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

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo
If I put a meal on a plate and serve it to you, then you have been provided everything you need to solve your problem of hunger. If you do not eat it, then you will remain hungry.

If we define hunger carefully (as we should salvation) and we determine that hunger is met by the consumption of food, we quickly see that the mere provision of food doesn't come anywhere close to be sufficient to meet the needs of a hungry person. For example, I also need (a) the will to eat, (b) the ability to eat (c) the ability to metabolize what I've eaten, etc. etc. So your illustration only further reinforces my critique against your view. Do you now see that your view of Christ's work is insufficient to save, just as your view of presenting food is insufficient to assuage hunger?

Originally posted by Sozo
You don't like the fact that God requires a response to His provision.

Not at all. I teach that God requires a response to His provision, but not as a contingency to save, which is what your view does. Your view makes Christ's work insufficient and impotent to actually accomplish anything. I keep saying this, and you have yet to show otherwise. This is precisely what made Betty blow an O-ring. He wasn't able to answer these questions without getting spitting mad. I was hoping better for you.

Originally posted by Sozo
God has sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world. (Like it or not). All men have been offered the free gift, and it is not an effort, nor a co-redemtive work to accept a gift.

If it's just an offer, then Christ's work doesn't really accomplish anything. It's static. Sitting on a shelf. Only a person's acceptance can "activate" it, which means a person really saves himself, thus taking away from the sufficiency of Christ's work. This is the logic of your view, Sozo. Prove that it isn't.

Originally posted by Sozo
Does not matter, you are still in prison. No, he is not a prisoner, but he is still in prison until he leaves.

You've somehow missed the point. It is a judicial matter. Is a person still a bona fide prisoner of the state if he chooses to stay in prison? Answer: No. That would be a full, sufficient and effectual pardon. But what you and Betty suggest is a partial, insufficient and ineffectual pardon. Prove my logic wrong.

Originally posted by Sozo
Are you now rejecting the propitiation? Being free from guilt, forgiveness of sins, freedom from wrath, sin, law, and death are IN HIM.

I agree, and it makes sense in my view, because Christ's work actually accomplishes all of these things, sufficiently, fully, effectually, without any help from me. My view affirms the full and sufficient work of Christ to propitiate. Yours only makes it "potential" and is therefore not actual.

Originally posted by Sozo
You just don't get it. I have made it plain enough for a child to understand.

That doesn't make it true, Sozo. You can tell a child that raindrops are God's tears and that's plain enough for a child to understand.

Originally posted by Sozo
Salvation is IN HIM. YOU must be IN HIM to receive all that God has done. You must come out of the cell. You must eat your meal. You must deny yourself. You must repent of unbelief. You must accept the free gift of life.

I don't disagree. But none of those things you wrote, preceded by "you", take anything away from a full and sufficient salvation provided by Christ. They are the necessary result, but not the sufficient cause. The point being, Christ's work, plus nothing, is what saves. Self-denial, repentance, belief, acceptance are not prerequisites, but results. This is consistent with logic and the claims of scripture regarding the sufficiency of Christ's substitutionary death.

Originally posted by Sozo
On the contrary, it is YOU who makes Christ's sacrifice of no effect, by claiming that man does not have to do anything but be a part of your secret society of lottery winners.

I don't think you really thought through your sentence there. I'm the one claiming that every one, each and every person without exception, for whom Christ died, will assuredly, without fail, without loss or casualty, be absolutely and unequivocally saved, solely on the basis of Christ's sacrifice. It is your view that makes Christ's sacrifice insufficient, impotent, and ineffective. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Sozo
Yes, God is offended by death.

So is your answer "yes"? Is Joseph Stalin being punished in Hell to the equal degree as Stephen Jay Gould?

Originally posted by Sozo
Jesus came that we might have life, but you seem to think that the ministry of Jesus served no purpose at all.

