Open Theism is not the only free will theism, Tick.:hammer:
:idunno:
Open Theism is not the only free will theism, Tick.:hammer:
Here I can say I do not agree with your conditional security view. There is too much scripture that supports eternal security.
Likewise, there are verses about predestination, but they cannot be pitted against the ones about free will (God predestines some vs all things is the non-Calvinistic resolution of the tension).
The cumulative evidence supports conditional vs unconditional eternal security
What are the verses of predestination, and what do they mean?
So there is evidence saying there is eternal securit, just not as much as saying there isn't. How can this be? God contradicts himself?
There is no contradiction.
The cumulative evidence supports conditional vs unconditional eternal security
If a hyper-Calvinist or OSAS says that God predestines all things
Likewise, there are verses about predestination.
I asked you to name those verses on predestination. You said there are. What are they?
Rom. 8:28-30 is one e.g., but it must be interpreted in context. Oh, look, it is even used in your infallible KJV.
Are you universalist or annhilationist?
Hell/lake of fire/conscious separation is the biblical, historical, orthodox view.
Matthew 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”17..... But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Romans 7:10
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
Only a totally dishonest person with an agenda would say they are saying the same thing.
You're being dishonest.The issue is conditions. One is not saved apart from faith, but the basis is grace. In your view, universalism should be true if OSAS is true.
What does that even mean? Misdirection is for magicians, not honest discussion/debate.In your OSAS view, He does?!:hammer:
- Only if they preached to the same Jews.
- Why do you think they made the agreement in Galatians 2:9?
I've never said otherwise since becoming A9D. So, what's the pickle?Huh? so now your saying the Jews can be saved by either Paul gospel or Peter and the boys gospel. What a pickle you have made for yourself.
I've never said otherwise since becoming A9D. So, what's the pickle?
Well, actually, make that [could have been saved] as currently the NC is on hold.
I don't believe any differently than any other MAD person I know. And, yes, Gentiles could find salvation as proselytes under the 12.Well then you seem to understand MAD a little different then the others if you believe the Jews can be saved by either gospel. So can a gentile be saved by Peter and the boys gospel?
I don't believe any differently than any other MAD person I know. And, yes, Gentiles could find salvation as proselytes under the 12.
So what?
- Only if they preached to the same Jews.
- Why do you think they made the agreement in Galatians 2:9?
I've never said otherwise since becoming A9D. So, what's the pickle?
Well, actually, make that [could have been saved] as currently the NC is on hold.
I don't believe any differently than any other MAD person I know. And, yes, Gentiles could find salvation as proselytes under the 12.
So what?
Only one who does not understand the gospel would say they are not the same gospel
And?Galatians 1:6-9
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Here we see that if any one preach another gospel other then the one Paul preached to them Paul says let him be accursed.
No, Peter was to be blamed for his actions in retreating away from the Gentiles in fear of those who were of the circumcision; a separate group of people from the Gentiles.Galatians 2:11-21
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 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. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Here we see Peter dissimulating from the truth of the gospel leading astray Barnabas. (who was set aside as Paul was for the preaching unto the gentiles)
Peter preaching though actions preached ANOTHER GOSPEL.
Wrong again. Peter wrote of Paul's writings to certain Jews, such as those in the council, explaining his gospel to them. Peter was making the case, as he did in Acts 15, that Paul was preaching truth even if it was not the same thing being preached by the 12. And Acts 15 is proof of that.And by Peters words below we know Peter repented of preaching a gospel of works of the law because he says he is in agreement with Paul.
2 Peter 3:14-18
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Peter a Paul obviously preached to the SAME PEOPLE.
And?
No, Peter was to be blamed for his actions in retreating away from the Gentiles in fear of those who were of the circumcision; a separate group of people from the Gentiles.
If the same message was being preached to both what would Peter have to fear?
Wrong again. Peter wrote of Paul's writings to certain Jews, such as those in the council, explaining his gospel to them. Peter was making the case, as he did in Acts 15, that Paul was preaching truth even if it was not the same thing being preached by the 12. And Acts 15 is proof of that.
And even Paul wrote of those who were of the law and those who are of faith, calling Abraham the father of both groups; Romans 4:16.
That's two separate groups that coexisted and one of them was of the law.:think: