PDA

View Full Version : 2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture



Rolf Ernst
February 21st, 2004, 07:07 PM
"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. 3:9

This verse is used by many to claim that the Reformed (Calvinistic) view of Scripture is not Biblical; but to the contrary, when it is fully considered, it proves that Calvinism is Scriptural and that the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture is not Biblical.

Chapters two and three show Peter's concern about false teachings. In the second chapter he uses examples to show that God is able to punish or reward all according to their deeds. In the third chapter he deals with one error in particular. Unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter's response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: "see, He is not willing that any individual of mankind perish. He wants all (every--each and every) to come to repentance." My, my. We do have a problem here. If He is delaying that coming in judgment because He doesnt want any in the Arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self-defeating because the fact is that every day in every age, the broad road which leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road which leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die. Therefore the Arminian understanding of why God has not yet returned in judgement shows the motive of His longsuffering to be self-defeating.

The Reformed view does not at all see God's longsuffering as self-defeating. It views God's longsuffering as performing exactly what He purposed in it. Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to usward: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world and promised to Christ as His seed whom He would see (Isa. 53:10) and be satisfied. He is not willing that ANY of those to whom Christ is the "Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace" should perish. He will withhold His coming until they ALL come to repentance, no matter how many of the non-elect perish.

And that is exactly the outcome of His longsuffering. As Paul says in verse 15, "consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."

The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view.

Clete
February 21st, 2004, 07:47 PM
Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete

God_Is_Truth
February 21st, 2004, 07:51 PM
wouldn't this be better placed in the attributes of God forum?

Knight
February 21st, 2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12898) :first:

Knight
February 21st, 2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

wouldn't this be better placed in the attributes of God forum? Yes.... I will move it.

Leo Volont
February 21st, 2004, 07:52 PM
Look at the format Peter is using.

He is not presenting Revelation from God like some Great Prophet. He is making quasi-rationalist arguments, just like you or me or anybody else. So why are you putting so much weight on it? Anybody who argues is tacitly admitting the possibility of error. When Peter is thrashing about trying to explain why Jesus was wrong about the Second Coming, he is only guessing and hoping for the best. He doesn't tell us that any Angel came to him and told him this or that. He reaches into his scripture bag and starts quoting this and that, just like you would do. But you don't think you are right do you? So how can you think Peter was right?

By the way, when was 2nd Peter written? Peter was martyred before the Sack of Jerusalem, wasn't he? Peter did not wait long enough before complaining. The World did end. The Second Coming did occur. The Sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. tied up all the loose ends of the Age of the Patriarches. John was the only Apostolic survivor, I believe, which, again, fits into what Christ Himself had prophecized. We would have known more about the Second Coming, except that it was an extremely bloody affair and had no surviving witnesses.

The misunderstandings we have today source out of the mistaken notion that we are still living in the Dispensation of the Patriarchs of which the coming of Christ was the culmination. That is all over. We are now living it what has obviously been the Dispensation of Mary. for the last several thousand years all Grace from God has been through Mary. There is certainly no other evidence to the contrary, while we have reports of thousands of Intercessions of Our Lady. This had been common knowledge, up until the 15th Century, but after the Protestant/Satanic Victory over the Church of the Marian Dispensation, all spiritual information has been largely swept away, and a populous educated in secular atheist schools are surprised to find Mary mentioned at all.

Anyway, in less then 10 years I suspect that the Age of Mary will come to its End and we will see a new Age of the Holy Spirit. There have been numerous prophecies that point in this direction. Pieces of the puzzle all form the same picture. I myself even gathered a piece. The other night I was swirled up to Heaven by a Spiritual Vortex and when I again set foot on earth I had a phrase planted on my tongue. "Hail Mary full of Grace, World Lifter". I had become aware that I was in a dream and started reciting the "Hail Mary" -- but after I passed through heaven the words had changed. The World is about to be 'lifted' up. Notice, I make no silly Petereque arguments which might or might not be wrong. I present the Words from Heaven.

1Way
February 21st, 2004, 08:43 PM
Excellent Knight and Clete!

You "can" find support for slavery and hating those we should love in the bible if we are determined to find it there. An objective review of God's word denies the closed view as being too extreme. All that needs be done to correct the immutability of God is to make it conform to (all of) scripture, and not according to a few isolated out of context misinterpretations.

God says things sometimes in very indirect perhaps confounding ways. For example.

Pr 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.
Pr 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes. :o
Why does God use indirect and somewhat shaded thought provoking messages? Perhaps it’s because of the beauty of a caring meaningful righteous relationship where if you care about the truth of the matter, you will naturally seek out to understand it beyond the superficial. Stay on the same page as the writer, if you are wise, you will take in all of God’s word very carefully prior to pretending to know some particular issue. Consider
Pr 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings [is] to search out a matter. Then it is easier to understand that God really does want the world to search for Him and seek Him out, and to not judge by outward appearance.
Ac 17:27 "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." So when God says that He does not change, and then demonstrates and teaches very consistently that he does in deed change and does not know the entire future as one unchangeable outcome, then we have to dig a little deeper to get the right understanding of what God means whenever He teaches that there is no shadow of turning in Him. etc.


Nu 23:19 "God [is] not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (God is truthful and faithful, He does not error in His judgments, He just does not know the uncertain outcomes of every yet future event, so sometimes God willingly repents from doing what He thought or said He would do.) Mal 3:6 "For I [am] the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. (God is just and swift and faithful against
“sorcerers, Against adulterers, Against perjurers, Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans, And against those who turn away an alien—Because they do not fear Me," Says the LORD of hosts.”
We can count on God’s character and ways.) Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, today, and forever. (The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid because of His awesome presence in my life, remain steadfast in sound doctrine that God richly provides, He is faithful and true, we can count on Jesus forever.) Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (God is good and never evil, it is a condemnable slander to say that “good may come from evil”, it can not. God does not even tempt us with evil, man is the unstable variable element, not God. God is righteous and faithful and true.) I see no reason to overstep the contextual development of these teachings that God designed them to be understood within. Biblical, not classical, divine immutability is right when taken in conformity with all of God’s word.

Excellent post Clete!

1Way
February 21st, 2004, 10:35 PM
Sometimes it is so much fun digging into God’s word. Here are some more examples of God’s bent towards being sort of tricky and not overly obvious.


Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind."

Joh 12:47 "And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. See, 2 very contradicting ideas, but they are to be understood in different yet similar ways.

Mt 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
2 seeming contradictions Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 1 reasonable solution Sorry for the tangent path. Enjoy God’s word!

Clete
February 21st, 2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Knight

POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12898) :first:

Wow! Thanks Knight.
You know, it's funny how it's always the ones that I just throw together off the top of my head that seem to catch your attention. I never see it coming!

And thank you also 1Way!
What a great post! I sort of feel like I've been to church and its not even Sunday yet! ;)


Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
February 21st, 2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Wow! Thanks Knight.
You know, it's funny how it's always the ones that I just throw together off the top of my head that seem to catch your attention. I never see it coming!

And thank you also 1Way!
What a great post! I sort of feel like I've been to church and its not even Sunday yet! ;)


Resting in Him,
Clete The best posts tend to say so much with as few words as possible.

Those are the type of posts I like the most. :up:

smaller
February 21st, 2004, 11:26 PM
Some God. He saves 5% of the population???

Calvinists and Arminians are the same in this respect. 95% still end up being tortured forever by the God who commands us to love our enemies while He gets to burn His.

For some reason or another God just can't seem to get the job done.

In Calvinism He WILL not.

In Arminianism He CAN not.

You would all do well to see the "unbeliever" for what it is. The BLINDNESS that is CAUSED BY the "god" of this world. That makes SIN indwelling men and EVIL present within men the "unbeliever."

Of course to believe this you would have to conceed that NO SINS are counted against MANkind, but against only THE CAUSE (just like God says,) and that GOD SAVES ALL PEOPLE just LIKE HE SAYS He does.

This is TOO GREAT of a God for most to deal with. They too are blinded by WHAT IS IN THEM. This GOD is beyond the reach of those who ETERNALLY CONDEMN OTHERS for what is also in themselves. It is also evidence of the control of "the unbeliever" over YOU. But then slaves really don't have a "choice." They do what their master does.

go figure...

enjoy!

smaller

*Acts9_12Out*
February 22nd, 2004, 01:29 AM
Rolf,

Your points are invalid because you fail to rightly understand what Peter is actually saying. You said,


The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: “see, He is’not willing’ that any individual of mankind perish. He wants ‘all’ (every--each and every) to “come to repentance.”

This verse in no way implies that God "wants all to come to repentance." There are other verses that say that, but 2 Peter 3:9 does not. As much as you would love the OVer's here to defend that position, 2 Peter 3:9 is not saying that. More on that in a moment... You continue,


Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to “usward”: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world...

Where does God's Word say anything about Him electing individuals "before the foundation of the world?" It doesn't... :kookoo:

So, what exactly is 2 Peter 3:9 saying? Peter's second epistle was written somewhere around forty years after the day of Pentecost. Shortly before Pentecost, the believers were "expecting Christ's immediate return" (Acts 1:6). Peter stands up on the day of Pentecost and preaches a wonderful sermon describing "the last days" and Israel's enduring the tribulation. When Peter quotes Joel's "Day of the Lord" prophecy, Peter says,

"This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel..."

Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter changes Joel's original prophecy from,

Joel 2:28 “And it shall come to pass afterward..."

to

Acts 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days..."

Why is this significant? Peter believed that the tribulation was going to begin, and after seven years, Christ would return and set up the Kingdom. Now, approximately forty years after Pentecost, Peter is still waiting for Tribulation and establishment of the Kingdom. That's why Peter writes,


2 Peter 3
3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

It seems that Peter is being ridiculed because he is still waiting for Christ's return. Peter, however, remains faithful...


2 Peter 3
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter defends God, and reassures his brethern that God will indeed return, just as promised. Then we get to our verse, 2 Peter 3:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise..." Christ will return because God has promised it. Now, let's discuss your interpretation of the last half of verse 9...


2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not counseling any to perish but counseling all to have room for repentance.

Most english translations say "not willing" any to perish. The word used here is much stronger. God is "not counseling" any to perish. Peter uses the word boulomenoV, which is a strong word for Counsel. So, God is strongly not counseling any to perish. This flies in the face of calvinism. John Calvin himself said God predestines men to hell. :kookoo: Peter is saying that God is not counseling any to perish. So then, what is God "counseling?" God is counseling every person on the face of the earth "to have room for" repentance. For some reason, the calvinistic english translators took the liberty of translating a word that means "to have room for" as "come." Why do they do this? I have no idea. :confused: Let me show you how this word is used and that it should be translated "have room for."

Here's the last half of 2 Peter 3:9 in the original...


2 Peter 3:9b
9b mh boulemenoV tinaV apolesqai, alla pantaV eiV metanoian cwrhsai

Notice the word cwrhsai in red. This word means "to have room for." This word is also used in John 2:6.


John 2:6
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, having room for cwrousai twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

The same root word, cwrew is used in 2 Peter 3:9. Just as the stone waterpots "have room for" twenty or thirty gallons apiece, God counsels all to "have room for" repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 single-handedly destroys the calvinistic doctrine of election. God does not elect individuals to heaven or hell. God has given man the gift of contrary choice. God has given every single person enough room in his or her heart to believe in Him. If man accepts God, God saves man. If man rejects God, God condems man to hell. God gives us the choice, and has made the provision for every single person to believe. That's why when God says He desires all men to be saved,


1 Timothy 2
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

...He means it! God does desire every person to be saved. God "made room" in each of us to come to repentance. Sadly, however, the majority will not. This is not because God chooses them to hell, but rather, because they choose themselves to hell. Since we all have enough room to believe, the following verse is true also...


1 Timothy 4
10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Again, God made the provision of salvation available to all men. He preached His gospel "in every creature under heaven."


Colossians 1:23b
23b the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

God wrote His law on everyone's heart, and gave them a conscience...


Romans 2
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Because of free will, many humans reject God. God has done everything He could do for us. He preached the gospel in us, wrote His law on our hearts, sent His Son to die for us, and counseled every person to have room for repentance. God does not choose man to hell as John Calvin believes...

--Jeremy

1Way
February 22nd, 2004, 02:05 AM
smaller said
"Of course to believe this you would have to conceed that NO SINS are counted against MANkind, but against only THE CAUSE (just like God says,) and that GOD SAVES ALL PEOPLE just LIKE HE SAYS He does." No wonder smaller is such an offense, he is an offense to the Christian faith, he has stumbled upon the rock of offense and he is not a happy camper. enjoy.

smaller is condemning and judgmental against others, almost non stop, and then he says
This is TOO GREAT of a God for most to deal with. They too are blinded by WHAT IS IN THEM. This GOD is beyond the reach of those who ETERNALLY CONDEMN OTHERS for what is also in themselves. It is also evidence of the control of "the unbeliever" over YOU. But then slaves really don't have a "choice." They do what their master does.

go figure... By his own condemning words, he is a slave to the unrighteous unbelievers because of the “god” of this world who causes unbelief.

smaller get’s an A+++++++++++ for consistency in being a hypocrite! :thumb: You never stop the sin of hypocrisy bit, you know, say one thing, do another, do the opposite of what you say we should do. You say, you can’t define God, and then you constantly and usually immediately go about defining God.

Go figure,

enjoy! No one respects a hypocrite.

1Way
February 22nd, 2004, 03:07 AM
Jeremy – This is from my free OnLineBible study program, I’m wanting to see if the Greek font shows up like your did on my computer! Previously I had no luck doing this a long time ago, so here goes something.

2Pe 3:9
ou bradunei o kuriov thv epaggeliav wv tinev braduthta hgountai alla makroyumei eiv hmav mh boulomenov tinav apolesyai alla pantav eiv metanoian cwrhsai


2Pe 3:9 ALT
The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some regard slowness, _but_ He is waiting patiently towards us, not wanting any to be lost _but_ [for] all to make room for repentance.
(ALT = Analytical Literal translation)

... God wishes "all" (pantav) to come (cwrhsai first aorist active infinitive of chrew, old verb, to make room).
(A T Robinson NT Word Pictures)
According to my OnLineBible study program, Joh 21:25 uses the same word as 2Pet 3.9 and the contextual use is certainly more about “having room for” than “not should come to”. Imagine the KJV’s translation rending of this same word in 2Pt 3.9 “should come to” instead of it’s own use in John 21:25(!) “could (not*) contain” (* the negation is supplied elsewhere), would read something like

“... I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books ... (!!!)

Now that would be a terrible translation, and was “probably” a factor for why they did not also weaken/alter the sense here too, I see that according to my Greek underlying text, these are the only two occasions for the same word and they happen to have the same voice tense mood.

Aorist = without specific regard to past, present, future)
Active = the subject as the doer or performer of the action.
Infinitive = the verb with "to" prefixed, as "to believe."
i.e. ("It is better to live than to die"),
("This was done to fulfil what the prophet said").

So in Jn 21.25 = the world {could not} contain/{could not} have room for) all the books ...

And
2Pt 3.9 = God counsels ... that all make room unto repentance.

God counsels ... (that) “all” “to make room” “for” “repentance”
God counsels ... (that) “all” “have room for” “unto” “repentance”

God counsels ... (that) “all” “have room for” “repentance”
God counsels ... (.....) “all” “(to) make room for” “repentance”

I wonder what a real scholar would say about that rendering. :o

Anyway, when we carefully consider the rest of the bible’s use of a word, so often it can become so clear as to the better understanding of that word’s meaning. Many times it outperforms lexical definitions.

Joh 21:25
estin de kai alla polla osa epoihsen o ihsouv atina ean grafhtai kay en oude auton oimai ton kosmon cwrhsai ta grafomena biblia amhn

Joh 21:25 EMTV
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would have room for the books which would be written. Amen.