You've got that backward, Sozo. Since I believe Christ's life, death and resurrection actually and infallibly accomplished and will accomplish every single detail for which they were intended, Jesus' purpose is affirmed in the strongest of terms. Since you believe that Christ's life, death and resurrection only potentially saves and only possibly fulfills some purposes, depending on whether or not man has the good sense and wherewithal to accept the "offer", Jesus' life, in your view, served no actual or real purpose at all. I have demonstrated how every one of your analogies and illustrations serve only to prove the unassailable logic of my view, and the irrational illogic of yours. Every one of your examples (serving food, pardon from prison, etc) shows that you have not adequately reflected on the implications of your claims, let alone giving due consideration to your self-refuting illustrations.

 

[STONE]

Originally posted by Hilston

Not true. If we define hunger carefully (as we should salvation) and we determine that hunger is met by the consumption of food, we quickly see that the provision of food doesn't come anywhere close to be sufficient to meet the needs of a hungry person. For example, I also need (a) the will to eat, (b) the ability to eat (c) the ability to metabolize what I've eaten, etc. etc. So your illustration only further reinforces my critique against your view. Do you now see that your view of Christ's work is insufficient to save, just as your view of presenting food is insufficient to assuage hunger?

Not at all. I teach that God requires a response to His provision, but not as a contingency to save, which is what your view does, thereby making Christ's work insufficient and impotent to actually accomplish anything. I keep saying this, and you have yet to show otherwise. This is precisely what made Betty blow an O-ring. He wasn't able to answer these questions without getting spitting mad. I was hoping better for you.

If it's just an offer, then Christ's work doesn't really accomplish anything. It's static. Sitting on a shelf. Only a person's acceptance can "activate" it, which means a person really saves himself, thus taking away from the sufficiency of Christ's work. This is logical, Sozo. Prove that it isn't.

You've somehow missed the point. It is a judicial matter. Is a person still a bona fide prisoner of the state if he chooses to stay in prison. Answer: No. That would be a full, sufficient and effectual pardon. What you and Betty suggest is a partial, insufficient and ineffectual pardon. Prove me wrong.

I agree, and it makes sense in my view, because Christ's work actually accomplishes all of these things, sufficiently, fully, effectually, without any help from me. My view affirms the full and sufficient work of Christ to propitiate. Yours only makes it "potential".

That doesn't make it true, Sozo. You can tell a child that raindrops are God's tears and that's plain enough for a child to understand.

I don't disagree. But none of those things you wrote, preceded by "you", take anything away from a full and sufficient salvation provided by Christ. They are the necessary result, but not the sufficient cause. The point being, Christ's work, plus nothing, is what saves. Self-denial, repentance, belief, acceptance are not prerequisites, but results. This is consistent with logic and the claims of scripture regarding the sufficiency of Christ's substitutionary death.

I don't think you really thought through your sentence there. I'm the one claiming that every one, each and every person without exception, for whom Christ died, will assuredly, without fail, without loss or casualty, be absolutely and unequivocally saved, solely on the basis of Christ's sacrifice. It is your view that makes Christ's sacrifice insufficient, impotent, and ineffective. Prove me wrong.

So is your answer "yes"? Is the Josef Stalin being punished in Hell to the equal degree as Stephen Jay Gould?

You've got that backward, Sozo. Since I believe Christ's life, death and resurrection actually and infallibly accomplished and will accomplish every single detail for which they were intended, Jesus' purpose is affirmed in the strongest of terms. Since you believe that Christ's life, death and resurrection only potentially saves and only possibly fulfills some purposes, depending on whether or not man has the good sense and wherewithal to accept the "offer", Jesus' life, in your view, served no actual or real purpose at all. I have demonstrated how every one of your analogies and illustrations serve only to prove the unassailable logic of my view, and the irrational illogic of yours. Every one of your examples (serving food, pardon from prison, etc) shows that you have not adequately reflected on the implications of your claims, let alone giving due consideration to your self-refuting illustrations.

How does this fit scripturally:
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Yeah, it' sort of like being pregnant; you either are or you aren't.

The future is either open or it is not.

