil"(Jn.3:19).

Notice that this verse does not say that they rejected the gospel because they did not believe (because they had not received a gift of faith) but instead it says that they didn't believe because they loved darkness rather than light.And the reason for this is because "their deeds were evil".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by natewood3


BTW, our view does not have God "making" anyone do anything. OVers consistently show that they do not even understand the "Calvinistic" view by continually proclaiming that God "makes" or "forces" us to be saved. Is that a purposeful misrepresentation? Do OVers enjoy saying things that are simply not true? We might be able to debate and discuss these issues if the misrepresentations were thrown out (I am not implying I am never guilty of such, for I am).

:yawn: This gets soooooooooo old.

Yes, yes, I know, God controls everything in the universe but he doesn't "make" man do anything because man makes his own choices which were predestined by God who controls everything in the Universe.... but he doesn't "make" man do anything because man makes his own choices which were predestined by God who controls everything in the Universe.... but he doesn't "make" man do anything because man makes his own choices which were predestined by God who controls everything in the Universe.... but he doesn't "make" man do anything because man makes his own choices which were predestined by God who controls everything in the Universe... but he doesn't "make" man do anything because man makes his own choices which were predestined by God who controls everything in the Universe.... :freak:

Originally posted by natewood3

I would challenge any OVer to find me a quote from a "great Calvinist," someone such as Calvin himself, Edwards, Spurgeon, Hodge, Murray, Berkhof, Gill, Lloyd-Jones, Sproul, Piper, Grudem, and show me that they believe God "forces" or "coerces" or "makes" us get saved against our will.

Give me an TUL Ip for "Irrisistable grace". Remember? You were dead and it was against your dead will to come to God unless He preprogrammed you to love him causing you to be unable to resist Him.

Do try to keep up with what you are arguing. It's never good for your opponent to have to argue his/her side and remind you of what your's is.

 

[natewood3]

Poly,

Give me an TUL Ip for "Irrisistable grace". Remember? You were dead and it was against your dead will to come to God unless He preprogrammed you to love him causing you to be unable to resist Him.

Preprogrammed? That is exactly what I am talking about...God did not force to me love Him. He just happen to reveal His Son to me, and when He did, He was IRRESISTABLY beautiful and all-satisfying. I cannot help you redefine the word "irresistable" to make it mean something it never meant. My wife was irresistable on our wedding day, so irresistable I cried when I see her. Did I have the choice to walk away and say the wedding is off? Sure I did. Would I have done so? Not in a trillion years...now how much more beautiful and satisfying is the Treasure that we have been searching for all of our lives when we finally find Him?

2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
2Co 4:5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

"Shone in our hearts:" Are we not passive in this? Why did He do this? So we could see the "light of the knowledge of the glory of Christ!"

 

[natewood3]

Knight,

Were you planning on responding to my post? #327...

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Poly

Since when has any Open Theist around here ever said that "He just can't do anything about it" in the sense that you're implying, as if He doesn't have the ability?

What can He do? Give me an example of something God can do to get more people saved.

Originally posted by Poly
You've been shown this before and conveniently overlook it. Why do you think that just because He is capable of making man love Him (I use the word "love" loosely here) that He wants to?

I'm curious. Since you mention a "loose" definition of "love," what would be the tight definition? How do you Open Theists define "love"?

Originally posted by Poly
You don't give God any other possibilities. Why?

That's the nature of decrees. Decided in advance; predestinated; foreordained; by God's determinate counsel. Those should sound familiar, especially if you used to be a hardcore Calvinist. God doesn't do any electing or predestinating anymore. It was all done in the past.

Originally posted by Poly
As far as your concerned His hands are tied and He had to be the director of man's will.

God cannot choose not to be God. He cannot choose not to be sovereign. He cannot choose not to be in control of every electron's position in the valence of their respective atoms.

Originally posted by Poly
There is no other way to get around God not giving us a free will other than He had the ability but chose not to or He simply wasn't capable.

I don't deny free will. I just don't think Open Theists know what it means.

Originally posted by Poly
I think you need to ask yourself just who it is that's making God out to be "a Big Loser" here.

My God doesn't lose a single soul He has chosen to save. He victoriously saves each and every one for whom Christ died. Zero losses. Zero casualties. Complete and total victory. Your view makes God out to be not only a Big Loser, but a really bad statistician, somehow not realizing that each passing day results in the exponential growth of the population of Hell.

Insanity can be defined as wanting things to be different, but doing the same thing over and over with the same undesireable results. That is the Open Theist God. He wants things to be different, but He just keeps doing the same thing (everything He can? Or nothing at all, having done everything He can?). The Open Theist concept of God becomes the Big Insane Loser Who Can't Add.

