ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
Re: Why
Re: Why
We have free will. Adam reflected the glory of God. Man is still in the image of God, but we are fallen. Our bent is to sin and selfishness. We are rebellious and separated from God. We are not holy and perfect in our unregenerate state, but we do have free will. The ultimate proof of this is Hitler killed millions of Jews and hundreds of millions reject God and the Gospel and go to hell contrary to His will (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4; Jn. 3:16).
God gave Lucifer and Adam free moral agency. He was responsible for this. What they did with it becomes their responsibility. Love and freedom implies the equal possibility of evil and selfishness. Evil was an inherent possibility, not a necessity (it would be necessary if God coerced or caused the choices...which would then not be free). There is not a causal link between Adam's free will and Hitler's personal evil and abuse of his freedom. God is not responsible for evil. The alternative was to create robots or not create at all.
The potter does mold us, but not in a coercive way. He influences and persuades and woos. He does not force. Circumstances are not always directly determined by God. If a person drives drunk and changes my life in an accident, God is not to blame. It is the nature of they type of creation God made (He does not meticulously control every moral and mundane choice in the universe).
Re: Why
We have free will. Adam reflected the glory of God. Man is still in the image of God, but we are fallen. Our bent is to sin and selfishness. We are rebellious and separated from God. We are not holy and perfect in our unregenerate state, but we do have free will. The ultimate proof of this is Hitler killed millions of Jews and hundreds of millions reject God and the Gospel and go to hell contrary to His will (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4; Jn. 3:16).
God gave Lucifer and Adam free moral agency. He was responsible for this. What they did with it becomes their responsibility. Love and freedom implies the equal possibility of evil and selfishness. Evil was an inherent possibility, not a necessity (it would be necessary if God coerced or caused the choices...which would then not be free). There is not a causal link between Adam's free will and Hitler's personal evil and abuse of his freedom. God is not responsible for evil. The alternative was to create robots or not create at all.
The potter does mold us, but not in a coercive way. He influences and persuades and woos. He does not force. Circumstances are not always directly determined by God. If a person drives drunk and changes my life in an accident, God is not to blame. It is the nature of they type of creation God made (He does not meticulously control every moral and mundane choice in the universe).
Sozo
New member
Yes, you do.... repeatedly.
Of course, it's incoherent to YOU... you do not have a semblance of an idea what the gospel is all about. You reject God's way, for man to be saved.
Sozo: "In order for someone to save themselves, it has to be done their way, and according to their own plan and effort."
You do!
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved [since the work of Christ is not sufficient]?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus [because the work of Christ is not sufficient], and you shall be saved, you and your household."
You clearly believe, through your mockery of this verse, that believing in Jesus for salvation negates the cross.
Like I said, you blaspheme the Holy Spirit of God by making a mockery of His plan.
Jesus said: "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself (God's plan), and take up his cross (God's plan), and follow Me (God's plan).
Jesus affirms that YOU, Jim Hilston, must do something. But, you refuse, because YOU, Jim Hilston, will not to do it God's way. YOUR way, is to convince yourself, and others, that God only loves special people, and they do all those things because God forces them to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. It's not difficult to follow someone who has a rope around your neck and forces your every step.
Sozo,
Keep up with the conversation....
You said concerning Jim: No, I am presenting the evidence that Jim does not see that the death and resurrection are interrelated in securing salvation for those who believe, and that it is only available in His life.
Then I said: You are guilty of what you are accusing Jim of, namely, misrepresenting the view are you arguing against. You might think you are arguing against Jim, while in fact, you are arguing against a strawman that does not represent our view.
And you replied:
God choosing who will be saved has nothing to do with not seeing "that the death and resurrection are interrelated in securing salvation for those who believe, and that it is only available in His life." Jim, as far as I understood, has not denied this in any way. You are misrepresenting him when you say He has or that he doesn't see it.
You are terribly missing the point of Romans 5:10!!! Let's try again.
“For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.�
We were RECONCILED (actually reconciled, not made able to be reconciled) by His death (not by His resurrection). Having been reconciled, or since we have been reconciled by His death, we SHALL (do you see that word?) be saved by His life. What's the point you fail to understand? All those reconciled by His death will be saved by His life! Hence, Christ removes the penalty and if He does do that, then we WILL BE saved by His life. Not those who will reconcile themselves will be saved by His life, but those actually reconciled by His death will be saved by His life. Therefore, if Christ reconciled the entire world, as your view says He did, then it logically and inevitably leads to universalism or Christ's death being of no value or worth.