Actually, some of the future is open, and some is not.

Things involving free moral agency and contingencies are fully open and unknowable as a certainty. e.g. who would become a believer, destinies, what I eat for lunch, who I marry, who will win future Super Bowls, etc.

The things that are fixed are predestined by God and happen regardless of man's choices. e.g. The chosing of Israel. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ were under His control and could not be thwarted. Future judgments will happen as prophesied in Revelation. The Second Coming will happen. The creation of the world was also knowable by God before it happened.

In eternity past, some of these things may have been more open in God's mind. e.g. the exact day of the Second Coming or the exact moment He chose to speak the universe into existence.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by STONE

Yes.
Both, in a sense.

can you explain how the future could be both open and closed?

 

[geralduk]

The so called'open veiw' and the so called 'closed veiw' are BOTH false. devised by the carnal mind to understand spiritual truth.
The result?
Vain and endless debates by carnal minds.

Better is it to go the the SCRIPTUREES ............................FIRST and let THEM speak for themselves than to defend a 'theoligical position' devised by one 'particular 'school' of theology over another.
Calvinism and aminisiam is but a manifestation of the same thing.
Where carnal men have taken spiritual truth and neither understanding it or knowing it debate endlessly over soemthing that is far from the truth they say they proclaim!"
Pre mil and post mill areanother
Predestination and covenant theology another.

The SPIRIT lusteth against the flesh and the flesh againts the SPIRIT.

So it was so it is and so it shall be till the LORD COME.

But WHO profits?

Those spititualy minded must speak the truth and then go on.
and not get entangled in vain debates with those who seek only to justyfy themselves.
For if you do so you will find yourself STILL debating 10 years from now (if we had the time) and no further foward in our WALK with God than when we started.

Let then the rightous remain rightous and the unrightous unrigthous still.
and for the kingdoms sake and the souls of mne leave of this foolishness.

It should also be rembered that it was while CAINE got ABLE into diologue and while they were talking in the feild he rose up ánd slew him.

Therefore in any diologue with the flesh you should be fully armoured!
and be watching and praying so that you might be able to "walk in the midst of them" and go your way.

 

[Sozo]

Jim...

It appears that you are running out of bullets, and are now attempting to throw the gun at me.

If we define hunger carefully (as we should salvation) and we determine that hunger is met by the consumption of food, we quickly see that the mere provision of food doesn't come anywhere close to be sufficient to meet the needs of a hungry person. For example, I also need (a) the will to eat, (b) the ability to eat (c) the ability to metabolize what I've eaten, etc. etc. So your illustration only further reinforces my critique against your view.

(a.) Jesus knew that men hunger...

"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

(b.) Jesus knew that men have the abilty to eat...

"And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."

"Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

(c.) Jesus knew that man has the ability to metabolize what they eat...

"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die."

Do you now see that your view of Christ's work is insufficient to save, just as your view of presenting food is insufficient to assuage hunger

No, I sure don't. What I do see is that God has provided everything we need through Christ, and that we are to come, eat, and not die.

If it's just an offer, then Christ's work doesn't really accomplish anything.

Let's cut to the chase, Jim. You believe that Jesus died for a pre-determined select group of people, and I believe that Jesus died for all men (pantas).

Therefore, you deny that:

(a) Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world
(b) That God desires ALL men to be saved
(c) That ALL men are sinners
(d) That ALL men have the justification of life
(e) That the blood of Jesus was shed for the few, the proud, the decreed

Christ's work, plus nothing, is what saves. Self-denial, repentance, belief, acceptance are not prerequisites, but results.

I am not interested, in a long drawn out debate about the philosophical anti-Christ doctrines of Calvinism.

If you think that Jesus was not a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then by all means, you are free to claim that my view of His sacrifice is wrong.