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by natewood3

Poly,

Preprogrammed? That is exactly what I am talking about...God did not force to me love Him. He just happen to reveal His Son to me, and when He did, He was IRRESISTABLY beautiful and all-satisfying. I cannot help you redefine the word "irresistable" to make it mean something it never meant.

You are THE master of double talk around here.

Your continuous talking out of both sides of your mouth is so cheap and unfair. How is somebody supposed to honestly debate you when your style is so childish? We're on the same page when it comes to the word "irresistable" whether you admit it or not. You remind me of the following.

******************************************
The Pickle Expert:

Man 1: I hate sour pickles.
Man 2: Then why are you eating them?
Man 1: These aren't sour pickles. These are cucumbers that
have been canned in dill.
Man 1: That's the same thing.
Man 2: No it's not. You obviously don't really know anything
about cucumbers.
Man 1: I know that you can add some dill and maybe some
garlic, can them and that most people call them pickles.
Man 2: That's your problem. You're going by what others have
to say about cucumbers.
Man 1: Ok, then you enlighten me on cucumbers.
Man 2: They grow in a garden.
Man 1: What does that have to do with our comparison of
pickles and cucumbers canned in dill?
Man 1: How am I supposed to explain this to you when you
didn't even know that they grew in a garden?
Man 2: I never said that.
Man 1: Now you're trying to twist things around?
Man 2: :hammer:

*******************************************

So, you say He chose to 'reveal' His Son to you. Again, you limit God. See, my view of God goes beyond the way you describe Him. He has no need to plan to "happen to reveal His Son" to certain individuals ahead of time. His power, authority and influence is so great that He can reveal Himself to the whole world and have no doubts that there will be people who will accept Him.

(Don't tell me, next you're going to say that you have a different take on the word 'reveal')

 

[natewood3]

Poly,

Can I ask a simple question: Have I ever said I wasn't childish? Have I ever said I am THE master at debating? Did I not say that I misrepresent other views? Have I ever said I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth? Do I do it purposefully? Why in the world do you think I am on this forum? To hear people like you criticize me for maybe not being as intellectually brilliant as you are? I thought I was here to learn...maybe that isn't what TOL is for...

Excuse for me saying anything Poly. I will be sure to keep my childish comments for others than yourself. You are obviously much above my level of debate, so I will let you debate with the real theologians and scholars on this forum.

 

[natewood3]

Poly,

One other comment: I do not see your Christ as the Christ of the Bible if He can be revealed to the whole world and only some respond to Him. In my childish mind, that makes Christ infinitely less glorious and beautiful than He really is...

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by natewood3

I do not see your Christ as the Christ of the Bible if He can be revealed to the whole world and only some respond to Him.

But as Jerry pointed out, the Christ of the Bible said,

• [jesus]And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.[/jesus] John 3:19

 

[natewood3]

Turbo,

That is true. Poly says that her God is "glorious" and that "His power, authority and influence is so great that He can reveal Himself to the whole world and have no doubts that there will be people who will accept Him." In other words, God will reveal Himself to all people in hopes that all will respond, but He is not glorious and beautiful enough for all people to respond to Him.

And it DOES matter how you define the word reveal. If it means to simply know that God exists, I say yes, He has done that for all people, but the Apostle Paul says "When it pleased God He revealed Himself to me..." I think that is a more definite revelation, a revelation that produces godly grief and repentance and faith, not because God makes us, but because we cannot help it. What do I know though, I am just childish in my views, right?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

Sozo,

Is that a retraction? Or just standard Open-Theist intransigence? Anyone reading this has no doubt it's the latter (except your Open Theist sycophants). Is there an apology forthcoming for your false accusation of ignorance? Of course not. That would be an admission of error. Is there even a hint of shame in you for having falsely charged someone with being ignorant about something you yourself were ignorant of? Of course not. Such a foolish overstatement and unfounded name-calling come as no surprise from a theology that gives God a pass for doing the very same things.

Instead, what do you do? You try to deflect your guilt with your "any way you slice it" tripe. Oh, I see. Now the details don't matter, cuz "any way you slice it," Sozo is still right.

Am I missing something, or did you forget to show me where the word "men" appears in the original text?

btw... I am not an Open-Theist.

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Christine

Sozo:

I am aware that the word "men" is not in the text. I mentioned that to Turbo when we talked off TOL the other night. Often, as it's been said, words are added for clarity. The question then become who are the "all?" I don't think God would draw unbelievers to himself, he'd only draw the called or elect.

Thanks for you response, Christine.

I believe I pointed out that it is all judgment that Jesus draws to Himself.