EMTV = English Majority Text Version Paul W. Esposito
ALT same rendering
WEB same rendering
GW = God's Word = same rendering
YLT “to have place for” It’s seems that the use of “have room for” is well supported.

So, Jeremy, how do you get that Greek font to work? Ok, I used the symbol font, but I don’t know if it works right or not since my bible study program does not use symbol for my Greek font. There is a slight difference between the OLB and the Symbol fonts, do you just fix the odd characters manually if necessary?

smaller
February 22nd, 2004, 08:28 AM
Peace 1way


No wonder smaller is such an offense, he is an offense to the Christian faith, he has stumbled upon the rock of offense and he is not a happy camper. enjoy.

And this is relevant how? Oh, that's right. Your words are meant to show the OWNERSHIP of 1way by THE ACCUSER of others. A thing that he hates to have REVEALED, yet he drools it continually, day and night.


smaller is condemning and judgmental against others, almost non stop,

Ahem, I believe ALL PEOPLE are SAVED, so your FALSE accusations again RING as "hollow" as your positions.


By his own condemning words, he is a slave to the unrighteous unbelievers because of the “god” of this world who causes unbelief.

Some are given in this life to BELIEVE in The Son of God. I am such, not of my will, but of Him who CALLED me.

I already know you SAVED YOURSELF. That is why YOU CONDEMN OTHERS to eternal torture.

I also do not deny THAT SIN DWELLS IN ME and and EVIL IS PRESENT with me.

On this basis alone ALL OF YOU should be ASHAMED to condemn any other person to ETERNAL TORMENT, yet you are LOCKED INTO eternal judgment by the "master" of your own flesh, and as such you ALL represent the GREATEST FORM OF HATRED that satan could have trumphed up.

This from the very mouths that are supposed to PRESERVE the earth.


smaller get’s an A+++++++++++ for consistency in being a hypocrite! You never stop the sin of hypocrisy bit, you know, say one thing, do another, do the opposite of what you say we should do.

I love it when the accuser grips a mans heart so fiercely that they FOAM AT THE MOUTH without CAUSE.


You say, you can’t define God, and then you constantly and usually immediately go about defining God.

No, that would be YOU who does such a foolish thing. I conceed that there is NO WAY to define or capture God and that ALL THINGS serve Him. You however have only 1way to define god and this is the little helpless god you have hacked out of your imaginations and demand others bow to. I call this IDOLATRY.

enjoy!

smaller

Rolf Ernst
February 22nd, 2004, 01:19 PM
Clete--In your post # 2 above (the 2nd post on this thread)--why do you have no Scripture text to respond with? Matters of theology concern Scripture. You didn't cite even one in response to my post on 2Pet. 3:9. This thread is about that text in particular. Don't evade that text. Justify your Arminian view of it.

Rolf Ernst
February 22nd, 2004, 01:42 PM
god is truth--in the 3rd post on this thread you say the proper place for it is on the attributes of God forum. The issue has to do with the difference between between the two doctrinal views that divide protestantism. That pertains to general theology. I would never quarrel with you over where you choose to begin a thread. Your thread, your choice.

Rolf Ernst
February 22nd, 2004, 01:49 PM
1Way---Why not deal with the points made on 2Pet 3:9?? You are Arminian, let me see you marshal some verses which show a better interpretation of the verse. It appears that you don't want to do anything other than bury that issue under an avalanche of your usual evasions

God_Is_Truth
February 22nd, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

god is truth--in the 3rd post on this thread you say the proper place for it is on the attributes of God forum. The issue has to do with the difference between between the two doctrinal views that divide protestantism. That pertains to general theology. I would never quarrel with you over where you choose to begin a thread. Your thread, your choice.

i did not say it should be moved, only that it might be more appropriate in the attributes of God forum. i suggested it because the attributes of God forum deals more with predestination, calvinism, open theism and the like and this thread seems to be all about that.

in the end, it was Knights decision to move the thread so if you have a good reason why you feel it should be back in the general theology forum, take it up with him.

Rolf Ernst
February 22nd, 2004, 02:03 PM
Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.

Rolf Ernst
February 22nd, 2004, 02:07 PM
God is Truth--Okay, as they say--whatever, wherever

Clete
February 22nd, 2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete--In your post # 2 above (the 2nd post on this thread)--why do you have no Scripture text to respond with? Matters of theology concern Scripture. You didn't cite even one in response to my post on 2Pet. 3:9. This thread is about that text in particular. Don't evade that text. Justify your Arminian view of it.

:confused: Did you read my post? :confused:

Here I'll quote what I said concerning the passage in question...


Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Perhaps this was a bit too cryptic for you so I'll spell it out in simpler language...

2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what is seems to mean by a simple reading of the text. Any home schooled third grader could understand it. If you don't believe me, ask one. He'll definitely come closer to getting it than you have.

Your having turned this passage completely upside down does nothing but damage to your position that "The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view." If this were so, then such theological hoop jumping would not be necessary. The fact that Calvinism has problems with such simple and clear passages of scripture as 2 Peter 3:9 is proof positive that Calvinism is seriously flawed.

You say that you want me to provide scripture in my argument! Fine, but just remember, you asked for it!

Luke 7:30 “30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”

Jeremiah 19:5 “5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I (God) commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:”

Genesis 6:6 - And the Lord was sorry (Lit. repented) that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Exodus 32:14 - So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Deut. 32:36 - Indeed, the LORD will judge his people,
and he will change his mind about his servants,
when he sees their strength is gone
and no one is left, slave or free

I Samuel 15:35 - And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 - When the Lord's angel was about to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord changed his mind about punishing the people and said to the angel who was killing them, "Stop! That's enough!" The angel was by the threshing place of Araunah, a Jebusite

Jer. 15:6 - You have forsaken me and turned your back on me," says the LORD. "Therefore, I will raise my clenched fists to destroy you. I am tired of always giving you another chance.

Jer. 18:8, 10 - and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I (God) will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I (God) will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

Jer 26:3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I intend to do to them because of their evil doings.

Jer 42:10 If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I (God) repent of the evil which I did to you.

Joe 2:13 and rend your hearts and not your garments." Return to the LORD, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil.

Amo 7:3 The LORD repented concerning this; "It shall not be," said the LORD

Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
February 22nd, 2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by smaller
Ahem, I believe ALL PEOPLE are SAVED...

Ahem, you are an idiot!

Luke 16:22 - 31 "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Numbers 16:30 "But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that [appertain] unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. 31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that [appertained] unto Korah, and all [their] goods. 33 They, and all that [appertained] to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that [were] round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up [also].

That’s just two of quite a large number of passages in the Bible that very clearly indicate that people are set to hell.

And one other thing; God could have killed both Adam and Eve right on the spot for having eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In His mercy, He did not. You attribute to God only 5% of the population, I tend to be a bit more optimistic than that but the point is that even 1 is better than none and I firmly believe that God would have made provision for the salvation of even 1 single person, never mind 5% of the population of the planet which is already a number north of 300 million people!

Resting in Him,
Clete

1Way
February 22nd, 2004, 09:10 PM
Ralf – Post 1 of 2

You said
1Way---Why not deal with the points made on 2Pet 3:9?? You are Arminian, let me see you marshal some verses which show a better interpretation of the verse. It appears that you don't want to do anything other than bury that issue under an avalanche of your usual evasions. You must mean my first post only. I admit that I was focusing on Clete’s post and not yours. I’m posting more about your stuff as we go along.

In my next post, I affirmed the literal meaning of 2Pet 3:9 primarily by showing the other very clear use of the word S’s#5562 “(to) make/have room”, which soundly denies the closed view because

it’s God’s will that none perish (= everlasting damnation),

and that “all” “make room for repentance”, (= have everlasting life)

:thumb:

no one is left out of God’s will for salvation in this double stated affirmation thus greatly emphasized idea against limited atonement because it holds that God purposes that only the few get saved.

Here is a verse that supports my reasoning that it should not be “come to” “make room for” The English words could contain is the same word as “come to” in 2Pet 3.9.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

Using the translation idea in 2Pet 3.9 from the KJV and it’s many followers, would render the following idea in John 21.25

“... I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books ... (!!!)
“... I suppose that not even the world itself should come to the books ... (!!!)

So Jeremy and myself are right that 2Pet 3.9 teaches that it’s God’s will that everyone have room for repentance.

We are not Arminian, such gross falsification helps no one at all, and you’ve been told this and shown why it is wrong, so for your refusal to stand corrected in the face of the truth of the matter, you show yourself to be unnecessarily offensive and willing to purposefully falsify others.

“My usual evasions”.
Keep this up and you will be purposefully ignored for the sake of avoiding so much falsification. The fact is that I am an extremely thorough and non-evasive poster. I admit to overlooking some posts, I do not respond to all posts, occasionally some posts are not worth the time and effort, etc.

1Way
February 22nd, 2004, 09:23 PM
Ralf – Post 2 of 2

Ok, as to your first post, you said
Chapters two and three show Peter’s concern about false teachings. ..._..._... (1) In the third chapter he deals with one error in particular. Unbelievers will scoff at what they consider the overdue promise of His return. Peter’s response to the scoffing is that God is not slack concerning it. (2) He then shows the reason He has not yet returned. Rather than being slack He, in longsuffering, is giving a space for repentance because He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

The typical Arminian/open theist reaction to this: “see, He is’not willing’ that any individual of mankind perish. He wants ‘all’ (every--each and every) to “come to repentance.”

My, my. We do have a problem here. (3) If He is delaying that coming in judgment because He doesn’t want “any” in the Arminian sense (according to their understanding) to perish then His measure of longsuffering is self-defeating because the fact is that in every age, the broad road which leads to destruction has many more on it than the narrow road which leads to life. The longer He withholds His coming, the greater the number who DO perish. A great number each day are perishing--some estimate at least 95% of those who die.

(1) It is true that Peter deals with one particular problem but not in a vacuum. Here is the contextual development.


2Pe 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you (a double epistle wide reason for writing) this second epistle (in [both of] which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." The larger more comprehensive point is not about dealing with scoffers, the overarching point is to remain in focus on God’s word and His teachings. Evidently they were getting off focus and spending too much time dealing with other things.

(2) Not true and this false concept destroys the central aspect of your thesis. The fact is that there is no reason given for why God has not returned. The argumentation flows as follows.

1-2 pay attention to God’s counsel
3-4 false counsel is unrighteousness, Christ’s second coming is scoffed at
5-7 since the flood, the heavens and earth have been preserved for the day of judgment
8 God is not forgetful, He has a supernatural intellect
9 The Lord terry’s and is longsuffering "as demonstrated" by His will that all get saved, not He terry’s "because" He desires that more become saved
10 but the day of the Lord will come ... do not be deceived

More to the point, in v.9, it’s

9a – God is not unfaithful, he is longsuffering – 9b – He desires that all become saved

So 9b is not as you said, the reason He has not yet returned, it is an example of His “longsuffering”

(3) We don’t agree that God is delaying “because” He desires that “all become saved”. That is not only inaccurate, it is simply not provided by scripture. What was provided by scripture was “an example” of God’s longsuffering toward us, which is true and makes no support for your errant views and straw man thesis.

5% may be more conservative that many estimates. I’d say more like 10-20% or so, yet 5% is much closer than many liberals and ungodly would like to think.

smaller
February 22nd, 2004, 11:17 PM
Peace clete P


Ahem, you are an idiot!

But clete, you JUST FINISHED posting that ALL SINS are forgiven of MANkind and that JESUS is The Saviour of The World.

Now you fall immediately into denial.


Luke 16:22 - 31 "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

A simple understanding for you clete. The RICH MAN had NO NAME. There is a reason for this. You see the RICH MAN possessed the flesh body of Lazarus. This is known as SIN indwelling and EVIL present with ALL people (Romans 7:17,20,21 and others)

In all the WORD there is not a SINGLE INSTANCE of a NAMED PERSON going to BE BURNED IN FIRE FOREVER.

When Lazarus died he was SEPARATED from the "rich man" or SIN that possessed him. (Romans 6:7)

You see that is why JESUS is THE WORLDS Saviour, get it??? I doubt it.


Numbers 16:30 "But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that [appertain] unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD. 31 And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them: 32 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that [appertained] unto Korah, and all [their] goods. 33 They, and all that [appertained] to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation. 34 And all Israel that [were] round about them fled at the cry of them: for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up [also].

God often separates His Children from what they are bound with. Death is rather enjoyable to God in this sense.


That’s just two of quite a large number of passages in the Bible that very clearly indicate that people are set to hell.

Hey clete, it's more like that little voice in your head 'cause God's Word sure does not present that. Men MISTAKE the punishment meant for the devil and his messengers for MANkind. This does not hold scriptural water.


And one other thing; God could have killed both Adam and Eve right on the spot for having eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Adam was God's son. I think God has NOTHING but the BEST intentions for His Own Children.

The reality is you see DEATH TO OTHERS in your own heart because that is what is IN YOU. The Word reveals these things.


In His mercy, He did not. You attribute to God only 5% of the population, I tend to be a bit more optimistic than that but the point is that even 1 is better than none and I firmly believe that God would have made provision for the salvation of even 1 single person, never mind 5% of the population of the planet which is already a number north of 300 million people!

I'm sorry that you serve such a pathetic looser clete. Good thing YOU made the LUCKY CHOICE and SELF atoned for yourself.


Resting in Him,

You're no different than MOST of Jesus' supposed followers. You damn others to BURN FOREVER for what is ALSO IN YOU.

go figure....

I see you as another casualty of war. My postings here are like a visit to the hospital. Sick people you guys are.

enjoy!

smaller

Clete
February 23rd, 2004, 07:21 AM
I see you as another casualty of war. My postings here are like a visit to the hospital. Sick people you guys are.

If you are right, they are also a waste of time. What is the point in convinving people that they are wrong if they are going to be saved anyway, regardless of what they believe or do? Your arguments are self defeating and rediculous!

Why do you even call yourself a Christian in the first place?
Do you even believe that Jesus is God?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
February 23rd, 2004, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Ahem, you are an idiot!

Here we go with the name-calling again. Can you not make a point without degrading anyone else? Just a little more civilized, please?

Swordsman
February 23rd, 2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Perhaps this was a bit too cryptic for you so I'll spell it out in simpler language...

2 Peter 3:9 means precisely what is seems to mean by a simple reading of the text. Any home schooled third grader could understand it.

Then how come you don't understand it?



Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Your having turned this passage completely upside down does nothing but damage to your position that "The only view of Scripture which is in full accord with this text is the Reformed (Calvinistic) view." If this were so, then such theological hoop jumping would not be necessary. The fact that Calvinism has problems with such simple and clear passages of scripture as 2 Peter 3:9 is proof positive that Calvinism is seriously flawed.

And I thought Howard Dean was a horrible debator.....


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer You say that you want me to provide scripture in my argument! Fine, but just remember, you asked for it!

Oh Father Clete, please give us your holy word. Amen.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Luke 7:30 “30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”


What is your point here?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Jeremiah 19:5 “5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I (God) commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:”

I think we have gone over this verse before. Mind translated in the Greek means Heart. Their sin did not enter the intention of God's heart. His mind never changes.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Genesis 6:6 - And the Lord was sorry (Lit. repented) that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

God was grieved because man had fallen into sin. This verse isn't proof text to back up open theism. I thought most open theists believed God knew man would and will sin. I don't see the argument with this passage.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Exodus 32:14 - So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

If you read the verses all around this passage you will see it is Moses interceding for the Israelites for God not to destroy them. Please tell me you believe God knew the hearts of his people and the leader Moses (whom God raised up) and where this story was going. Moses was on Mt Sinai for a very long time, giving the people ample time to build an idol. God knew this was occuring before Moses did. You have to keep in the back of your mind the power of omniscience of God always. Never forget that.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer Deut. 32:36 - Indeed, the LORD will judge his people,
and he will change his mind about his servants,
when he sees their strength is gone
and no one is left, slave or free

I Samuel 15:35 - And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 - When the Lord's angel was about to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord changed his mind about punishing the people and said to the angel who was killing them, "Stop! That's enough!" The angel was by the threshing place of Araunah, a Jebusite

Jer. 15:6 - You have forsaken me and turned your back on me," says the LORD. "Therefore, I will raise my clenched fists to destroy you. I am tired of always giving you another chance.