If you believe that man's problem is not greater than having his sins forgiven, then you are free to reject that God's intent was to give us His life.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hilston; Being saved is not a matter of being saved from sin, but being saved from being seperated from God for eternity. What God requires for not being separated from Him is that we love Him. The problem came about when we sinned, that even if we did love God, we could not be with Him because that sin is not allowed in His presence. Since we did not have the capacity to erase our own sin, it had to be paid for in another way. God provided that way with the sacrifice of Jesus. Now that the sin is removed, if we (and by 'we' I mean mankind) love God we can be with Him.

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

Edited to add Hilston as the addressee

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

This is precisely what made Betty blow an O-ring. He wasn't able to answer these questions without getting spitting mad.

btw... who the heck is Betty, and why does this guy have a girls name?

 

[Yorzhik]

The answer starts something like this, "you know, the Paul Simon song...?" :chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

Actually the whole thing starts with calling Hilston a "calvinist".

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

can you explain how the future could be both open and closed?

There are two motifs in Scripture. Some aspects of the future are open (free will contingencies) and some aspects are determined by God in advance (sovereign) such as His creation, incarnation, and Second Coming.

 

[Yorzhik]

godrulz; I'm sure when the phrase "open view" is used, it always means "not completely closed". If there is anything that is contingent, or open, even if almost all other things are closed, it makes the future open.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Sozo

btw... who the heck is Betty, and why does this guy have a girls name?

Yorzhik's got it right Sozo. Jim has taken to calling me Betty because I no longer am fooled by his pretending to be something other than a Calvinist and have taken the indefensable (in Jim's view) of calling that which quacks a duck. He thinks that I'll dislike being called Betty enough to stop calling him a Calvinist, but he's wrong. You can all call me Betty if like but you have to call Jim a Calvinist as well!

Resting in Him,
Betty

 

[Hilston]

Clete, there are some questions and/or arguments you may have missed in previous posts. I've recapped them below. I was hoping you'd offer your insights:

Clete writes:
Just to be perfectly clear and to disallow the continued honest use of some of the characterizations of the Open View that you seem to enjoy employing, I would like to say and to make perfectly clear that I believe firmly and absolutely that the price God paid at the cross was of INFINITE value. Allow me to repeat that so I'll know you've gotten it ... THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF INFINITE VALUE!

I don't doubt for one second that you claim that and that you think you believe it. I just don't think you know what it means. As soon as you invoke a contingency, the value is stripped away. See below.

Clete writes:
If there were a billion planets with 100 million souls on each planet and all (and I mean every last single one) came to faith in Christ it would not diminish by even the smallest fraction the remaining value of that which was paid at Calvary.

Here's the problem: You claim you believe in the transaction view of the atonement, that Christ's blood actually paid for our sins. But if no one "cashed" their blood coupon by choosing first to believe, there would be no payment for anything. On that view, Christ's blood doesn't pay for the sins of those who don't believe, so it's value is contingent, not actual. Therefore, not infinite.

Clete writes:
Jesus' death at the cross is what made God's grace available to ALL, that is, anyone who responds to Him in faith.

There's the contingency [in bold]. And that makes it not infinite. It actually makes it insufficient.

Clete writes:
(And again I do mean anyone at all.) We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:8,9 isn't talking only about eternal salvation, but also daily, ongoing sanctification. Check the tense of the verb.

Clete writes:
His blood shed for us is the object of our faith and it is our faith which triggers God's grace not the blood itself otherwise you would indeed have universalism.

That is a low-value-atonement view, whether you like it or not. Such an atonement is not sufficient to save. Something must be added, namely "our faith." I don't rely upon my own faith. My own faith fails on a daily basis. I am justified before God by the faith of Christ, that is, Christ's faithfulness in actually and sufficiently paying the penalty in my behalf, not by my own faith.

Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

I have a high-value-atonement view in which the atonement is sufficient to save each and every person for whom the payment was intended.

Clete writes:
The blood is what made that grace available.

See what I mean? It's merely "available." It's sitting there, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, insufficient to do anything alone. Something must be added.