So Christ's death is a birthday party, and not everyone shows up. Wow...you learn something everyday.
Let me ask this: If I did not show up for the party, how valuable and how much worth would the party be for me? If any, why?
Once again, He obviously did not buy it FOR the whole world, because the whole world does not own it. Our response is what makes the payment sufficient, not the payment itself.
What is the difference between "buying" something for the whole world and "paying" for something for the whole world?
Does that mean you agree with what I said above, namely,
If they must accept it, then it is not ours until we fulfill a condition, which means it was not really ours and that Jesus didn't buy it for US, just whoever would fulfill the condition.
Keep up with the conversation....
You said concerning Jim: No, I am presenting the evidence that Jim does not see that the death and resurrection are interrelated in securing salvation for those who believe, and that it is only available in His life.
Then I said: You are guilty of what you are accusing Jim of, namely, misrepresenting the view are you arguing against. You might think you are arguing against Jim, while in fact, you are arguing against a strawman that does not represent our view.
And you replied:
God choosing who will be saved has nothing to do with not seeing "that the death and resurrection are interrelated in securing salvation for those who believe, and that it is only available in His life." Jim, as far as I understood, has not denied this in any way. You are misrepresenting him when you say He has or that he doesn't see it.
You are terribly missing the point of Romans 5:10!!! Let's try again.
“For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.�
We were RECONCILED (actually reconciled, not made able to be reconciled) by His death (not by His resurrection). Having been reconciled, or since we have been reconciled by His death, we SHALL (do you see that word?) be saved by His life. What's the point you fail to understand? All those reconciled by His death will be saved by His life! Hence, Christ removes the penalty and if He does do that, then we WILL BE saved by His life. Not those who will reconcile themselves will be saved by His life, but those actually reconciled by His death will be saved by His life. Therefore, if Christ reconciled the entire world, as your view says He did, then it logically and inevitably leads to universalism or Christ's death being of no value or worth.
So Christ's death is a birthday party, and not everyone shows up. Wow...you learn something everyday.
Let me ask this: If I did not show up for the party, how valuable and how much worth would the party be for me? If any, why?
Once again, He obviously did not buy it FOR the whole world, because the whole world does not own it. Our response is what makes the payment sufficient, not the payment itself.
What is the difference between "buying" something for the whole world and "paying" for something for the whole world?
Does that mean you agree with what I said above, namely,
If they must accept it, then it is not ours until we fulfill a condition, which means it was not really ours and that Jesus didn't buy it for US, just whoever would fulfill the condition.
STONE
New member
Re: Re: Why
Re: Re: Why
Robots no. But very limited by man's sin nature and immaturity to the degree that God must involve Himself in our salvation.
Do what I say or go to Hell is not coercive?
co·erce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
Re: Re: Why
You have proved man has a sin nature, not "libertarian" free will (unconstrained free will).
Robots no. But very limited by man's sin nature and immaturity to the degree that God must involve Himself in our salvation.
Do what I say or go to Hell is not coercive?
co·erce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
Last edited:
Sozo
New member
:yawn:
He does not see the signifigance of their relation. The death of Christ was universal in it's application. He bought and paid for the sins of the entire world (all men). All men's sins are forgiven in Him. In order for men to receive that forgiveness, they must come to Jesus (His words) and receive His life. In His life, we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins. Salvation is not universally given, although it is universally available.
You are not understanding Romans 5:10 in light of 2 Cor. 5:17-20
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."
Reconciliation is an exchange. He makes His life available to us, and we either do or do not give Him ours.
Look, Sozo, everyone thinks opposing views make a mockery of their view, so if you're going to continue this, I'm going to point out other obvious things, just for fun. For example, Sozo has a different view than Hilston. Sozo and Hilston use handles with the same number of syllables. Sozo doesn't know how to use a Greek lexicon. Hilston is a parttime genius. Sozo uses logic the way politicians use the truth.
This is a crackup. You've been challenged to answer the illogic of your view, and you can't do it. So you resort to a Paul-Reubens-esque style of debate ("I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"). Am I dealing with the mind of a child?