Jer. 18:8, 10 - and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I (God) will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I (God) will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

Jer 26:3 It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I intend to do to them because of their evil doings.

Jer 42:10 If you will remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I (God) repent of the evil which I did to you.

Joe 2:13 and rend your hearts and not your garments." Return to the LORD, your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repents of evil.

Amo 7:3 The LORD repented concerning this; "It shall not be," said the LORD

Jon 3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

Resting in Him,
Clete

The rest of these verses, I think I have already answered before. Clete, you cannot read the Bible like you read Oliver Twist or Cinderella. If God can possibly change His mind over the people He created, we are all in trouble. Throw eternal security right out the window. In other words, you just better not ever sin anymore.

That's ridiculous! Its called works-based salvation, and its what the Catholics practice.

smaller
February 23rd, 2004, 08:49 AM
Peace clete


If you are right, they are also a waste of time.
What is the point in convinving people that they are wrong if they are going to be saved anyway, regardless of what they believe or do?

Most "believers" when they actually HEAR the Good News, at first CANNOT ACCEPT it. It is TOO MUCH for them to bear.

This has NOTHING to do with me being right clete. God's Word is ALREADY THERE on the matter and THAT settles it.

God had a REASON to bound ALL people with "disobedience." This was a part of His Plan FROM THE BEGINNING. You can read about the "end result" of a portion of that in ROMANS 11:32, right after Paul gets done describing that ALL OF ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED, even the enemies of THE GOSPEL in vs. 26-30.


Your arguments are self defeating and rediculous!

Well let's see:

"Jesus is the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD."

clete: NO HE IS NOT!

"God was in Christ RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF"

clete: NO HE IS NOT!

Now WHO is contradictory here clete. BTW before you start posting DAMNATION texts, I believe ALL of them. Just not for PEOPLE.


Why do you even call yourself a Christian in the first place?
Do you even believe that Jesus is God?

Yes I do. Not the pathetic little worthless god you have made Him though eh? The one you serve is the one you carved out in your head. Your little god only saves you if you save yourself. Just like the rest of you idol worshippers.

enjoy!

smaller

Clete
February 23rd, 2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by smaller
Your little god only saves you if you save yourself. Just like the rest of you idol worshippers.

You mean SAVED idol worshippers . Right?

godrulz
February 23rd, 2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.

Ephesians (book about Christ and the CHURCH). These verses talk about a general corporate election. It is not explicit that it refers to specific individuals by name from all eternity. God purposed to have a people. This collective group is made up of all who would eventually repent and believe.

Prov. 8 is a personification of wisdom (context) and has nothing to do with individual salvation.

Jer. 31 God's love for ISRAEL (context) is a high, deep, wide love that is everlasting. It is a Hebraism for God's endless love for the nation of Israel (not a proof text for individual election).

I Pet. 1:2 is a corporate election vs individual. Based on other verses, it is not a causative/irresistable election, but an intention to have a people for His name (whosoever believes in Him will be added to the corporate elect...it is not necessary to see this as an individual election).

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 12:22 PM
FOR THOSE WHO THINK SOME TEXTS MILITATE AGAINST GOD'S IMMUTABILITY-----



Those instances in which it is said God repents--you must either believe that the Bible contradicts itself concerning God's immutability, or else dare believe (HORRORS!) that the fault is in a limit on your human understanding. But that is not at all likely to those who have a reservoir of hatred toward God and are spitefully unwilling to accept THAT possibility. They prefer to charge Him with error.
There are many instances in which God speaks on the level of man's thought processes--refers to Himself as if He were a man. You find anthropomorphisms throughout the Bible. God is a Spirit, but when speaking to man about His power, He speaks of Himself to men as if He were also a man, such as when speaking of the might of His power, He speaks of the power of His right hand. Hint: most men's greatest strength is in their right hand--get it??
When He speaks of a change in action toward certain of His creatures, it in no way shows an alteration in what He has eternally purposed, but if men were to do the new thing He is going to do concerning certain of His creatures, such actions in men would be the result of their changing their mind about an issue. The anthromophorism use by God in Scripture at such times is not the result of any change in God, but the result of the change of position the creature(s) now occupy before Him, such as when the wickedness of the antediluvians reached that point which was the end of God's longsuffering towards them, or as when the Ninevites properly responded to Jonah's preaching. In dealing with humans God speaks on their level for the sake of their comprhension. God did not alter His being in the least. The ninevites altered their conduct before Him and according to His many Biblical promises of mercy upon repentance, showed them mercy.

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 12:24 PM
The above post is for you, Clete, and for 1Way. You people are not dealing with 2 Pet. 3:9 according to what it says.

billwald
February 23rd, 2004, 12:28 PM
“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. 3:9

God doesn't get what he wills? Sounds like a good verse for universalism.

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 12:34 PM
1Way--you say that you are not an Arminian. Your use of scripture says you are. Maybe you don't know what an Arminian is. Can you define Arminian doctrine? If you can't, your complaint that you are not an Arminian is meaningless.
Did you read my post about God's immutability and your attempts to evade it? It is typical of Arminians that they don't mind holding views of Scripture which leave scripture texts in a contradictory tension with one another. You are very happy to do so in regard to God's immutability. Classic Arminianism!

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 12:43 PM
Billwald--you are missing the point altogether. 2 Pet. 3:9 proves that God gets PRECISELY what He wills--and it is not universalism. It is the salvation of ALL; All those, that is, whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world.
It is sad that so many are not able to distinguish between "all"
of a certain group or category and the universal "all." Their mind is blind to the use of all except as used to denote all universally. How deprived!

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 12:55 PM
Godrulz-----------If it is not an individual election, as you say, why is it that each of their names were written down in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world? Is THAT NOT INDIVIDUAL? Is YOUR name individual, or is your name corporate?

See Rev. 13:8

godrulz
February 23rd, 2004, 12:56 PM
The other issue is the concept of 'immutability'. Is it the Calvinistic, pagan Greek philosophy influenced idea that God is absolutely unchanging in every possible sense; or is it the biblical revelation that God is unchanging in His eternal attributes and character, but is still changing in the sense of experiences, relationships, responses, etc. i.e. He is a dynamic, personal being with will (actions), intellect (thoughts), and emotions (feelings). These personal concepts require succession, sequence, duration or else we are left with a theological and philosophical absurdity ('eternal now' concept is not defensible...you cannot listen to a symphony in one second or it will be cacaphony...you cannot create the universe and incarnate and die on the cross and return for the second coming in one instant). An impersonal, impassible (not feeling), 'immutable' god is not the one revealed in the Word and Jesus (God in the flesh).

We uphold immutability, properly understood, and recognize anthopomorphisms (appropriately, but not at the expense of a literal revelation of God and His ways).

Swordsman
February 23rd, 2004, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

The other issue is the concept of 'immutability'. Is it the Calvinistic, pagan Greek philosophy influenced idea that God is absolutely unchanging in every possible sense; or is it the biblical revelation that God is unchanging in His eternal attributes and character, but is still changing in the sense of experiences, relationships, responses, etc. i.e. He is a dynamic, personal being with will (actions), intellect (thoughts), and emotions (feelings).

It sounds to me like the open view provides all these exceptions to the rule. All that means is, is that God is limited. Right? Is that what you are saying godrulz? And since when is it "pagan" to believe that God is absolutely unchanging in every possible sense? Or is that just your label on it?


Originally posted by godrulz These personal concepts require succession, sequence, duration or else we are left with a theological and philosophical absurdity ('eternal now' concept is not defensible...you cannot listen to a symphony in one second or it will be cacaphony...you cannot create the universe and incarnate and die on the cross and return for the second coming in one instant). An impersonal, impassible (not feeling), 'immutable' god is not the one revealed in the Word and Jesus (God in the flesh).

References please? These are just your opinions. And this is a theology forum. Need references (from Scripture, not some open theist author) to back up your opinions, if you can find any.


Originally posted by godrulz We uphold immutability, properly understood, and recognize anthopomorphisms (appropriately, but not at the expense of a literal revelation of God and His ways).

Then what does immutability mean to you then?

godrulz
February 23rd, 2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz-----------If it is not an individual election, as you say, why is it that God wrote each of their names were written down in the Lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world? Is THAT NOT INDIVIDUAL? Is YOUR name individual, or is your name corporate?

See Rev. 13:8

Greek grammar is the key...try another translation:

NIV (alternate legit. translation...scholars differ)

"All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast- all whose names have not been written (Greek tense...names added one by one through the years rather than in eternity past) in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."

- the Lamb was not literally slain at creation, but the potential, formulated plan of redemption now became a certain plan after the Fall...He died thousands of years later (actual fulfillment of the plan)...the Lamb was slain from creation (not literal), not that the names were written from before creation...they were added as individuals joined the corporate body of believers. God purposed/elected Israel/Church, but did not predestine individuals to be in heaven or hell. Faith or unbelief determines destiny or whether one is in or outside the group known as the people of God.

I Pet. 1:20..The Redeemer was chosen as a formulated plan (before creation of the world) that was implemented in history AFTER the Fall (Gen. 3...because you have done this, I will send the Redeemer).

cf. Rev. 17:8 names added one by one as they repent/believe starting at the beginning of human history...not that every future, non-existent person had their name written in a book trillions of years ago.

Rev. 3:5 implies the possibility of having one's name erased if they do not overcome. The book is flexible, vs fixed.

Rev. 13:8 is not a proof-text against corporate election (unless you have a pre-conceived theology). Robert Shank (Southern Baptist) makes a strong biblical case for corporate election (as do many others).

godrulz
February 23rd, 2004, 01:21 PM
Sword:

Trace the history of the doctrine of 'immutability' through Augustine as He was influenced by Plato and Philo. Calvin then adopted this idea.

As I posted, immutability refers to God's essential character (He is unchanging in holiness, love, faithfulness, etc.) and His unique attributes (He always will be triune, Creator, uncreated, omnipresent/omniscient/omnipotent, eternal, etc.).

A straightforward reading of Scripture (His Story) shows a God who changes in His dispositions, relationships, thoughts, actions, feelings, etc. He changes because He is personal, dynamic, alive....e.g. He had a specific relationship with Adam that changed after the Fall. The incarnation is a change in space-time history that affected the Godhead. He said creation is very good...then (sequence) He was grieved and changed his intentions...I will wipe it out...The creature, in the image of God, is not greater than the Creator in ability to experience personal attributes. This does not detract from His perfection or unchangeable qualities, but reflects every page of the Bible and His revelation of His nature and ways.

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 01:25 PM
God rulz--the scriptural concept of immutability is--"known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

"Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Isa.46:9,10

"...the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." James 1:17

" known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 01:40 PM
Godrulz--the corporate body of Christ is made up of individual believers chosen individually, "according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." Eph, 1:4
Individuals were given to Christ as His seed. To individuals He is their "everlasting Father." As Adam had certain ones in him, so also Christ had given to Him certain ones on behalf of whom He is their federal head. This is not the impersonal coporate whole in any regard, but the number of individuals chosen who, together make up the whole bodsy of Christ. Slice it any way you like, the body of Christ is made up of individuals with differing gifts according to His pleasure.

smaller
February 23rd, 2004, 01:46 PM
God's Word regarding the SALVATION OF ALL MANkind is like the plague for most believers.

They are afraid to even touch it.

"GOD IS THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, e-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10)

Not "potential saviour" not "maybe" saviour. Saviour.

clete- Impossible! GOD IS ONLY EFFECTIVE IF I SAY SO!

Rolf Ernst
February 23rd, 2004, 01:52 PM
Godrulz--concerning your saying that Proverbs 8 is the personificatiojn of wisdom and has nothing to do with salvation: Christ is the personification of wisdom, and Proverbs eight is about the covenant of redemption in which Christ was "brought forth" as the wisdom of God before the foundation of the world (which is largely expressed in Prov. 8, which is about the covenant of redemption struck before He created the highest part of the dust of the earth. Verses 30 and 31 refer to Christ and His rejoicing in the creation and in those given to Him before the creation of the world.
That involves salvation.

godrulz
February 23rd, 2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz--concerning your saying that Proverbs 8 is the personificatiojn of wisdom and has nothing to do with salvation: Christ is the personification of wisdom, and Proverbs eight is about the covenant of redemption in which Christ was "brought forth" as the wisdom of God before the foundation of the world (which is largely expressed in Prov. 8, which is about the covenant of redemption struck before He created the highest part of the dust of the earth. Verses 30 and 31 refer to Christ and His rejoicing in the creation and in those given to Him before the creation of the world.
That involves salvation.

Christ is the wisdom of God, but Proverbs is wisdom literature. In context it honestly is a personification of wisdom, not a didactic passage about Christ (read the whole chapter e.g. v. 12 "I, wisdom...")

godrulz
February 23rd, 2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

God rulz--the scriptural concept of immutability is--"known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

"Remember the former things of old, for I am God and there is no other. I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure." Isa.46:9,10

"...the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." James 1:17

" known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:18

James 1:17 refers to His solid character that is not fickle.

Is. 46:9,10 refers to things that God purposes to bring to pass by His ability. It does not mean that every mundane and moral choice is predestined. He predestines some, but not all things.

Acts 15:8 quotes Amos 9:11,12 and is a specific promise that God, by His ability, will restore Israel (and include the Gentiles in His plan). It is not a general proof text saying that God predestines individuals before they are born to chose to know or reject Him (Church). He knows that He will restore Israel based on His covenant with them.

Acts 15:18 "...says the Lord, who does these things that have been known for ages." He prophesies and does things by His power (not foreknowledge).

'known to the Lord for ages is his work..." is only in some MSS....don't build a doctrine on a verse with 2 legit. translations that does not have the context or conclusion you are trying to force on it (context is not about individual election but the restoration of Israel and Gentiles collectively, who are made up of individuals who believe).

*Acts9_12Out*
February 24th, 2004, 06:29 AM
1Way,

You said,


So, Jeremy, how do you get that Greek font to work? Ok, I used the symbol font, but I don’t know if it works right or not since my bible study program does not use symbol for my Greek font. There is a slight difference between the OLB and the Symbol fonts, do you just fix the odd characters manually if necessary?

I wish I had a program that automatically inserted greek fonts. I use the vb tags bold, size=3 and font=symbol and manually type in the letters. I have been studying Greek with Bob Hill for almost 8 years now, and know many of the "popular" passages by heart in the original. BTW, excellent points raised. Just think if I inserted "come" into my passage...


John 2:6b
...water pots coming twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

That's crazy! Keep up the good work brother!


Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 9_12 out---Where does God's word say anything about Him choosing certain ones in Christ before the foundation of the world?
You say it doesn't?

Try Ephesians 1:4; Prov. 8:22-31; Jer. 31:3 and 1 Pet. 1:2.

Rolf,

Out of all the points I raised, this is the only thing you respond to? The topic of this thread is 2 Peter 3:9. 1 Way and I have shown how a correct translation of the passage clears up your "apparent" problem for us. Again, God is not "counseling" all of the elect to come to repentance, but rather "counsels" all to have room for repentance. This passage single-handedly affirms zero-point calvinism to be true. God's counseling all to have room for repentance is the point everyone here is missing...