Clete writes:
If we do not respond to Him in faith then He will not cleanse us of our sins and we will be left to pay the price we owe ourselves, namely death. Which, by the way, is totally His prerogative to decide. It was His sacrifice, His Son, His blood that was shed, He has the absolute right to say to whom that blood will be applied and under what circumstances. If He wants to place a condition of faith within the plan of salvation then that's up to Him, and rightly so.

Then it isn't of infinite value. If a condition is placed on the application, it isn't a sufficient payment. It is value-less in and of itself. Its value depends on something is added. "Infinite" and "insufficient" don't seem to go together.

Clete writes:
Now, that's the way God set it up.

It's not. That's a distortion born out of pagan philosophy. Men are not justified before God by works, and not by his own faith, but by the faithful work of the Son, sufficiently and assuredly and actually; not potentially, or based on "availability". "If you don't like it, I suggest you get over it! You do not get to decide what the plan of salvation is, God does. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with nothing less than the very gospel itself and thereby the one who authored it."

Clete writes:
But be that as it may, if I see that you have accused me or any other person who holds to the Open View of believing that Christ's death was of anything but infinite value, know that you will be guilty of intentionally lying and that I intend to call you on it.

Good grief, lighten up, Alice. I don't doubt that you believe it, I just don't think you know what it means. I'm not lying when I say that your view of the atonement is one of low value. You call it "infinite value," but it's not. Henceforth, I will say that Open Theists believe in a so-called-infinite-value-but-in-actuality-low-value-insufficient atonement [SCIVBIALVI atonement, for short. Pronounced: skiv-bee-AL-vee].

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

We do not save ourselves; it is God who saves when and if we respond to Him in faith.

No, you do save yourself, according to your view. You must decide. You must choose. You must "cash in." You. You. You. You. You. When the Bible instructs the rebellious to repent and to choose to follow Christ, it is not an offer. It is a command. Those who repent and follow have already been redeemed. Those who reject, never were.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The only reason He can do that and remain holy and just is because of the Sacrifice that was paid by His Son on the cross. It is not our "coupon" to redeem, it is His.

See what irrationality results? First it's your decision and you redeem the coupon, now it's God.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
As I said it is His sacrifice, His Son, His blood. He can redeem with that blood whomever He wishes under what ever conditions He wants to set up.

No He can't. Not on your view. He can't redeem someone who rejects Him, can He?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Notice all the monetary metaphors. These are the very same ones that the Bible uses over and over again. And it is a good metaphor. It works very nicely, even your "coupon" addition works fine. You know coupons do have real value when redeemed by those who issued it.

Yes, but they are insufficient in and of themselves. They have no intrinsic value.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you have a coin in your pocket it too has real value. You know why? It's because everyone involved in the economy in which that coin is used agrees that it has value, otherwise it is nothing but a not so nice piece of sculpture.

You've contradicted yourself. It has assigned value, not real value.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The same is true of the blood of Christ only it has intrinsic value because it is the blood of God Himself.

It has no intrinsic value if something must be added to it.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
But the value of it belongs to God, not us. It was a sacrifice made to God, by God for our benefit and it is the only thing that pays for our sin, THE ONLY THING.

But it has no value until it is "cashed in." That means it is insufficient to actually do anything apart from man's choice.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Nothing is added, not our faith, not God's grace, nothing nothing nothing nothing! Got it?

I hear you, but you're contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Let me explain what I mean by making an analogy that is similar to one that Jesus made. Let's say that some very rich man or a king perhaps makes an offer to pay off the debts of anyone who asks, no strings attached, all that is needed is that people ask for the free gift.

Question: "Free?! No strings? What's the catch?"
Answer: "The catch is you gotta ask for it."

It's not the "strings" that refute your "infinite value" assertion, but the "catch."

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Pretty neat deal, especially if you are in up to your neck in debt that you have no possible way of paying! This is exactly the position we are in with God.