Here's a little thing called a syllogism. It has a major premise and a minor premise and a conclusion. If you agree with the premises, the you're forced to the conclusion. If you disagree with the conclusion, then one of the premises must be in error. The challenge is for you to identify the error, and to show, in cogent terms, why. For example:
Premise A: An unconscious man is found adrift at sea and must be saved, or else die from exposure.
Premise B: A life-preserver is thrown to him.
Conclusion: The life-preserver is sufficient to save him.
Where is the flaw in that syllogism? Premise B, right? It doesn't take into account that the man must be able to consciously take hold of the life-preserver.
Premise A: Man's need is to be saved.
Premise B: Christ's work made it possible to be saved, but man is not automatically saved thereby; he must choose to be saved.
Conclusion: Christ's work is not sufficient to save.
Terms defined:
Sufficient: Enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.
Man: Sinful, hell-deserving humanity
Christ: The quasi-Savior of Sozo's theology
Christ's work: The life, obedience, death, resurrection, ascension, etc. of same.
Save: Preserve from hell and damnation
Now any logically minded person would agree that the above conclusion follows the major and minor premises, if the given premises are correct. So please show me, and the lurking world, which of the premises are wrong so that you can deny their conclusion. If you cannot, then you must, in cogent terms of logic, show how the conclusion is non sequitur.
If you cannot do either, then you must admit that Jesus Christ did not, and could not, save you. You saved yourself by adding your own action to the equation.
Did you read my previous post? I agreed with every statement you made about "God's way." It is now obvious to everyone that you're the one who is expelling gaseous pollutants from the posterior orifice.
Sozo wrote: "In order for someone to save themselves, it has to be done their way, and according to their own plan and effort."
Hilston replied: Who says?
I'm asking you to justify your statement and definition of "saving oneself." I even gave you an example that should have made that clear to you, but you won't touch it with a 3-meter hogspear. It's funny to watch you dodge, Sozo.
Did you forget, Sozo, that my additions to this verse was not representing my view, but yours. I'm not the one who says Jesus' provision was not enough to save people. You do, because you state the stipulation of man saving himself. Go ahead and deny it. You're forgetting that everyone can read what you've already written and everything you've already admitted. Now you find yourself backed into a corner and all you can do is lob false charges and declare yourself right, despite having been exposed as irrational and incoherent in your view of salvation. All you have to do to become consistent is admit one thing, and all of my criticisms will be negated. Say: "Christ's work was not sufficient to save me." Then I would have to drop everything, because you will have suddenly become consistent in your theology, which is all I've been pressing you to do.
Hilston wrote: But on your view, man must act in order to make effectual an otherwise insufficient work of Christ.
Sozo, try to get this. Ya know that sentence immediately above yours? The sentence that precedes my quote of you? Do you see it?That one right there, which you immediately after called "blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God"? That's not my belief. It's yours, although you don't have the logical faculties to admit it. I'm not the one selling that product. YOU are. So how could I be blaspheming with that sentence. Are you really that clueless? Perhaps it's the medication?
Watch this, Sozo. Try not to get confused: I agree with you! See? No blasphemy. No mocking. I didn't even complain that you added to the verses. But try to get this: There's a difference between the way you and I understand that verse. You view it as a prerequisite to justification before God, which means that Christ's work was not sufficient. I view it as a necessary response of regeneration to God's commands.
OK, fine. There, you said it flat out. Now stop saying that Christ's work was sufficient, when you so baldly state, as you did right there, that something must be added for it to become effectual.
:kookoo:
You forgot to mention that I drink the blood of anti-determinist babies.
Special people? Forces people? Where are you getting this stuff? Here's the funny thing, Sozo. In order to demonize me, you need to make things up. And I just simply deny your charge and explain what I do believe. Whereas, you make my job easy by the you demonize yourself by your own words. I just shine a light on them. And you won't even deny my charges. You just keep quoting verses and insist that I view them through your works-salvation lenses.
:darwinsm:
I see, now it's difficult to freely follow. Earlier you said it was "no effort." You see, you can't sit still long enough to look in the mirror and to know what you yourself believe. The conclusion is this: Your theology does not allow you to say: "Christ saved me." You must admit that you saved yourself by availing yourself to His universal blanket provision. You can say, "Christ provided the opportunity for me to be saved, and I had the smarts and the good sense to accept it. I rock."Sozo writes:
It's not difficult to follow someone who has a rope around your neck and forces your every step.