--Jeremy

Rolf Ernst
February 24th, 2004, 01:12 PM
Acts 19_12 out---My, My! How conveniently you translate to fit your aim. To bad that all those translators who are capable of translating the whole Bible didn't choose to use YOUR words. Maybe they were just interested in dealing with the Scripture honestly. I dar say that your whipped-up translation is not as reliable as theirs.

Rolf Ernst
February 24th, 2004, 01:40 PM
Godrulz--you dismiss the message concerning Christ in Proverbs.
He didn't. Don't be so eager to not hear the word of God in your zeal for a God dishonoring heresy known as Arminianism.

I wonder if it could reach an Arminian heart if I cited a verse in which Christ Himself refers to Himself as the wisdom of God? HMMM?
"Therefore the wisdom of God also said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute."" Lk. 11:49 Compare that with Mt. 23:34 in which Christ says,

"...I send you prophets, wise men and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city."

Your dismissing the impact of the Scripture's testimony concerning Christ in Proverbs eight reminds me of the time when Jesus "...expounded to them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning Himself." Lk.24:27 Today's disciples need to see Him in Scripture rather than overlook him as had those on the road to Emmaus.

Don't conveniently ignore the main point of this post--that Christ referred to Himself as the wisdom of God.

godrulz
February 24th, 2004, 03:41 PM
A few allegorical translators have wrongly seen Proverbs 8 as primarily a Christological passage (eisegesis). Most literal, grammatical, contextual, historical interpreters (normative) know Christ is the wisdom of God from a verse in the NT, but still recognize the primary interpretation of Prov. 8 as a personification of wisdom (consistent with the Book of Proverbs as wisdom literature, not as didactic, Christological, or Messianic prophecies). Walk through Prov. 8 verse by verse. It would be straining things to see this as a direct allusion to Christ. Why not say Prov. 9 is about Christ since it continues in the same style? There is much figurative language here (sends out her maids, mixes her wine...etc. what does that have to do with Christ?).

It is also interesting that JWs (cult) use Prov. 8:22 ff. as a proof-text for Arianism (Christ is a created angel). This is refuted by recognizing the context of wisdom literature is not about Christ, but wisdom personified.

This is similar to the allegorical interpreters (subjective) who see Song of Songs/Solomon (Hebraic poetic literature) as primarily about Christ and the Church (there is an application by way of principle). Most recognize the primary interpretation is simply a book of romantic, human love. You can preach an allegorical message from it, but that was not the primary intention as the Spirit inspired the book to be recorded (your breasts are like coconuts, your hair is like a flock of goats, etc.).

If you use a similar allegorical method (like some old commentators do) with the Book of Revelation, you will end up with a subjective mess reading every current event back into the book.

So, Christ is the wisdom of God but Prov. 8 is not the place to be making a big doctrine about redemption. More explicit passages should be used that are not wisdom literature (vs didactic). Every reference in the Bible to the 'wisdom of God' is not Christological (that would be a gross interpretation error).

Your view is a theory and a minority view. I would not be dogmatic about it.

1Way
February 24th, 2004, 06:52 PM
Rolf – We presented the same translation’s use in the other instances demonstrating their own inconsistent contrary use even with the same word and voice tense mode. If you trust 2Pet 3.9 should be translated “come (to)”, instead of “make room (for)”, then do you discredit the translater’s accuracy in John 21:25 where the same word with the same voice tense mood is translated “could contain” which is essentially the same idea as “have room”?

If not then you are not understanding our point. We are simply observing two things.

1) They translated the same word inconsistently, also same with various forms of the same root word.

2) Their variance of meaning observed is shown to be self correcting by simply swapping the alternate renderings to see which rendering naturally conforms to the contextual development.

As to the first, various renderings are common and standard practice, but this inconsistency involves more than just accepted variance within the of scope of the word’s meaning. When we consider the other uses, it is obvious that 2Pet 3.9 is wrong because of the contradictory unbiblical nature of the meaning when examined in the other occurrences documented for your consideration.

Evidently you don’t appreciate or understand what has been presented for your consideration, or you simply don’t want to. :confused:

*Acts9_12Out*
February 25th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Rolf,

You started this thread about 2 Peter 3:9 and gave us your "opinion" of it. You "interpreted" the passage for us all, and told us what you think. I have taken the time to learn God's original language to better understand His hidden treasures. I offer Scriptural evidence to show that God intended something other than what your calvinist brethern "translated." I showed that your initial premise was in error. How do you respond?


Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 19_12 out---My, My! How conveniently you translate to fit your aim. To bad that all those translators who are capable of translating the whole Bible didn't choose to use YOUR words. Maybe they were just interested in dealing with the Scripture honestly. I dar say that your whipped-up translation is not as reliable as theirs.

The burden of proof is on you to explain away the true meaning of cwreo. Check any Greek lexicon to see what that word really means. Again, the burden of proof is on you to explain to us all why your calvinist brethern misrepresent Scripture and mistranslate words to fit their presuppositions. I challenge you to research the word to see what it means. I challenge you to run a concordance of the word to see how the word is continually translated. Good luck...

--Jeremy

GodsfreeWill
February 25th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acts 19_12 out---My, My! How conveniently you translate to fit your aim. To bad that all those translators who are capable of translating the whole Bible didn't choose to use YOUR words. Maybe they were just interested in dealing with the Scripture honestly. I dar say that your whipped-up translation is not as reliable as theirs.

I wouldn't trust someone making an idiotic statement such as this. How do you know that "all those translators are capable" of translating the Bible? If they all are so capable, then why do they disagree with each other? Not one translator EVER has given you a reason why he translated 2 Peter 3:9 the way that he did, but you believe it, and when Acts9 actually gives you scriptural proof of why it should be translated such, you deny it because it doesn't fit your theological beliefs. Unbelieveable.... Like he said, the burden of proof is on you to show how it actually should be translated, that is if you even have an understanding of the original language.

Your biggest problem, as a calvinist, is that 2 Peter 3:9 says "not counseling that any should perish." God's "boule" will is His counsel, His determined purpose, His design. How then, according to calvinism, can God "not counsel" something? I thought according to your calvinistic beliefs, that God counseled EVERYTHING. I thought EVERYTHING was predetermined by God. I guess not....

Rolf Ernst
February 25th, 2004, 01:05 PM
Amazing how arrogant you Arminians are. Each of you esteems himself a better translator of Scripture than those who have poured their whole lives into textual accuracy; but when their translations show your God dishonoring doctrines to be a lie, you think you can "translate" your way out of that. As for those who refer to"calvinistic" interpreters--if you knew anything about the care taken in translating the various versions, you would know that these translations are not done by one individual, nor by men of only one doctrinal persuasion. They are agreed upon by men of differing theological persuasions and guess what--none of them have seen fit to use YOUR makeshift evasion of the real meaning of 2 Pet. 3:9, which is born of an overweening and haughty estimate of your SUPERIORITY to all of them. 1 Tim. 2:3-8 and 2 Pet. 3:9 are not the only scriptures which you use to justify your heresy, and end up defeating it. There is more to come, much more!
Though he later goes astray on this text, Doggieduff is the only one who has come close to the truth. In post 55 on this thread, he states accurately the Boule is both His counsel and his determined purpose. I have not even begun to cite the MANY verses which show that when spoken of in other scriptures, boule, or its counterpart in the OT, is used of that will of his which is neverfailing in its execution.
And when I dare state my doubt of your SUPERIORITY in the scripture translation, he calls that an "idiotic statement." My, how you junior theologians safegaurd your (ha, ha) SUPERIORITY!

godrulz
February 25th, 2004, 01:35 PM
There is certainly evidence in every translation of doctrinal bias in some verses. e.g. RSV liberal theology (water down virgin birth in Is. 7:14...young woman vs virgin); JW/WT and Deity passages; Jerusalem Bible with Catholic doctrinal bent/bias; Living Bible (Baptist= Taylor) is anti-charismatic in some verses; Calvinistic influence in verses in many translations since this is a predominant system held by many translators represented on a mixed committee).

There is value in Greek grammatical studies to clarify controversial nuances in English translations that differ. Textual criticism is also necessary to decide between MSS. Few of us are experts...a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...we cannot just compare 2 uses of a word...context, etc. must be weighed.

A simplistic English reading in one translation does not ensure proper understanding on some 'non-essential' verses (i.e. major, essential doctrinal truth is not disputed between credible translations).

Rolf Ernst
February 25th, 2004, 02:00 PM
Godrulz--There are MANY Bible chapters which deal mostly with other matters, yet have clear messianic prophecies set within them like diamonds. The content of Genesis 3, Isa. chapters 9,11, Psalm 89, 2, etc, etc, etc.
Therefore your objection that Proverbs is wisdom literature has no standing. As we say in Texas, "that old dog won't hunt."

Your attempt to link the Calvinist's view of Proverbs with the JWs
is faulty. Christ is the Wisdom of God as expressed in the covenant struck before the foundation of the world. He has many names according to His many sufficiencies. Concerning Wisdom, read 1 Cor 1:30--"But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God..." Don't overlook that "of HIM are you in
Christ Jesus." Of HIM (not of ourselves--it is God who makes men to differ). Read on to the 2nd chapter, verse 7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom WHICH GOD PREDETERMINED BEFORE THE AGES FOR OUR GLORY." (caps mine)
Not in His personal being, which is coeternal with the existence of the Father and the Spirit, but as the Wisdom of God, He was "brought forth" in the covenant of redemption--"according as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of of the world." (Eph. 1:4) Therefore, the Arminian attempt to muddy the waters in Proverbs eight by making a false accusation against the Reformed view of that chapter by linking it to the JW heresy is a misrepresentation. The JWs think it refers to His being. The Reformed people know it refers to the bringing forth of Christ as the federal head of His people in the Covenant of Redemption.
Concerning federl ead--as an aside, I mention that the meaning of Christ's position as the head of the church is ANOTHER Bible truth which utterly destroys the Arminian heresy. See Romans 5, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-47
By your objection that Proverbs is wisdom literature, do you mean thereby to discount the validity of its words in speaking of Christ, do you mean to say that there are no prophecies of Christ in all the wisdom literature?

GodsfreeWill
February 25th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Amazing how arrogant you Arminians are. Each of you esteems himself a better translator of Scripture than those who have poured their whole lives into textual accuracy;

Who has poured their whole life into textual accuracy? Do you know these translators personally?



but when their translations show your God dishonoring doctrines to be a lie, you think you can "translate" your way out of that.

Wrong. The order is actually reversed. My beliefs come from the accurate translation. That's why I'm not a calvinist.



As for those who refer to"calvinistic" interpreters--if you knew anything about the care taken in translating the various versions, you would know that these translations are not done by one individual, nor by men of only one doctrinal persuasion. They are agreed upon by men of differing theological persuasions

Wait, are you sure about this? You act as if you know the translators and know their background in education. I would trust someone whose greek knowledge came from the teachings of Wallace, much more than someone who's greek teaching came from, say Moulton. I have a sneaky suspicion you don't have the slightest bit of understanding of greek.


and guess what--none of them have seen fit to use YOUR makeshift evasion of the real meaning of 2 Pet. 3:9, which is born of an overweening and haughty estimate of your SUPERIORITY to all of them. 1 Tim. 2:3-8 and 2 Pet. 3:9 are not the only scriptures which you use to justify your heresy, and end up defeating it. There is more to come, much more!

The majority text agrees with our translation. That's probably the most accurate text of scripture we have today.


Though he later goes astray on this text, Doggieduff is the only one who has come close to the truth. In post 55 on this thread, he states accurately the Boule is both His counsel and his determined purpose. I have not even begun to cite the MANY verses which show that when spoken of in other scriptures, boule, or its counterpart in the OT, is used of that will of his which is neverfailing in its execution.
And when I dare state my doubt of your SUPERIORITY in the scripture translation, he calls that an "idiotic statement." My, how you junior theologians safegaurd your (ha, ha) SUPERIORITY!

You still didn't answer my question. (Which I'm beginning to notice happens rather frequently with you.) According to calvinism, God counsels EVRYTHING. He determines EVERYTHING. He predetermines EVERYTHING. If that's true, then 2 Peter 3:9 is not, because it clearly states that God DOES NOT COUNSEL something. How are you going to dance around this one?

Rolf Ernst
February 25th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Doggieduff--I am not dancing around anything. It takes much more time to respond to and correct the errors of others than to just wail and make charges, so you be patient.
Concerning your post above, Yes, He does work ALL things after the counsel of His own will. (Eph 1:4.) Concerning all things, His determinate counsel, predetermination is involved.

Your saying, "...it clearly states that God does not counsel something" is an example of that being fulfilled precisely. Can you follow THIS??

What is NOT counseled is that any of those of whom the apostle is speaking "should perish." And accordingly, they DON'T. They don't
because He did not counsel that they should perish! But He DID counsel that all of them should come to repentance. And they do, fulfilling the purpose of His longsuffering.

The Arminian understanding of the text, as they love to use it, is that God doesn't want any single individual of mankind to perish. That understanding defies the most rudimentary processes of thought BECAUSE the longer He delays His return in judgment, the more there are who DO perish.

The only realistic understanding of this text is that the apostle is speaking of an "elect" number whom He is longsuffering toward, an "elect" number whom He is not willing that they should perish, but come to repentance. That is the ONLY understanding which is in full accord with the entire text. The Arminian understanding would have God deliberately taking, by His longsuffering, a measure which is continually self-defeating.

Again, the fact that He does not counsel that any should perish
is not in any way a reasdon for you to triumphantly say, "see, that proves that He does NOT counsel everything."

Snort! Of course not, doggieduff. Why would he counsel that to which His will is contrary?? He doesn't counsel it and, accordingly, it does not happen. But He DOES counsel that they all come to repentance, and they DO.

Rolf Ernst
February 25th, 2004, 06:38 PM
To those of you who are impatient with my responses to your objections



Maybe I don't have as much time to spend on a keyboard as you do. There are many more of you than there are of me, and you all probably have more time to spend on the forum than I do.

Right now, I am in the process of showing that the verses which Arminians use to support their heresy do NOT do so, but militate against Arminianism. Soon, I will begin threads where Arminians can deal with Scriptures which Reformed people use to prove THEIR doctrinal position. We will then see who deals most honestly with
the verses which others put forth. All the debate to this point has been under misguided opposition of the Arminians. Soon, they can show their expertise at handling verses which, at first glance, seem to support a contrary doctrine. Get ready, all you Arminians.

Rolf Ernst
February 25th, 2004, 06:52 PM
Godrulz---Your attempt to require that if Proverbs 8: 22-36 is about Christ then the text of Chapter nine must ALSO be is strange.
All the words of Scripture concerning Christ are like diamonds scattered through ALL the Scriptures. I never before heard anyone demand, for example, that if Isa. 10 doesn't have prophecy in it concerning Christ, then the claim that the ninth chapter does is insupportable.

Rolf Ernst
February 25th, 2004, 07:36 PM
Godrulz--Concerning Eph. 1 and what you refer to as a corporate election. I understand you maintain that primarily to posit an election which is ultimately determined by men rather than God. That is, you believe that God foresaw who in time would believe on Christ, and on the basis of seeing their decision for Christ, elected them. Is that right?
Be patient. I'll get back with you on this. Thanks

smaller
February 25th, 2004, 10:46 PM
Hey Rolf

Do you know there is really NO DIFFERENCE between the Arminian and the Calvinist.

Their end results are NEARLY IDENTICAL. 95-99% of the population of humanity winds up being ETERNALLY TORTURED in EITHER CASE.

What's the difference on how they got there? Whether by adding one by one by one by one or two by two if the result of the calculation is THE SAME there is NO MATTER.

You guys should band up on the ONLY DOCTRINE you AGREE ON....

and that is THAT 95-99% of mankind WILL NOT RECIEVE forgiveness of sins and will burn in hell forever. This is the sole position of agreement.