That's where you're wrong, and your flawed view of total depravity is the underpinning of your error. The position is not merely of debt and no possible way of paying, but of debt and no desire to pay. The carnal mind cannot submit to God's requirements. Spiritually dead, we must be made alive, regenerated, before we even realize our need, let alone desire its payment.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
He has offered to pay our sin debt with absolutely no strings attached; ...

He didn't offer anything. It's not an offer. All men everywhere are commanded to repent.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... all we must do is ask Him to do it and He will. Your suggesting that by my asking for my debt to be paid that the act of asking is part of the payment! That's ridiculous.

No, the fact that the payment is impotent in and of itself, on your view, is what is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
So your insistence that we hold a view that places a low-value on the blood of Christ is ridiculous ...

No, what is ridiculous is that you claim it has infinite instrinsic value, but the logical conclusion of your view is that it only has an insufficient and potential value.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... and is only said to have an emotional impact but has no basis in fact.

Not only fact, but logic.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It has nothing to do what you think or whether you think I know what it means for it to be of infinite value. I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that under no circumstances can it be rightly said that we believe that Christ's sacrifice was of a low value, or that what we believe can lead logically to that conclusion, period.

See above.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, will you continue in what is now an intentional mischaracterization of the Open View or will you debate honestly and substantively?

There is nothing dishonest of insubstantive about my critique. For you, what Christ did had no intrinsic value. Only potential value (even though you say it had infinite value]. For you, what Christ did was not sufficient to accomplish anything in and of itself, something, namely the faith of men, must be added for it to actually become kinetic. Your explanations belie your claim. So you can continue to call it an atonement of "infinite value," but your explanation demonstrates that it's really only a SCIVBIALVI atonement.

 

[natewood3]

Poly,

Just how long do you plan on whining about this? Any chance you'll be getting over it some time soon?

There is such Christian love on this forum...

It's simple, Natewood, no matter how much you try to complicate it, the plain and simple truth is that you as well as countless others believing in predestination, talk out of both sides of your mouth. Every time you say that God is not the author of sin, yet ordains each and everything to occur you contradict yourself. You say that man takes the full responsibility of his sin yet God predestined that sin to occur. You say that man is wrong for not choosing God yet God chose to 'reveal' His son to a certain few. Try as you may to get around it but a 1st grader could see that this is nothing more than double talk.

I contradict myself in an OVers mind. The sovereignty of God and free of will of man are compatible, not contradictory. If you believe I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth, that is fine. I believe you do the same. Say God is "omniscient" and that He grows in knowledge (which He HAS to if He does not know the future) is in my mind contradictory, although it may not be in yours. It is a matter of opinion...

This is another thing that I get really sick of. You keep saying you are here to learn as if you're open to any reasoning that anybody would have to show you. Balony! At least be honest enough to admit why you're here. You want to state the so called case for predestination... period. So don't come across with this supposed "how can you attack me? I'm only here to learn" business. I don't buy it.

I have no problem with you telling me I misrepresent your view, for I am positive I do, although not purposefully. However, it goes across the line of Christian love to judge my motives. Being "open" to reasoning and accepting whatever somebody says is completely different. You do not come across as "open" to my view in any way, but do I tell you your just here to state the so-called case for open theism or whatever it is that you believe? I think that would be very judgmental to do so, for I do not know your heart or your motives for being here. It is actually none of my business.

Hopefully there are not unbelievers keeping up with this conversation...it would be one more reason NOT to become a Christian, whatever that means...

Why should I show you? So you can come back and say that you weren't misrepresenting it? Though I'm wasting my time, I'll post some anyway lest you come back and try to say that I was trying to avoid showing how you have done this.

I will agree. I am sure I did misrepresent a certain view, but it was mainly GIT's view of which I was speaking. GIT does not seem to agree with other OVers on some things, and that is his right. I am not sure if he represents the OV or not. I know there are OVers on TOL that disagree with regard to theological matters. The quotes you gave were mainly about GIT's view, not necessarily the OV. If GIT's view was the OV, then I obviously misrepresented both views. My mistake and it shouldn't have happened...