Sozo
New member
So... what do you do parttime, that we are not privy to?
You are certainly operating with one.
The flaw is in your conclusion. It was Christ's intent that man not automatically be saved. He did what was sufficient to save according to His intent.
:thumb: Very good!
Jesus did what was sufficient through His death. It met every need for the proposed end.
Proposed:To put forward for consideration; To make known as one's intention; To offer
Thank you for proving my point!
The rest of your post is just filled with more of your fulltime distortions, and pointless prattle.
I am weary of you.
Next?
Last edited:
The conclusion doesn't say anything about "automatic" salvation. So the conclusion can't be false. The second premise must be flawed. Why don't you re-write the syllogism and demonstrate for everyone the logical progression to your conclusion.
What was the proposed end? To provide the possibility for sinners to save themselves, right?
You're welcome. Will you now admit that Chist's work was sufficient to provide the possibility for sinners to save themselves, but was not sufficient to actually save them?
When you distort my statements, I correct them. Why don't you correct mine? Because I haven't been distorting your statements. You can't back out from what you've already said and everyone has read. So instead you just go silent on the very points that refute your own assertion. On your view, Sozo, Jesus doesn't save. He just provides a means by which sinners can save themselves. You've assaulted the very foundation of the gospel. You've trampled the blood of Christ underfoot, just so you can have the final say in the matter. When you witness to others, if you're going to be logically consistent with your own assertions, you cannot say: "Jesus Christ can save you from hell." That would be a distortion of your own beliefs. You would have to rather say: "Jesus made a sufficient provision for you to save yourself, if you're smart enough and have enough good sense to accept that provision."
Sozo,
"In His life, we have redemption." I don't think you find that in Scripture. We WILL BE saved by His life if we have been reconciled. As Hilston has pointed out, "coming to Christ" is a necessary result of being reconciled and redeemed by Christ.
Will you answer a simple question? When unbelievers stand before God at the last judgment, having all their sins forgiven and reconciled to God, why will God condemn them to hell and eternally punish them? For WHAT?
In other words, one text of Scripture isn't sufficient to prove a truth...you must have more than one for it to be true.
So, what you believe is that the reconcilation of Christ was not sufficient to save you UNLESS you respond? You must act or the sacrifice of Christ is worthless, right?
"In His life, we have redemption." I don't think you find that in Scripture. We WILL BE saved by His life if we have been reconciled. As Hilston has pointed out, "coming to Christ" is a necessary result of being reconciled and redeemed by Christ.
Will you answer a simple question? When unbelievers stand before God at the last judgment, having all their sins forgiven and reconciled to God, why will God condemn them to hell and eternally punish them? For WHAT?
In other words, one text of Scripture isn't sufficient to prove a truth...you must have more than one for it to be true.
So, what you believe is that the reconcilation of Christ was not sufficient to save you UNLESS you respond? You must act or the sacrifice of Christ is worthless, right?
This seems reasonable. In the first syllogism, Premise A is wrong, the man is not unconscious.
In the second one, the Conclusion does not follow Premise B. Premise B should be truncated before the semicolon, and the Conclusion should be "he must choose to be saved".
Here is my post before on salvation:
From a later post I understand that your next question is: "Define love?"
That is a reasonable question. Here is the rule of thumb definition, and we can hash it out from this point – "sacrificing one's self for the good of another"
Also, what is the definition of love according to Hilston?
That depends on what you mean by "saved." What Jesus meant in His response to Nicodemus is not the same as what Paul said to the Roman saints in Ro 5:9,10.
The important thing to know about Jesus' exchange with Nicodemus is that Nic' was already regenerated, already given the gift of faith, already saved in the eternal sense of the word. He came to Jesus because He recognized the truth and responded to it. The unsaved, unregenerate soul does not respond favorably to the truth, let alone the Truth Himself.
Nicodemus represents the elect of the nation of Israel. As a member of the Sanhedrin and a ruler (Jn 3:1) among the Jews, he was a man of status, a teacher. He recognized Jesus as a master-teacher, and as having come from God on the basis of His miracles (Jn 3:2).