Start from the point where you ALL AGREE and work your way out. If you see ALIKE in this point there will be a lot less fighting.

Then you can all focus on convincing that 1-4% of the population that you can make DOUBLE SONS OF HELL like yourselves.

enjoy!

smaller

1Way
February 25th, 2004, 11:44 PM
Rolf – I don’t know greek, I’ve never studied it. I know how to reference “reference works” and compare contextual use pretty well. I am in no way presenting to you my scholarship or my translation, because I do not know how to read Greek. I am using your translation to demonstrate it’s own inconsistency an inaccuracy.

This all be done using the KJV with the rendering of 2Pet 3.9, “come to”.

Here is the text in question
2Pet 3.9


2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I did a search for all occurrences of the same word for “come to”. John 21.25 was the only other occurrence, although as Jeremy points out, the same word in different forms have other occurrences.

Here is John 21.25


Joh 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
The negative idea is provided by an earlier word. Here is a Greek and Enlish interlinear to help you see the location of the words with the English equivalents.

Disclaimer: I think there are one or two letters in the font that differ from the font in my bible study program, so this text may be off in a letter here or there, but this example is not about letters but about word position and general word meaning to help the reader understand that the negation idea “not” is provided prior to the “could contain” idea. This is not a crucial nor disputed issue, but to simply demonstrate how informative a word comparison study can be.


Joh 21:25
estin de {AND THERE ARE} kai {ALSO} alla {OTHER THINGS} polla {MANY} osa {WHATSOEVER} epoihsen o {DID} ihsouv {JESUS,} atina {WHICH} ean {IF} grafhtai {THEY SHOULD BE WRITTEN} kay en {ONE BY ONE,} oude {NOT EVEN} autonauton {ITSELF} oimai {I SUPPOSE} ton {THE} kosmon {WORLD} cwrhsai {WOULD CONTAIN} ta {THE} grafomena {WRITTEN} biblia {BOOKS.} amhn {AMEN.}
So by that we understand that the word behind the English words, “could not contain”, actually is the word kho-reh-o, which is Strong’s 5562, and contributes the idea “could contain”, not “could not contain”.

So here are those two verses again this time side by side, with the word in question highlighted in blue.


2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Now, so far, all I have shown you is that I can look up the same Greek word and compare two verses using the same word with the same voice tense mood according to my bible study program (the OnLineBible). The verses are all using the KJV, the Gree from the TR for searching and display only.

Now, this is my observation, it is not an argument I am making up. To examine the translation’s consistency, we can just look at the renderings to see how they come across. They are

“should come”
“could contain”

on the surface, they are both permitting ideas showing some ability of action.

Now, lets swap the rendering in the verses to see how the context fleshes things out. This is where the differences between these two renderings become more evident.


2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all could contain repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself should not come to the books that should be written. Amen.

Earlier I started to mix up the idea “not” into my comparison and I apologize for that mistake, the thought that the would should not approach writing about God’s awesomeness should not enter the comparison. The “use” of the word in 2Pe 3.9 is in the positive and so to make an “apples to apples” comparison, we should render the use in John 21.25 in the positive as well, which is easily accommodated.


2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all could contain repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I do not suppose that even the world itself should come to the books that should be written. Amen.
Findings
In 2Pe 3.9 the general idea of “could contain” is roughly “have room for” or “make room for” etc. so this idea seems to fit pretty good with the sense in which it is used.

But, when you look at John 12.25, it does not fit very well. Consider this rendering in terms of action. “Come to” is the idea of “approaching” or “arriving at”. But the idea being graphically displayed in John 21.25 is not so much “approaching” or “arriving”, it’s about “having enough room”, the whole world may not have enough room for all the books ... so it’s a word about “having” or “making room” or as the text was rendered “containing”, “could contain”.

Assessment
This swapping of renderings would make 2Pet 3.9 into a reasonable verse, but John 21.25 is problematic at best, because what in the world would it matter if the world could or could not approach these books? John is not talking about the issue of world wide access to these books, but rather the idea is all about the enormity of such books and that the world could not “have enough room for” them, it “could not contain” them.

Also, I grant that the contextual use of a word does not determine the words meaning per say, but it can give good indicator’s of it’s appropriate use, and by comparing alternate renderings it can become easier to see what aspects of the rendering fits and what does not. So what I just did does not exactly limit the scope of the meaning of this word, but it does serve to demonstrate the inconsistency of the translation and that it’s contextual use is not I agreement with the dubious rending in 2Pet 3.9. The rendering in John 12.25 fits both verses just fine so that rendering passes the test, but the rendering in 2Pet 3.9 does not fit John 12.25 very well. Such observation indicates a dubious rendering since it is a very poor fit/bad in John 12.25.

In conclusion
Thus, based upon the translator’s treatment of this same word, it is reasonable to assume that “make room” is better than “should come”, it certainly fits into each context much more clearly, while “come to” hardly fit’s John 12.25 at all.

Again this is going strictly by their own translation work, I am simply observing the noticeable inconsistency with what they submitted was the correct renderings, and how the Pet rendering does not compare well while the John rendering does just fine. So please don’t misunderstand what has been presented for your consideration. This is not mocking the translators per say. This is demonstrating their own inconstancy and how these two examples serve to invalidate “come to” and validate “could contain”, “make room for”, “to make room for”.

godrulz
February 26th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz---Your attempt to require that if Proverbs 8: 22-36 is about Christ then the text of Chapter nine must ALSO be is strange.
All the words of Scripture concerning Christ are like diamonds scattered through ALL the Scriptures. I never before heard anyone demand, for example, that if Isa. 10 doesn't have prophecy in it concerning Christ, then the claim that the ninth chapter does is insupportable.

I agree with your general statements, but these are not parallel examples. Each context (remote/immediate) must be looked at on its own merit. I understand the isolated Messianic verses. There is more continuity between Prov. 8;9 than Is. 7:14 and Is. 9:6 and all the verses between.

godrulz
February 26th, 2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Godrulz--Concerning Eph. 1 and what you refer to as a corporate election. I understand you maintain that primarily to posit an election which is ultimately determined by men rather than God. That is, you believe that God foresaw who in time would believe on Christ, and on the basis of seeing their decision for Christ, elected them. Is that right?
Be patient. I'll get back with you on this. Thanks

The sister organization in the US that I belong to in Canada (your Assemblies of God) does believe the Arminian view that God's foreknowledge knows who will be saved. Arminians maintain that this foreknowledge does not affect free will.

I have moved to the Open Theist camp. This view maintains free will. God purposes to elect a people for His name (Israel/Church). The atonement is efficacious for all who repent and believe. God does not know as a certainty from eternity past who will ultimately believe or reject Him (i.e. before they existed...in space/time God knows the hearts and inclinations of the individual). He knows possibilities as such and actualities/certainties when the free will moral choice is made. Things He purposes to bring to pass independent of other moral agents (e.g. creation, incarnation) He knows as a certainty.

1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties= meticulous control)

No= Arminianism
Alternative (Open Theism)
(contingencies; free will for moral agents)

2. Is everything certain in God's mind from all eternity?

Yes= Calvinism (based on decree/will)
Arminian (foreknow=certainties)

No= Open Theism (uncertainties; God is resourceful, creative, omnicompetent)

1Way
February 26th, 2004, 12:32 AM
Godrulz – I think you erred, perhaps by granting too much to Rolf’s assesements when you said
1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever wil come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism (no contingencies; no uncertainties= meticulous control)

No= Arminianism
Alternative (Open Theism)
(contingencies; free will for moral agents) Arminianism agree’s with God’s absolute foreknowledge of Calvinism, they just try to force “free will” into that scenario anyway. :radar:

I would have said.
1. Did God from all eternity decree whatever will come to pass?

Yes= Calvinism and Arminianism (exhaustive foreknowledge)

No= Open Theism (contingencies exist, along with sufficient foreknowledge) This point should not be over looked. I’m sure some Arminian’s hold to God’s foreknowledge in different ways, but that was not part of the split away from the Calvinism of many years ago, they accepted that God foreknows all things!

godrulz
February 26th, 2004, 10:24 AM
I think you are right, as the bottom line, that for free will choices to be known as a certainty they would have to be predestined/caused vs foreknown (Calvinism). Arminians believe that God's foreknowledge is not a decree or causative and that free will is genuine. They see God as an 'eternal now' seeing all of a timeline (past, present, and future) all at once. Just like you watching and knowing about a planned or actual bank robbery does not mean that you caused it in any way, so God's foreknowledge supposedly does not influence our choices. This analogy breaks down since time is not a thing or place (God cannot be in the past and future at the same time since the future does not even exist to be known or 'there').

You and I rightly see the logical contradiction and absurdity of an omniscient being knowing as a certainty future free will choices of moral agents (exhaustive foreknowledge). This knowledge logically negates free will and leaves us with the same predicament as Calvinists. God knows possibilities and certainties/actualities as they are.

So I think I would leave my question as is, since Arminians do not believe that God decrees things from eternity past...He simply 'knows' them without decree. The end result is the same as you astutely observed (Calvinism is not identical to Arminianism...one emphasizes sovereign decree/will, and the other explains things with simple foreknowledge; both believe in exhaustive foreknowledge).

The Open View is the only one that biblically and philosophically resolves the dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's free will. There are 2 motifs with God knowing some of the future (He predestines things like creation, incarnation, cross, return), but some things are open (free moral choices, salvation, mundane choices).

Rolf Ernst
February 26th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Godrulz--thanks for your post to my question above (the 67th post in this thread). I believe I understand your view well enough now to speak of it without misrepresenting it. If I do misrepresent, call me on it.

Concerning your discussion with 1way--We Calvinists believe God's foreknowledge is based on the fact of His decree, which will, without fail, come to pass. He foreknows what will happen because He has decreed that it shall happen.

Basis for that in scripture: "I am God and there is none else. I am God, and there is none like me," Notice what He says next: "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." See the connection of His knowledge with His power to fulfill all His counsel. He knows what shall be because He has decreed what shall be. In the sequential order, it is counsel (or determination) followed by knowledge
"Foreknow" is also used to denote love from everlasting, as in Jer. 31:3. The use of "know" in the sense of love is not strange to the words of Scripture. Adam "knew" Eve, and she conceived. In Psalm one, "The LORD knows the way of the just, but the way of the ungodly shall perish." This verse is not speaking of bare knowledge, as if He knows (has knowledge of) the way of the just, but is ignorant of the way of the ungodly. Its meaning is that God loves the way of the just, but not the way of the ungodly. Therefore, the way of the ungodly shall perish.

godrulz
February 26th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Rolf: The Isaiah passage is one of the favorites of Open Theists. We concur that God predestines and knows some things, but not all things. It is His ability, not foreknowledge, that ensures things come to pass that He purposes.

Dr. Gregory Boyd (Baptist) in "God of the Possible" does a masterful job of showing that there are 2 motifs in Scripture. The many verses that support predestination is one motif (closed future) in Scripture. The other motif (open future) is supported by many other verses that would not fit into the first category. He fairly exegetes verses used by Calvinists/Arminians.

God, in Isaiah, is different than the false gods because He has the ABILITY to bring things to pass that He declares. It is wrong to assume that every moral or mundane choice is meticulously controlled (this is not the only model of sovereignty).

Rolf Ernst
February 26th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Godrulz--What rates as mundane things which are not under His meticulous care?

I see things which I consider quite mundane under His sovereign rule, such as the life span of sparrows and the hairs of our heads (Mt. 10: 29,30); the life span of all--not merely in the beginning and end of them (as established bounds), but in the progression of them from breath to breath (Acts 17:26), and in all their possessions.
I consider the things spoken of in Acts 17: 25,26 to be among those things which are also spoken of in Heb. 1:3--"...upholding all things by the word of His power." which, I believe you would agree, speaks of even the continual upholding of the entire creation as in Col. 1: 16,17 "For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all things and by Him all things consist."
As His works of creation encompass all things, so I believe that His providential care likewise encompasses all of His creation, the "consist" of Col. 1:17 meaning not merely the adhering of all things for the duration of their purposed existence, but also all the moment by moments of their existence.
I believe all of these are involved in the true biblical meaning of His omnipotence; that is, that His omnipotence, as John Calvin expressed it, is "not merely some slumbering power" by which He could do any feat of might which He pleased, but it is an ever active, all encompassing power continually energizing the entire creation without which there would be in no place either life or motion.
How far from agreement are we on the proper application of the verses mentioned above? Thank you, Godrulz.

smaller
February 27th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Let's see...hmmmm....???

It's the ABILITY of God, not the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God that ensures things come to pass.

hmmmmm......???

Nope.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between either terms or the outcome.

IF God is ABLE to ENSURE the outcome it would appear that FOREKNOWLEDGE is a BYGONE conclusion.

godrulz
February 27th, 2004, 11:37 AM
Correct, Mr. Smaller. The things that God choses to predestine are globally known. Scripture does not say that every detail and variable on the way to what God purposes is predestined or known.

e.g. If Judas would have repented or died in an accident as a child, God would have used a similar variable to ensure the atonement was accomplished.

Two motifs in Scripture: some, not all things are predestined and known as a certainty. There are genuine contingenies and free moral choices by free moral agents if freedom is genuine and not illusory.

helmet84
February 27th, 2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Typical Calvinism!

Take the plain simple reading of the text and figure out how it means the exact opposite of what is says.

Brilliant! You've probably convinced everybody with your theological back flip!

The fact is that Reformed theology is not even based on Scripture in the first place. Augustine is the one that really got this particular ball rolling and he based his ideas solely on the teachings of Aristotle and Plato. He actually refused to become a Christian until his Bishop (I think his name was Ambrose) explained that all of the talk in the Old Testament about God changing in many ways (including changing His mind) didn't really mean what they said. Augustine didn't become a Christian until he could figure out a way of interpreting the scripture in light of the Aristitilian idea of an immutable God.
ALL of what is known today as Calvinism is a logical derivation from the single premise that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the preservation of the saints are all individually derived from the immutability of God. If it can be shown that God changes in any way at all, then Calvinism falls completely apart.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hello, Hemult84 here.

I'm new to this forum. You know, there are many of us out here who read these postings, but we never register or reply. We are genuinely open-minded, and seeking truth.

I read so many posts on these forums that are just like this one. They really don't deal with the scripture or points that are being made. They just call them a name, or sweep them under some "ism" (i.e. Calvinism, Open Theism, or whatever) and then give each other kudos and high-fives because they feel they've vanquished their enemy. Well, maybe they have, or maybe they haven't. But for many of us out here, we just want positive, clear contextual explanations for the scriptures that are being discussed. We're not interested in what 'ism' anyone belongs to.

For instance, concerning Rolf Ernst's original post here, I would be very interested in seeing how you interpret the 'usward' in this verse. Rolf has given an interesting (and seemingly) plausible explanation of the text, which at least attempts to deal with the context. If you disagree, what is your view? What is your explanation of the text?

Forgive me if you have already done that. There are 73 responses to this thread already, and I just don't have time to read it all. If you have already done so, just point me to your response.