At the same time, some things I say seem to the be logical outcome just as you say the logical outcome of my view is that God is the author of sin, etc. I do not hold to that, but that is what you say I believe if I was "logical." Hence, there is a difference between stating what I see as the logical outcome and actually misrepresenting the OV. I am sure I have said something was a logical outcome simply because I did not fully understand what the OV was in the first place. So, sure I am guilty of it as everyone else is. My mind is flawed; I am a sinner. What else do you expect?

Why must it mean that God's power and authority is weak just because most will reject Him? It's the very fact that He is not weak that makes most reject Him. It's His righteousness that causes most men to deny Him. They prefer darkness no matter how bright the light shines.

Why is it that some reject and some accept the Gospel, according to your view? You say that they prefer darkness rather than light. Why is it that some accept the light and begin to prefer light rather than darkness?

Where have I ever disagreed with this? But be honest here and show where we differ on this. When you say that "Christ reveals Himself so people see Him....you're only speaking of certain individuals that He chose to reveal them to. You don't think that God 'revealed' His glory to all men and then let man make up his own mind, freely whether or not they wanted to accept Him.

I am honest. We do disagree as to how many people God reveals His Son to. It pleases the Father to hide Him from some and reveal Him to others. God has revealed Himself in the sense that He has shown Himself through our conscience and creation, etc, etc. Man is without excuse whether or not God reveals Christ in any other way than creation or not. That is the point of Romans 1.

As you so know my view, you should also know that if God just left it up to us to decide whether or not we WANTED to accept Him, then all would go to hell.

He does do it for ALL people. Here again your being less than honest with this question. You're really asking "Why didn't God predestine all men to be saved?" Because that is not really loving. God could predestine to have a "special people" choose Him or He could reveal Himself to all men and see who would choose Him. As you've been shown in the past (and it seems to do no good) Love is not love unless you have the option to not love.

I answered my own question Poly. I said, "Why does He not do it to all? [BECAUSE] Christ came to redeem a special people, His Bride..." Christ did not come to redeem every single person. He came to redeem His Bride, a special people for His own possession.

You say: God could predestine to have a "special people" choose Him or He could reveal Himself to all men and see who would choose Him.

So you don't think I am making this up as I go...

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.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

When you say God could wait to "see who would choose Him," what makes one choose Him over another?

BTW, I agree that all men have the option to not love.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo
Jim...

It appears that you are running out of bullets, and are now attempting to throw the gun at me.

That's what Saddam said when they found him in a hole in the ground.

Originally posted by Sozo
(a.) Jesus knew that men hunger ... "Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

(b.) Jesus knew that men have the abilty to eat... "And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."... "Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

(c.) Jesus knew that man has the ability to metabolize what they eat ... "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die."

If you wish to believe that a person is saved by their own effort, I won't stop you. And you should be willing to admit that. But instead, you say the work of Christ was sufficient. You contradict yourself when you turn around to quote these verses to say it was not sufficient. It's simple logic, Sozo.

Originally posted by Sozo What I do see is that God has provided everything we need through Christ, and that we are to come, eat, and not die.

"Providing everything we needed" is not sufficient to save. If anything needs to be added to Christ's work (coming, eating, swallowing) then it's not sufficient. Why are you not getting this?

Originally posted by Sozo
Let's cut to the chase, Jim. You believe that Jesus died for a pre-determined select group of people, and I believe that Jesus died for all men (pantas). Therefore, you deny that: (a) Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world

I believe He died for only those to whom "kosmos" refers.

Originally posted by Sozo [Therefore, you deny that:] (b) That God desires ALL men to be saved

I believe God desires only those to whom "all men" refers.

Originally posted by Sozo [Therefore, you deny that:] (c) That ALL men are sinners

Why would I deny that? It's non sequitur, Sozo.

Originally posted by Sozo [Therefore, you deny that:] (d) That ALL men have the justification of life

True.

Originally posted by Sozo [Therefore, you deny that:] (e) That the blood of Jesus was shed for the few, the proud, the decreed

Why would I deny that? Are you on medication? Is that how you cut to the chase? You don't even understand what your opponent is arguing. Why are you wasting everyone's time?