It is vital to recognize the shift in the personal pronouns from singular (referring to Nicodemus personally) to plural (referring to the nation of Israel, specifically the collective elect). Jesus says to Nic', "Verily, verily, I say unto thee [Nicodemus], Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:3)
Nic' is somewhat confused at Jesus' answer and asks a rather literal question of Jesus' figurative response (3:4), to which Jesus rejoins: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee [Nicodemus], Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (3:5,6).
Nicodemus then realizes that Jesus is speaking figuratively about the elect of Israel. This is evident by the fact that Nic' marvels at this, prompting Jesus' next statement: "Marvel not that I said unto thee [Nicodemus], Ye ["you-all"=elect Israel] must be born again." (3:7)
The enlightenment Nicodemus has experienced is the result of understanding from a regenerated spirit. This is further evidenced by Jesus' next statement:
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou [Nicodemus] hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (3:8)
Jesus has affirmed that Nicodemus, as one who personally hears the sound of the Spirit, is indeed "born of the Spirit." Nicodemus has just experienced justifcation before himself, similar to Abraham's experience when his faith affirmed his own righteous standing before God (Ro 4:3)
If someone were to ask me, "What must I do to be saved," I would answer: "What do you want to be saved from?" If they said, "Hell and damnnation" or something to that effect, I would tell them, "For you to know that you've been saved, you must repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." A thoughtful person would then want to know what that means. I would tell them that it means ".. you recognize your utter unworthiness before God and that He rightly judges you as deserving Hell; that you surrender your will and life to Him and cry out for His mercy."
If they were then to ask me "Is that what saves me? Repenting, believing, surrendering, yielding my will to His?" I would say no. That's why I was careful to say, "For you to know that you've been saved ..." What saves a person is the work of Christ in behalf of that person, period. Of those for whom Christ did not work, they cannot be saved, and will never want to be. Of those for whom Christ did work, they will assuredly be saved and desire to be.
I agree with sozo in seeing the so-called atonement as unlimited (reject TULIP).
He said reconciliation is an 'exchanged life' (ours for His) and redemption is being in Him. I think this may be reading assumptions back into the word (even if the concept has merit on its own).
It would be worthwhile to do a Greek word study on reconciliation. I believe this has more to do with relationship than imputation or exchange (you may be able to make the point from other verses or words/concepts).
Redemption is another word that we need to find the first century use of (vs 20th century North American bias).
If he was wrong on Greek 'all' issues, it is possible he is importing his ideas back into a single Greek word.
Reconcilitation = relationship, not exchange (we are reconciled to God; He is not reconciled to us since He did not turn from us and does not need reconciling as the perfect One).
Could exchanged life be some what of a metaphor for salvation? He gives us new life, but we do not cease to physically exist.
He said reconciliation is an 'exchanged life' (ours for His) and redemption is being in Him. I think this may be reading assumptions back into the word (even if the concept has merit on its own).
It would be worthwhile to do a Greek word study on reconciliation. I believe this has more to do with relationship than imputation or exchange (you may be able to make the point from other verses or words/concepts).
Redemption is another word that we need to find the first century use of (vs 20th century North American bias).
If he was wrong on Greek 'all' issues, it is possible he is importing his ideas back into a single Greek word.
Reconcilitation = relationship, not exchange (we are reconciled to God; He is not reconciled to us since He did not turn from us and does not need reconciling as the perfect One).
Could exchanged life be some what of a metaphor for salvation? He gives us new life, but we do not cease to physically exist.
The Gospel was preached to all men persuasively with the belief that those who heard could either procrastinate, receive Christ, or reject Christ. The Word of truth is powerful and the Spirit convicts/convinces/draws/woos/persuades. Those who respond in repentant faith (will, intellect, emotions involved), will be saved. Those who harden their hearts and refuse to submit to the Lord of love will remain condemned. God provides and initiates, but we must respond. The evidence is that many continue in their selfish rebellion. This does not mean they are more powerful than God, or that His provision is powerless. It is simply reality from a loving God who gave us the gift of free will moral agency so we can know and love Him with integrity (vs being mindless, will-less automatons). God's sovereign will is not the only factor in the universe, or He is responsible for Hitler's evil and the perishing of the masses in hell (contrary to His explicit revelation of His character and ways).