Thanks sincerely,

Helmut84

Rolf Ernst
February 27th, 2004, 10:59 PM
Helmut 84---"usward" is a reference to the elect of God: those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, (Eph. 1:4); who are therefore His children, having been placed in Him as His "seed" (Isa. 53:10), whom He will surely see and to whom, of course, He therefore became their "everlasting Father," and it is to these that He is "the prince of peace." (Isa. 9:6)

The facts concerning Christ are parallel in every point to facts concerning the first man, Adam. As created, Adam had within himself all of humanity, and he was therefore the federal head of all humanity; that is, Adam was the legal representative before God of all those in him. The principle of legal representation is not strange at all. We humans still use the same legal principle, and in so doing, we admit that there is a valid legal basis for it. So we have ambassadors who speak on behalf of and represent the whole body of American citizenship to other nations. The president is a legal representative for this nation, and we citizens are also bound into treaties on the basis of legal representation.
There was a real legal contract between God and all of mankind in Adam. Adam failed, and brought death upon all of his.
There is a real legal contract between Christ, the "everlasting
Father," and God concerning all those chosen in Him. Christ, unlike the first man Adam, brings life to all those in Him. That is the main message of the fifth chapter of Romans. Just as surely as Adam brought death to his, Christ brings life to His, because He is the federal "head" of the church.
The only way the fifth chapter of Romans can be literally true and precise in every point made is by understanding that the key thought concerning both Adam and Christ is that they both had within them certain ones who were their children, and both the children of Adam and the children of Christ inherited either weal or woe on the basis of the performance of their father; the children of Adam, woe; the children of Christ, weal.
The "usward" in 2Pet. 3:9 is a reference to those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. They are the ones toward whom God is longsuffering; they are the ones whom God is not willing that they should perish, but that all of them should come to repentance. It is only by viewing this verse through the aspect of Christ's children that 2 Pet. 3:9 makes sense, because if anyone tries to apply it to all men without exemption, then the purpose of God in His longsuffering is self-defeating because it is clear that the longer God delays His return in judgment, the more there are who DO perish. The way that leads to destruction is, in every generation, that broad road with the many upon it. But since the reference is only to those chosen children, God's purpose in His longsuffering is not defeated, but realized in the salvation of those toward whom He is longsuffering, as the apostle says later (verse 15) "consider that the longsuffering of God is salvation."
The children of Christ are called sheep by Him even before they heard the message concerning Him--"other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring" (see the future tense?) and there will be one fold." There is the "must" element.Christ "must" bring His sheep.
Again, Christ spoke to Paul as he was in the course of one of his journeys, saying "I have many people in this city." They were His people even before the gospel reached them, and His sheep were His even before He gathered them into one fold.
On that last night before His crucifixtion, Christ referred to a world for which He did not pray (see john 17), saying, "I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given me."
He did not mean that He did not pray for anybody in the world, but that He did not pray for the world of non-elect people; that is, for those not chosen in Him.
Many try to load the word "world" with a meaning which Scripture many times does not intend. In Scripture the word world is used in various ways. In places it refers to the entire creation--everybody; in other places it is a reference to all those who are Christ's children by election; in other places it is the world of the non-elect.
One of the best Bible study aids is Strong's exhaustive concordance, by which you can quickly follow out all the references to any word and see how the Bible itself uses certain words. One of our most common failings today is to assume that the bible uses words the same way we do today. As a consequence, many believe that their own understanding and use of certain words is the proper meaning and always applies to the words of Scripture.
I hope this has not been to long or unnecessarily laborious toward answering your question. Thanks for asking. Ralph.

1Way
February 27th, 2004, 11:18 PM
Godrulz – You mostly agreed with me, and also said
So I think I would leave my question as is, since Arminians do not believe that God decrees things from eternity past...He simply 'knows' them without decree. I think you subtly promoting their confusion by not being more clear with the words you use.

They believe that God part of God’s declaration is that He knows all things including exhaustive foreknowledge, but did not “decree” them.

(Right?)

If they did not believe that God’s word teaches us that He knows all things then they would not believe God’s exhaustive foreknowledge so they do include God’s decreeing will concerning His knowledge in a very real sense. I don’t know why you wish to use that word “decree”, we have definitive alternatives like know/knowledge and cause, plan fore-ordain, predestine, etc. The point is that we should brake down the issue into more discrete doable issues so that as we minister to them, they are less able to juggle multiple competing issues in their mind, because as a general rule, the more ideas at work in any given judgment, the more prone to error the judgements will become. The simpler, the better. Especially now with Rolf, he thinks we are Arminian’s and we are not. He is proclaiming his ignorance and you are perhaps a bit too accepting of it, which is somewhat insulting in several ways, for him and for everyone else. It is fine to accept a person’s ideas for the sake of analysis, but if they are wrong, don’t compromise your ideas with their words for the sake of palatability. Speak the truth in love.

You went on to say
The Open View is the only one that biblically and philosophically resolves the dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's free will. There are 2 motifs with God knowing some of the future (He predestines things like creation, incarnation, cross, return), but some things are open (free moral choices, salvation, mundane choices). See, there you go again, you talk like there are perhaps three (or more?) views when considering God’s future knowledge and the open view. There are not three or more views, there are only two, open and closed and there are no other options. I believe that until this idea is set firm within you, you will continue to present a somewhat fuzzy unclear view. Don’t be ashamed of the clarity that God’s word richly affords us and sets us free. Stand against the false teachings that bind and hinder Christians everywhere they are promoted.

1Way
February 28th, 2004, 12:02 AM
Helmut 84 – Rolf – You are asking what’s in the meaning of the words “us ward”?

The ultimate understanding of what any word or phrase means, is how it is used in context. You can not force the word to overturn it’s contextual use, after all, you can even use the “wrong” word and still convey what you essentially mean. The wider context trumps the narrow every time.

More important than trying to establish a definition around a pronoun, deal with the meaningful content of God’s word and words. God said that He does not purpose/will/desire that any be lost, but that all should make/have room for repentance, so, this verse is about as unCalvinistic and closed view as one can get.

But to directly answer your question. Here is a good general rule to go by. God wrote the bible to mankind with special regards to His own saved people.

Agreed?

“Towards us” is in direct reference to
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. and then further back we have
2Pe 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), thus showing that first and second Peter have the same specific audience in mind. He is addressing other like minded circumcision believers...
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: and
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, [b]To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. So plainly from scripture, Peter’s audience is specifically “the pilgrims of the Dispersion” = the Jews who are elect according to the foreknowledge and sanctification of the Spirit...


1Pe 1:9 receiving the end of your faith——the salvation of [your] souls.
...
1Pe 2:8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. 9 But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; Very interesting side note. Notice appointed is in contrast against them being disobedient to God! This verse is saying that not everyone obeys God even though they were appointed to obedience to the word, not appointed to be disobedient, but appointed to be obedient to the word, which they were disobedient towards! Also, the same word tith’-ay-mee (S’s#5087) can mean a very strong meaning as in the following.
1Th 5:9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, So the idea that we are appointed by God, even concerning salvation does not (necessarily) imply exhaustive foreknowledge and individual predestination to heaven or hell, but it is used to clearly demonstrate that God’s (appointed) will is often not done, although in other cases, what God appoints will not be altered.

But the point of all that was to better highlight who Peter had in mind in his epistles, the updated corporate Israel is the focus, God’s saved chosen people who had the priesthood, believing Israel.

Also, anyone under Petrian (apostolic) authority (those outside this dispensation both before and after) should naturally be considered in this group, just as today we are under Pauline (apostolic) authority over us in this dispensation of mystery and grace. Very simple really.


So what is the significance of your request? Just curious. :o

helmet84
February 28th, 2004, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by 1Way



So what is the significance of your request?


Thanks for your reply, which I agree with for the most part.

The significance of my request is this: In my opinion an understanding of the verse hinges on the word 'usward' (or "toward us").

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The word 'any' is a pronoun which refers back to the "toward us". So the verse really has this sense: ". . . longsuffering toward us, not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If this is not the sense of the verse, then why does he say that the Lord is longsuffering "toward us"? Especially when the 'us' (and I agree with you) refers to everything you said in your post above -- i.e. the pilgrims of the dispersion, elect, etc.

It seems to me Peter is saying that God is longsuffering toward us because He is not willing that any of us should perish, but that everyone of us should come to repentance.

And this seems to be Rolfe' original point:


Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
Who is He longsuffering toward? He is longsuffering to “usward”: toward the elect; those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world and promised to Christ as His “seed” whom He would “see” (Isa. 53:10) and be satisfied. He is not willing that ANY of those to whom Christ is “the Everlasing Father, the Prince of Peace” should perish. He will withhold His coming until they ALL “come to repentance,” no matter how many of the non-elect perish.

And that is exactly the outcome of His longsuffering. As Paul says in verse 15, “consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation.


Now whether or not this is 'calvinism' or 'open theism' or whatever, is irrelevant to me. I'm concerned with what does the Bible teach -- what is really the truth. I've noticed when we sweep someone’s view under one of these 'isms', we then attack the 'ism' (or what we think the 'ism' is), rather than honestly and directly dealing with what a brother or sister in Christ is really trying to communicate to us.

Thanks again for your reply.

-- helmet84

1Way
February 28th, 2004, 06:30 AM
Helmet84 – You said
The word 'any' is a pronoun which refers back to the "toward us". Yes and no. Consider
2Pe 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." The second coming is not just about and for us, we who are saved. When Jesus returns, He will deal swiftly and justly with the unsaved world! So it’s both, for us, and, for them.

The “example” of God’s longsuffering for us does not have to be about us, the fact is that God councils/desires that no one goes to hell, but that all should become saved. That is a general yet obvious reference towards the lost that they should become saved, not the saved that they should become/remain saved.

Remember the context, just as it was since the flood, people may forget the Lord as though the flood never happened, but God is not slack, He is patient and purposes that none go to hell.

I’m reminded of the tricky ways that some English words are used, consider.

Jesse James is wanted for robbery.

What is the relationship between the word “for” and the verb phrase, is wanted? Seems as plain as day, right? But consider, is it in reference to past robberies, or future? Is the sign seeking his arrest for breaking the law, or seeking him so as to break more laws? The words grammatically do not indicate one way or the other, so we have to fill in the details from the contextual development. Same in this case, it’s not simply for and about us, but the “example” of God’s longsuffering is better understood as concerning the lost.

(OSAS = one form of Antinomianism; OSAS does not = Catholicism = nomianism, nomian basically means to work, or a works based faith, nomianism, Catholics are big on you continuing to do the sacraments as part of what it means get to heaven, they reject OSAS.)
I think it is true that most people believe that you can not loose your salvation. And certainly the vast majority of the Calvinists believe in OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved). So taking that idea to the passage makes no sense, consider. God is referring to saved people = OSAS. To suggest as you are, that God is saying that His longsuffering/patience in waiting to return is demonstrated by His “longsuffering” that the saved wont go to hell, is contradictory nonsense. God is not patiently waiting to return to demonstrate His longsuffering in that the OSAS may not go to hell. If we are OSAS, then we cant go to hell, no matter if Jesus terries for one minuet or for 7 million years. This longsuffering would make no meaningful impact of the eternal security of those who are already OSAS.

So yes, God is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any perish (spiritually), He will return to set up Israel’s promised kingdom.

I hope this helps. Also, I agree that we should be more biblical, but that is according to an ism (conservatism, fundamentalism, bible over man-ism, etc.). Ism’s are helpful must like the bible’s use of the term “doctrine”. Some if not most teachings from scripture are too involving to have to repeat the whole thing every time you want to make a reference to it. So naturally we refer to teachings and systems of belief with their respective terms/handles/isms. You may be like Rolf and others here that do not know much about the open/closed views. That’s ok, don’t sweat the small stuff. And any time you have a question about what is being said, just ask, most people are very happy to explain what they mean by using such and such terms.

Rolf Ernst
February 28th, 2004, 09:08 AM
1Way--in your last post--of this thread the the 78th, you are continuing to understand "all" in 2 Pet. 3:9 as meaning "all" without exclusion, "all" as if each and everyone of mankind is meant by it. That is contradictory to Peter's meaning when he speaks of "us," the elect to whom he addresses his letter. By loading Peter's words "...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" with every (each and everyone of mankind), you are saying that God's longsuffering so that "all" should come to repentance is self-defeating, because if that is the aim of His longsuffering, it is not at all accomplished, because the stubborn fact is that of the WHOLE of mankind, most DO perish and His longsuffering, if toward the WHOLE, fails to accomplish what Paul says God meant to accomplish by it.
BUT if by "not willing that any should perish," and "all should come to repentance" Paul was referring not to the WHOLE of humanity, but to a certain select (elect) group, then God is NOT engaging in a self-defeating and futile exercise, but will accomplish exactly that which He intended by His longsuffering-- as Paul says in v. 15, "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation."
The longsuffering is not a failed attempt to accomplish His will, but is salvation.

This view MUST be true because the whole of humanity is NEVER included in God's redemptive purpose.

Some are those spoken of in Proverbs 16:4--"God has made all things for Himself--even the wicked for the day of evil." Some are "appointed" to disobedience. (1 Pet. 2:8,9) while others are appointed to obtain salvation (1 Th.5:9); Some are "like natural brute beasts, made to be caught and destroyed." 2 Pet. 2:12; to some it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to others it is not given (Mt.13:11; Lk. 8:10;
Mk. 4: 11,12, 34) and Jesus therefore reveals secrets to His disciples in private so those who are not appointed to life will not hear. Since by greater knowledge greater punishment comes upon the disobedient, Christ's hiding knowledge from them is a mercy toward them, even though it is a sad mercy.

1Way
February 28th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Rolf – You said
1Way--in your last post--of this thread the the 78th, you are continuing to understand "all" in 2 Pet. 3:9 as meaning "all" without exclusion, "all" as if each and everyone of mankind is meant by it. (1) That is contradictory to Peter's meaning when he speaks of "us," the elect to whom he addresses his letter. ...
...

(2) The longsuffering is not a failed attempt to accomplish His will, but is salvation.

This view MUST be true because the whole of humanity is NEVER included in God's redemptive purpose.

(1) Rolf, I realize that you are trying to make a point in defense for your view, but you are not responding to my point which was demonstrated from scripture. Until you correct that understanding, then I’m sticking with God’s word of the matter as demonstrated.

(2) This is simple philosophy and does not conform with many scripture teaching salvation for the world.


In the future, if you wish to disagree with me, then that is fine, but don’t forget to deal with what you supposedly disagree with. What I said stands completely untouched by your treatment, because, you did not treat any of the reasons for my conclusion.

This is getting a bit problematic in terms of switching the focus of the discussion. I keep responding directly in a point counterpoint fashion to the questions and points offered, but in return, you have a habit of forgetting my points and counterpoints, and just move on to another issue. Please be more respectfully responsive.

For example, we had a whole issue about the proper translation of 2Pet 3.9 concerning “come to” or “make room”. I served to help you stand corrected on several issues, yet in response, instead of addressing them directly (with/earlier exceptions), you have avoided them instead.

Next, I answered what “towards us” means, and so you respond by dealing with what the word “all” means instead.

Please, one reasonable doable consistent understandable step at a time. Thanks.

1Way
February 28th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Oh, Rolf - One more thing, do you believe in OSAS for this dispensation?

If so, then how does the Lords terrying somehow enhance our security? Should the Lord’s tarrying be added to the doctrine of eternal security? In what meaningful ways does the Lords "longsuffering" make our security any more secure? i.e. if He terries for 1 hour or 1 million years, OSAS is still as secure in either scenario, so this idea would make no difference concerning the saved if you grant OSAS is true.

The reference is about those who meaningfully should be saved and not already are saved.

Rolf Ernst
February 28th, 2004, 05:32 PM
1way--what point have you made supposedly substaniated by Scripture that I have not responded to? The point (2) which you
highlite in red is scriptural. See the 15th verse of chapter 3

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Acts9_12Out – You said
I wish I had a program that automatically inserted greek fonts. I use the vb tags bold, size=3 and font=symbol and manually type in the letters. I have been studying Greek with Bob Hill for almost 8 years now, and know many of the "popular" passages by heart in the original. BTW, excellent points raised. Just think if I inserted "come" into my passage... I use the OnLineBible (OLB) and it does it for me automatically just fine. I run a windows machine, but I would think the same should hold true for Mac. The only issue is that one or two letters from the online bible’s Greek font do not correspond to the Greek font used in symbol, so you might have to do an occasional edit here and there. It is a great freeware program. It is wonderful for searching, you can even search using Greek text, you can do proximity searches which find occurrences within a “passage” not just within a “verse”! It has phrase and word search and many Boolean search functions.