Originally posted by Sozo
I am not interested, in a long drawn out debate about the philosophical anti-Christ doctrines of Calvinism.

That makes two of us. :thumb:

Originally posted by Sozo
If you think that Jesus was not a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then by all means, you are free to claim that my view of His sacrifice is wrong.

If that's all you think I'm saying, you haven't been paying attention. What I'm saying is that your view is self-refuting, incoherent, and irrational, which is must worse than just being wrong.

Originally posted by Sozo
If you believe that man's problem is not greater than having his sins forgiven, then you are free to reject that God's intent was to give us His life.

I don't believe that at all. Man's problem is certainly more than the need for forgiveness. But my view is consistent with man's need being fully met by the sufficient and effectual work of Christ. Yours is not. Yours requires added ingredients, something to spice up the blandness of Christ's inadequate provisions.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Yorzhik's got it right Sozo. Jim has taken to calling me Betty because I no longer am fooled by his pretending to be something other than a Calvinist and have taken the indefensable (in Jim's view) of calling that which quacks a duck. He thinks that I'll dislike being called Betty enough to stop calling him a Calvinist, but he's wrong. You can all call me Betty if like but you have to call Jim a Calvinist as well!

Resting in Him,
Betty

Jim also doesn't like being called a Pastor even though he refers to himself as one. :kookoo:

 

[natewood3]

Hilston,

Do you believe that the work of Christ bought non-soteriological benefits for the unbelieving people who will perish in hell?

 

[Sozo]

(a.) Jesus knew that men hunger ... "Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

(b.) Jesus knew that men have the abilty to eat... "And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."... "Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

(c.) Jesus knew that man has the ability to metabolize what they eat ... "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die."

Originally posted by Hilston
If anything needs to be added to Christ's work (coming, eating, swallowing) then it's not sufficient. Why are you not getting this?

It appears that it is YOU who do not "get" what Jesus just stated. Jesus is the one who claims that He alone is the provision, and Jesus claims that you must come and eat. The only thing that is hard to "swallow" is your blatant rejection of Christ's words.

Sozo said: "You deny that all men are sinners".

Why would I deny that?

Sozo said: "You deny that ALL men have the justification of life"

True.

Romans 5:18-19

"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

It's the same all Jim. If you are claiming that Jesus only brings justification of life to the elect, then only the elect would be under condemnation, and not all men.

Sozo said: [Therefore, you deny that:] (e) That the blood of Jesus was shed for the few, the proud, the decreed

Note: My mistake. I was thinking believe and typed deny

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Sozo
It appears that it is YOU who do not "get" what Jesus just stated. Jesus is the one who claims that He alone is the provision, and Jesus claims that you must come and eat. The only thing that is hard to "swallow" is your blatant rejection of Christ's words.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your interpretation of these verses as they pertain to Christ's work is correct. Can we, as two people who (hypothetically) agree that Christ's work requires the human response to make it effectual, therefore conclude that Christ's death was not sufficient in and of itself?

All I'm saying is this: If you want to believe man must do "his part" to make Christ's work effectual, then you cannot also claim that His work is intrinsically sufficient. Do you see that?

Originally posted by Sozo
Romans 5:18-19 "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

It's the same all Jim.

I agree.

Originally posted by Sozo
If you are claiming that Jesus only brings justification of life to the elect, then only the elect would be under condemnation, and not all men.

Condemnation is not an accurate translation of that Greek word. It doesn't refer to eternal judgment in hell, but to effects of the sin nature on the elect, i.e. living under the curse of sin. Paul is here answering the question: If the members of the Body of Christ were truly chosen/elected from before the foundations of the world, i.e. before the fall of man, then how is it that the elect have a sin nature and must experience the effects of that curse? It would take much more time and space to develop, but suffice it to say that my view of this passage is entirely consistent with the Biblical mid-Acts theological framework.