The OLB has great third party freeware add on modules. I own a $400-500 bible study program from Logos, “the original languages” package in the new improved series X version no less, and I rarely use it(!) except for the various electronic references that I don’t otherwise have, the OLB is that much more practical. It’s better at doing the kind of searches I usually do, and it’s easy for copy and paste functions. And it’s free, unless you want some copyrighted translations.

I’ve used the OLB program and several others since the 286/386 days, and I have done a lot of comparisons. It’s weak points are that it’s install routine is sort of clumsy although that has improved of late (it’s not a big learning curve), and the windowing options have been glitchy and sometimes a hassle to deal with, but that too has been almost completely fixed. You can get a CD for like 30 bucks and the NKJV is included in the price, a $5 royalty value, and it makes the install process a bit easier. It’s not a point and click and your done thing, but it is not hard to get yourself set up. If you do get it, I’d be more than happy to do phone in tech support and get you oriented.

You can download about everything you need from the internet

http://www.onlinebible.net/

and you can get a bunch of add on modules, including some on Bullenger and Scofield and Darby and many more at

http://www.ccel.org/olb/

But the NKJV costs $5 dollars to activate. :o

Happy trails!

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Rolf – I’m still waiting for your response to my post 65 about the meaning of strongs 5561 “to come” or “make room”. I keep bringing it up, not so much because that point is so important, but because I’m observing that you may be developing a pattern of aversion that may become indicative and thus subversive to our discussion. When I answer you with a point counter point, and you don’t reply, you are halting the otherwise productive nature of our discussion.

Also, same issue with my correction of godrulz about Arminianism being linked to open theism via God’s foreknowledge and more importantly, God’s immutability. Although I am not sure that you read my correction to godrulz on that issue. Please read post 68 and 77. I would hope that you would stand corrected about all that. Both the Calvinist and the Arminian grant God is immutable in the classic sense, meaning no change. The Calvinist is much more consistent with that foundational precept, while the Arminian is very inconsistent. Only the open view denies the classical version of God’s immutability, so that is where the lines should be drawn, we are most certainly not Arminian, we are not a subset of Arminian, if anything, the Arminian’s hold to some of our conclusions, which is hardly the basis for saying we are Arminian. Both the Satanist and the Christian want “good” things in their life (keep their belongings, don’t get murdered, don’t get sick, don’t brake a leg, etc.), but such an agreement does not make them of the same mindset. Foundational issues matter, and arguably there is no deeper foundational matter than the immutability of God that makes Calvinism unique from all other Christian theologies. And Arminian theology accepts the same precept, but is way less consistent with it.

You said
(1) 1way--what point have you made supposedly substantiated by Scripture that I have not responded to? (2) The point (2) which you highlight in red is scriptural. See the 15th verse of chapter 3

(1) My post #78 was all about the meaning of the words “towards us”/”usward”. You chose to respond to Helmut84 in a theological/philosophical and tangent way, I choose to simply offer what God’s revealed word says it means.

:o (I like my approach way better than yours, yours is too subjective, and mine relies simply on scripture’s development for what “towards us” means.)

I just read the text that lead up to the use of the phrase/term, I included the fact that the author said that He wrote a two epistle wide thematically connected writing which further highlighted who the “toward us” are. Of special note was verse 2Pet 2.9 where those who Peter had in mind was called titles/names that are hallmarks for God’s special chosen people Israel/the Jews/the circumcision. Please re-read that post to know what I am talking about.

(2) Biblical and righteous are two very different things. It’s also biblical that man does not need a savior since he is not fallen “if you just stop reading the bible prior to the fall”. “My point is biblical” is not a sufficient claim unless you infer, and I grant you probably meant it this next way, unless you infer that it passes the scrutiny of the entire bible, or said more simply, it conforms to the whole bible.

This is at the heart of our debate/disagreement. Of course you think your view is biblically supported/derived and mine is wrong. I never said that you can not find any scripture that you think supports your view. I am saying that your view is wrong in that it does not conform to scripture with nearly the amount of agreement and bible wide fit that the open view happily enjoys. It’s an issue of objectivity and presuppositions and a man’s ability to “humbly” hold these loose enough to give God’s word a serious examination to see if these things are so or not (have a teachable spirit). The problem with many people in understanding/accepting the open view, is that of a paradigm shift. You have to not just change your mind about a key thing here or simply accept a new idea there, no, you ultimately have to jettison your old mindset about God and the bible, only then can you appropriately understand/accept the new paradigm.

The longsuffering of the Lord is salvation.
This is true, no doubt about it, and like God says, He wills/counsels that all make room for repentance. Salvation, especially getting saved, applies to the unsaved world just as much as it applies to us who were saved.

Like I asked before, do you believe in OSAS? If you do, then the patience of the Lord displayed as He terrys from making His second coming makes no difference in one’s eternal security. Your ideas sounds like the verse implies, so that the saved do not go to hell, God terries from His second coming. And that is nonsense, if we are secure, than nothing in heaven or earth could alter that security, it is anti-biblical to assume that God’s terrying may otherwise change what He says is eternally secure.

Here is the contextual development.
The false teaching was that nothing has changed, your God has either forgotten you or is not able to come back. The truth is that just as in the case of the flood, God has left large expanses of time in faithfulness to His word, He is supernatural, He has not forgotten us and the faithfulness of His word, He will return and the earth will not again experience a world wide flood. And remember that in God’s longsuffering toward us, in that He desires that none go to hell, we were also saved by His patient kindness, so remember the goodness and faithfulness of God and dismiss these false accusers for the foolishness that they are.

You can say that the longsuffering is about us because we were saved by God’s longsuffering, God could have stopped His terrying and returned a long time ago and wrap everything up and we would have never been born, let alone saved. So we should be thankful that the Lord has terried long enough to give us the chance to make room for salvation. Same with everyone else who should make room for salvation, they are no less important to God than we were prior to being saved.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 04:22 PM
While we are waiting for Rolf to respond, consider more teaching from scripture about man's ability to seek God and respond to the gospel message.



Paul is writing to us, about the unsaved pagans in the Areopagus, this is his apologetic attempt at witnessing and evangelism.

(Ac 17:22-32 NKJV)
“22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 "for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 (1) "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, (2) does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 (3) "Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 (4.a) "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 (4.b) "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 (5) "for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 (6) "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, (7) but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. (8) He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, "We will hear you again on this matter."”

God through Paul argues that:

(1) God is the creator of the universe

(2) God does not dwell in manmade temples

(3) God is not worshiped by manmade things, God is the giver of life and all of creation

(4.a) God made all the nations from one Ancestry, He split up their language and can even respond against sinful Rome (and unbelieving Israel)* to accomplish His will by bringing redemption to the world, even to be as God’s minister for wrath for our good, to the extent that they make the evil doers afraid.

* = (because of all sin, not just the Jews and Rome, Jesus willingly laid down His own life for His own purposes)

(4.b) "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; !!!

(5) All of creation owes our very existence to God. And God is much like us, He is not like dead idols.

(6) God is just and merciful.

(7) “but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.”

God commands everyone everywhere to repent to escape the judgment to come.

(8) Paul backs it all up with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of our faith. So if you believe and trust in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the other points of Paul’s speech, then you must believe that unsaved man can and should seek and find God.


Notice that He says that God wants all men to repent, and also to seek the Lord, to grope for God though He is not far from each one of us. There should be no doubt that any and every man can and should seek after God, He is near all of us, and God commands everyone to repent, after all He created all men of all nations to seek and find Him.

godrulz
February 29th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Open Theists are certainly different than Arminians. Calvinists and Arminians consider the OV heretical. OV and Arminians claim to believe in genuine freedom of the will, though it is logically hard to defend this from an Arminian perspective (since exhaustive foreknowledge is only possible if there are not alternative choices that could be made at the last second...i.e. difference between certainty/actuality and possibility). Calvinists emphasize predestination as the reason for knowledge. Arminians support libertarian freedom but emphasize simple foreknowledge without controlling decrees.

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 06:50 PM
1Way--OSAS is not in the Bible. I never heard of it, and the one semi-explanation you gave of it was, to me, very muddy. Could you simplify by just stating what OSAS is an acronym for?

Perhaps I sometimes fail to respond to certain points you want my view on because I often just respond to the gist of your posts. Your posts are so large that for me to respond to them point by point, my post in response would have to be humongous. You may have noticed that I don't like to put up large posts. Better a little that can be dealt with throroughly than an avalanche of verbosity which can only be handled by a massive post. It takes few words to voice an objection, but many to clarify or explain points.

If you want an answer on a point, don't throw that point in with multiple lenghty paragraphs, and do be specific. Rather than say, "you didn't answer my post!," simply say, "How then can you respond to--and then state book, chapter, verse."

In other instances, I believe that I have given answers which you have not recognized as answers because MANY times, you later come back with another post, the answer to which I had largely explained in a recent prior post which you didn't seem to take notice of or recognise as an answer.

Rather than complain generally about no responses, be specific in terms of book, chapter, and verse.

OSAS sounds like a Nazi military organisation and I have not read all of the Rise and fall of the third Reich. Explain what OSAS means in terms of the Scriptures you use to justify it, and how each of those verses teaches OSAS. Now I will for the next hour try to winnow your posts for something I need to respond to, but I will tend to bypass those points of yours I have made points against already.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 06:52 PM
godrulz - In other words, since the issue of immutability is the foundational difference that matters: Classic view/closed view
= God does not change in any way
= everyone except the open view

Open view
= God does change in significant ways
= no one but the open view Also many who are not well informed conveniently swap back and forth as the particular situation seems to afford. It is this notion of classic immutability that all the central and unique aspects of Calvinistic theology rests upon. If you have no classic immutability, then Calvinism along with it’s huge inconsistent following disintegrates, it does not fall, it does not brake down, it is gone.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Rolf – This is not my bible against your bible (understanding). This is about our personal differences of opinion between you and me. I was specific, take the translation issue of 2Pet 3.9 for example. You said it should be “come to”, I demonstrated how that is wrong according to the same translation you were supposedly defending, it should be “make room”. You have not responded. Such unresponsiveness, in the light of repeated attempts at getting you to respond may constitute a charge of evasiveness. I do not deal lightly with insincere posters, if you are willing to engage in mature respectable bible discussions, then become more responsive or just admit that you don’t have the time.

OSAS is an acronym for once saved always saved, I just did a simple right click search on this page and found that I just recently gave the acronym to Helmet84.

Do you believe in eternal security, once saved always saved? If so, then your idea does not fit the contextual development of 2Pet 3.9 as demonstrated.

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 07:48 PM
1Way--You wanted a response concerning choreo, Strong's # 5562. Here 'tis: Translated "to come". Your understanding of longsuffering as a space of time for His elect "to come" to repentance is completely valid. A space of time is necessary. There may be those who are elect who have not even yet been physically born. Their birth may yet be centuries ahead. However long it takes for all those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to appear on earth, hear the gospel and believe to the saving of their soul, for that long this old world will rock on. How do you disagree? That in no way disagrees with anything I have said. If you believe it does, just point out in what way.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 08:17 PM
Rolf – In post 86 at the top of the post, I said
Rolf – I’m still waiting for your response to my post 65 about the meaning of strongs 5561 “to come” or “make room”. and then in post 91, although you probably did not see it yet, I said
I was specific, take the translation issue of 2Pet 3.9 for example. You said it should be “come to”, I demonstrated how that is wrong according to the same translation you were supposedly defending, it should be “make room”. but, instead of dealing with the contention we were having as just mentioned, you say
1Way--You wanted a response concerning choreo, Strong's # 5562. Here 'tis: Translated "to come". Your understanding of longsuffering as a space of time for His elect "to come" to repentance is completely valid. Lie, I did not ask for A RESPONSE CONCERNING CHOREO, I specifically and repeated asked for you to address the proper translation of that word in 2Pet 3.9 in light of my arguments that it should be rendered “to make room”, and you know this to be true because prior to my last post to you about that, you had been at least somewhat responsive.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Rolf – Here is my last post to you on this issue. Post 65, the one I specifically directed your attention to.


Rolf – I don’t know greek, I’ve never studied it. I know how to reference “reference works” and compare contextual use pretty well. I am in no way presenting to you my scholarship or my translation, because I do not know how to read Greek. I am using your translation to demonstrate it’s own inconsistency an inaccuracy.

This all be done using the KJV with the rendering of 2Pet 3.9, “come to”.

Here is the text in question
2Pet 3.9


2Pe 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I did a search for all occurrences of the same word for “come to”. John 21.25 was the only other occurrence, although as Jeremy points out, the same word in different forms have other occurrences.

Here is John 21.25


Joh 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

***Note*** A small section right here is removed from this post by simply granting that the word in question means just “could contain”, and not, “could not contain”. See post 65 for more info.


So here are those two verses again this time side by side, with the word in question highlighted in blue.


2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Now, so far, all I have shown you is that I can look up the same Greek word and compare two verses using the same word with the same voice tense mood according to my bible study program (the OnLineBible). The verses are all using the KJV, the Gree from the TR for searching and display only.

Now, this is my observation, it is not an argument I am making up. To examine the translation’s consistency, we can just look at the renderings to see how they come across. They are

“should come”
“could contain”

on the surface, they are both permitting ideas showing some ability of action.

Now, lets swap the rendering in the verses to see how the context fleshes things out. This is where the differences between these two renderings become more evident.


***Note*** A second small section right here is removed from this post by simply granting that the word in question means just “could contain”, and not, “could not contain”. See post 65 for more info.




2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all could contain repentance.

Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I do not suppose that even the world itself should come to the books that should be written. Amen.
Findings
In 2Pe 3.9 the general idea of “could contain” is roughly “have room for” or “make room for” etc. so this idea seems to fit pretty good with the sense in which it is used.

But, when you look at John 12.25, it does not fit very well. Consider this rendering in terms of action. “Come to” is the idea of “approaching” or “arriving at”. But the idea being graphically displayed in John 21.25 is not so much “approaching” or “arriving”, it’s about “having enough room”, the whole world may not have enough room for all the books ... so it’s a word about “having” or “making room” or as the text was rendered “containing”, “could contain”.

Assessment
This swapping of renderings would make 2Pet 3.9 into a reasonable verse, but John 21.25 is problematic at best, because what in the world would it matter if the world could or could not approach these books? John is not talking about the issue of world wide access to these books, but rather the idea is all about the enormity of such books and that the world could not “have enough room for” them, it “could not contain” them.

Also, I grant that the contextual use of a word does not determine the words meaning per say, but it can give good indicator’s of it’s appropriate use, and by comparing alternate renderings it can become easier to see what aspects of the rendering fits and what does not. So what I just did does not exactly limit the scope of the meaning of this word, but it does serve to demonstrate the inconsistency of the translation and that it’s contextual use is not I agreement with the dubious rending in 2Pet 3.9. The rendering in John 12.25 fits both verses just fine so that rendering passes the test, but the rendering in 2Pet 3.9 does not fit John 12.25 very well. Such observation indicates a dubious rendering since it is a very poor fit/bad in John 12.25.

In conclusion
Thus, based upon the translator’s treatment of this same word, it is reasonable to assume that “make room” is better than “should come”, it certainly fits into each context much more clearly, while “come to” hardly fit’s John 12.25 at all.

Again this is going strictly by their own translation work, I am simply observing the noticeable inconsistency with what they submitted was the correct renderings, and how the Pet rendering does not compare well while the John rendering does just fine. So please don’t misunderstand what has been presented for your consideration. This is not mocking the translators per say. This is demonstrating their own inconstancy and how these two examples serve to invalidate “come to” and validate “could contain”, “make room for”, “to make room for”. I know it can be hard to keep track of things, but what you just did was uncalled for.

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 08:30 PM
1Way--choreo is variously translated "be room to receive; can contain; can receive; come; contain; go; have place; receive" of these translations, each is made one time.
BUT in 2Pet 3:9 it is not a bare choreo. The word there is
choresai, and that is the place where it is translated to come; but that does not necessarily militate against your understanding of the text, for the real meaning of His longsuffering is that He is giving room, a space in time for them to come to repentance. Either way, I do not see how this alters our discussion. It fits in with both. It is just a matter of where you want an emphasis to be placed. The end result is the same. Isn't that true? Primarily the issue between our doctrinal differences is not that point at all. The issue is, did God intend by His longsuffering that none of humanity should perish ?
Did He intend by His longsuffering for "all" in the sense of each and everyone of humanity to repent, or did He intend by His longsuffering
that none of an elect number should perish; that "all" of that number xshould colme to repentance. One way, His longsuffering is self-defeating. The other way, the purpose of His longsuffering is realized.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Rolf – With all due respect, you have not remotely addressed what I offered you by way of argument/support reasoning. I gave an argument for why it should not be “come to”, but rather it should be “make room for”, yet when I read your response, I notice that you never once addressed my argument, not once.

So forgive me if I continue to wait for cogent pointed arguments from you.

One last comment, so what about eternal security, do you believe in OSAS? Yes or no?

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 08:55 PM
1Way--in a post above, you asked me to respond about #5561.
Well, #5561 is NOT in 2Pet 3:9. It is not there. The word in 2Pet. 3:9 is Strong's # 5562. Therefore, figuring you had made a typo, I took the liberty to speak concerning the only word of the two which is in 2Pet. 3:9. Chora has no part in 2 pet. 3:9, and I am not willing to add it in to the text.
I am looking at the Greek text of the Textus Receptus (TR). The word there is choresai and every translation I have seen translates it "to come." When I say every translation, I mean all the way from the KJV to the NRSV.

After looking at chora (#5561) I can see the point you were trying to make. The text you are reading from (is it a computerized text?) must be smeared or blurry. I remember looking at one of your posts and had trouble identifying some letters because of the quality of the lettering. Then I went to my TR greek text.

CHORE is different from CHORA. CHORA does, I agree, make the point you were making. Only one difficulty, mate: she ain't there. Why not junk that Greek (?) software and get a copy of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament edited by Jay Green, Sr. The Greek text is the TR. On the far right column is the KJV translation, and on the left is Green's literal translation. Best of all, 1Way, the Greek text is large, easily read, and is meticulously flawless. It could even prevent some stress in a long distance discussion of Scripture. This TR interlinear is a good buy and a valuable study tool for any Christian.

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 09:10 PM
1Way--Once save always saved ? Yes, in a sense I believe that, but I prefer to call it, if we want acronyms, POTS--Perseverance of the saints.
You see, OSAS has a flavor of, "It don't matter what--come drought or high water, living like a reprobate,cursing like and living like an AWOL sailor, buddy--you still awright." That is the flavor which OSAS has, and THAT OSAS is not true. But POTS IS true. POTS means Perseverance in the faith and holiness in accord with a real progressive sanctification. POTS is true. But OSAS no matter WHAT ain't true. "OSAS no matter what" really means, never saved in the first place.

But what has that got to do with 2 Pet. 3:9? In what way does the text of 2 Pet 3:9 rule out the possibility of POTS?? It does not touch on it.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 09:15 PM
Rolf – Thank you for the correction on the typo. You still are not dealing with my argument in the least. I am using your own argument against you. I am granting the translation’s use in order to show it’s inconsistency and contextual invalidity. If you have no counterpoints to make against my points, then I understand because evidently, although I have been repeatedly asking for your direct counterpoint response, you have presented no countering points against my points that serve very nicely to counter or dare I say refute your view as stated.

God_Is_Truth
February 29th, 2004, 09:27 PM
very nice post count 1Way! 1111. :up:

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Rolf – Your too much, OSAS means what it says you can not rightly read anything more into it than what it says, same with your P of TULIP, if anyone trashes that idea beyond what it actually means, then such a thing is also foolishness. You are a quack. P of TULIP means the same thing as eternal security as OSAS, there is no difference.

You were the one who brought up the idea that salvation is what is inferred by the verse about God’s longsuffering

and not only that

you also said that it is about those of us who are saved, not everyone, !!!

So somehow the Lord’s terrying is to show God’s unwillingness that the saved not go to hell! That is complete lunacy especially if you consider as you say that

if you are truly saved, you will end up in heaven, = eternal security, OSAS

so then to say that the Lord terry’s is an example of Him not desiring that the saved should not go to hell, instead they should have the ability to make room for repentance, is just contradictory nonsense because they are already saved, they have already made room for repentance, you can’t get saved once and then get saved again if you are already saved!

The double stated condition, in the positive and in the negative, i.e. none going to hell, all getting saved, clarifies that God counsels that all “without exception” should become saved.

(chuckles, I’ve seen some folks do flips in order to not stand corrected, but you are one vacillating confused person.)

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 09:43 PM
God is Truth - Thank you, but check out my last post, 101, it is funny what we are dealing with from Rolf. People have lost due respect for the bible "contextually understood", they just don't take in the full context prior to thinking that they know what some passage/verse means.

Rolf would have 2Pet 3.9b be about saved people (eternally secure, OSAS)

who should make room for getting saved and thus not go to hell,

apparently they should repent and get saved again, and again and again, and again. :radar: :confused: :nono: :chuckle:

lmwal931
February 29th, 2004, 09:56 PM
this is complicated. calvinism seems to be a invitation to quarrell about the very fine points. i will discuss one of calvin's points. you are not born into complete depravity. it is a learned behaviour which is taught you by our criminalized society. at ant time in your life you can repent, accept JESUS into your heart, and be gloriously saved. you have just exercised your free will. i believe in calvinism but i do not take it to the extreme that some do. use your free will, your common sense, and be receptive to the precious, loving, sweet HOLY SPIRIT and seek JESUS and you shall be saved. also don't try to put GOD in a box. HE can and will do everything that is in HIS will and i trust that will whether i know what it is or not.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 10:10 PM
Imwal931 - It is complicating, but it is not all about very fine points. It's about a God who can not change at all, or one who changes in dramatic ways. It's about aligning our faith to God's word, even if it makes man's thinking look bad.

There is a world of many different views and many different ideas. But God's word is true and He is faithful. We have an obligation to determine the truth from God and spread that gospel message, any other message is false and does not bless God or the world.

So here’s a very basic question about the God of the bible.

Do you believe that God changes in any way, or that He can not change at all?

I’d give examples but I don’t want to lead your response. But here is what some say about all this. Some speak about Him being in the eternal now, that He exists outside of time, that He never learns anything, etc. And some say that God is in relation to time much like everything else is, except that our life has no end, and His has no end nor beginning.

It can be a very interesting issue, and also when folks are being stubbornly subversive, it can become somewhat painful too. But the Lord comforts those who rest in Him, we are well cared for.

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 10:21 PM
1Way--you misrepresent. It is not at ALL about people who are already saved not going to hell. 2 Pet. 3:9 is about elect people who have not YET heard the gospel and not YET come to repentance. Because of the longsuffering of God, those elect ones who are yet future will be born and sooner or later hear and believe.
The fact that perhaps 100 years in the future someone may be born who is one of the elect does not at all mean that they are not NOW among the elect. Jesus still spoke of those who had not yet been saved but would be in the future as His sheep.
Peter was speaking of the entire body of the elect who, for one reason or another, had not yet come to faith. Though not yet converted, they were still elect, still sheep, still "His people." When Peter said "usward," he was also speaking of those who had come to faith in the period of His longsuffering. The fact that Peter was perhaps referring to some who HAD been converted did not mean that they were not among those who made up a part of the "usward" who had benefitted by His longsuffering. From your last post, I now see WHY you thought OSAS militates against my view of 2 Pet. 3:9.
One of the first rules of debate/discussion is, "define your terms."
We did not do that. Toward that end--

Since God's Covenant of Redmption ALWAYS encompasses both those who HAVE been saved and those who are YET to be saved, and because all things--both those things which have already come to pass and those things which are yet future-- are encompassed by God's one all-encompassing decree, Reformed people view what has been and what is yet to be as equally certain.
And that is the way the Apostle Paul viewed Scriptural truths.

Example: God has "raised us up and made us sit together with" Christ in heavenly places. By that, Paul meant that even though we had not yet ascended, yet in God's view we were nevertheless, by our being "IN" Christ, already sitting with Him in heavenly places.
Paul speaks in the same manner in Romans 8: 28-30."
This is longer than I thought I would be on this forum today, but if it in any way clarified any matter or relieved any tension, it was well worth it.

Rolf Ernst
February 29th, 2004, 10:49 PM
1Way---God is absolutely immutable. He is infinitely perfect in all His being. If He could change in anyway and become more perfect, He was not infinitely perfect before. There would be to some extent a way in which He was not as much God as He became later.
If He changed in a way that made Him less perfect, He would no longer be the God He was.
Immutability is also an aspect of His eternal existence. In our mutability we show our flaws. We are not endlessly perfect, neither are we endless in our being. What God is, He is that eternally. If He were mutable, He could not be endlessly (eternally) what He is.
When Moses asked, "whom shall I say sent me?" God responded, tell them "I am that I am has sent you." This was to assure the children of Israel the what He had promised to Abraham (His delivering them from bondage) would surely come to pass.
We cannot say, I am that I am. We are mutable, always fluxing between what were were, what we are now, and what we SHALL be in the future. From the likes of us, Israel could not be certain that we would stand good for our promise of long ago; but when He said, "I am that I am." He was assuring the children with His immutability. The promise would be fulfilled according to His original purpose precisely because He is the eternally immutable.

1Way
February 29th, 2004, 11:09 PM
Rolf – You said
1Way--you misrepresent. It is not at ALL about people who are already saved not going to hell. 2 Pet. 3:9 is about elect people who have not YET heard the gospel and not YET come to repentance. Because of the longsuffering of God, those elect ones who are yet future will be born and sooner or later hear and believe.
I disagree, yet your clarification does set part of my representation as being off base, so to that extent, thank you, I humbly stand corrected, you did not mean that the saved should become saved over and over again. But now the picture for you is no better.

The verse says that

all should be saved,
none be lost.

It says them both. All and none. You are erring in just focusing on the one that you think fits your view. You like the all should be saved part, but say that all is not without exception. But that is not right since He also said that none should go to hell! So God desires/counsels that ALL without exception should become saved, and concerning the one’s who already are saved, then they have obeyed the will of God.

Also, given your view of “individual election unto salvation”, and the P and L of TULIP which is eternal security and Limited atonement, God’s terrying does nothing to support your views, no matter if it’s one minuet or one million years, Christ’s terrying from His second coming is rendered meaningless by your ill fit view, because no matter how long He tarries, whoever will be saved, will be saved and nothing can change that eternally secure issue. So you are not being consistent with your own views and the contextual development of this passage.

So now you suggest that God has in mind that Jesus terries to demonstrate His longsuffering so that those who absolutely will be saved (but aren’t yet), should not go to hell, but instead, Christ’s longsuffering demonstrated by His terrying is in hopes that the unsaved elect should make room for repentance. :chuckles: Again, this is the same nonsense, only for the elect who are already secure in their salvation, but who are not already saved. :confused: :radar: Your hole is just as deep as it was before.

Also, if you were to remain consistent with your views, then these so called “not yet saved elect” “who will absolutely be saved”, “are as saved as they will ever be already”, since creation or from before that they have been eternally secure (!!!), there is nothing anyone could do to alter their eternal destiny, so in reality, if (and oh what a big if) you were to remain consistent, you would never say “the unsaved elect”, even if they will not be born for another hundred years, they are all just as much saved now as they were from the foundation of the world.

Thankfully God is not so confused. God is plainly referring to the whole world of people, everyone without exception should become saved and not go to hell. That is the natural plain reading of the text, and it also includes you and me who are saved by looking back to the time when we needed to get saved, and we then made room for repentance and became saved. No contextual problems, it’s a perfect fit.

Don’t take your faith and stuff it into the bible, take the bible and conform your faith to it!

1Way
March 1st, 2004, 12:48 AM
Rolf – Thank you for your extra time offered, I appreciate the caring involved. I hope the consistency and reflective point counterpoint making will improve as time goes on. So far you have much room for improvement. As to your post 106, you said
1Way---God is absolutely immutable. He is infinitely perfect in all His being. If He could change in anyway and become more perfect, He was not infinitely perfect before. There would be to some extent a way in which He was not as much God as He became later.
If He changed in a way that made Him less perfect, He would no longer be the God He was. You are not seeing your own presuppositions and paradigm shift away from God’s word.

Your entire reasoning places change as the crucible for what it means to be perfectly divine. God does not teach that perfect changelessness is the standard of perfect divinity or goodness. God teaches that perfect goodness and righteousness and a holy character, that these are the standard by which the divine is perfect and good, not changlessness.

You go on to say
Immutability is also an aspect of His eternal existence. In our mutability we show our flaws. We are not endlessly perfect, neither are we endless in our being. What God is, He is that eternally. If He were mutable, He could not be endlessly (eternally) what He is. This is also very wrong. God appreciates our ability to change dramatically, and our salvation is a great demonstration of change being a very godly and good thing. Also, humans who get saved will be transformed dramatically


1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Co 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. So change is a very good and godly thing. We become
Raised in incorruption
Raised in glory
Raised in power
Raised a spiritual body

So your right that God does not need to change the way man needs to change like all these ways, God already is that way, He always has been that way.

Notice that this change is described in words strikingly similar to one’s used about God
Ro 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man——and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
See, the idea is of non-corruption, not non-change. God does not teach that He is corrupt, He teaches His unchanging goodness and righteousness and justice, all His divine attributes are faithful and true.

The way God does change is simply in the ways that God says He does change, like when He repents from doing what He said or thought He would do as in Jer 18 1-10 “the Potter and the clay” and demonstrated in Jonah 3.4&10, or like when He became flesh and dwelt among us as in the incarnation.

If you deny that the meaningful substantial change that is represented in the incarnation, then you are bordering on terrible judgments from God for so doing.
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. This warning does two important things.

1) It warns against false teachings that deny the truth of the incarnation

2) It demonstrates just how fussy God is about certain details, because if you treat Christ’ incarnation wrongly, you are joining league with the Antichrist. And this issue is very simple. Change is not a hard concept, change is the opposite of no change, there is no middle ground, either there is change, or there is not. If Christ did not become flesh and dwell among us, then such would conform to your unchanging God, but if God the Son truly become flesh and dwelt among us, then without a doubt God changed in a most dramatic way.

Change and become are practically the same idea, where becoming is a demonstration of a change. Every change is from one state to another, and we say that state one became state two and so on. So if we just consider these extremely basic ideas we easily realize that God is not perfectly changeless.

Same with Him repenting and not doing what He said and or thought He would do. Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay and Jonah 3.4,10 are conclusive that God repents and does not always do what He said or thought He would do.

The God of the bible is the living God who changes as He sees fit to do.

Rolf Ernst
March 4th, 2004, 04:10 PM
1Way--I've been away and am now busy. See ya later

Rolf Ernst
March 5th, 2004, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Rolf – Thank you for your extra time offered, I appreciate the caring involved. I hope the consistency and reflective point counterpoint making will improve as time goes on. So far you have much room for improvement. As to your post 106, you said You are not seeing your own presuppositions and paradigm shift away from God’s word.

Your entire reasoning places change as the crucible for what it means to be perfectly divine. God does not teach that perfect changelessness is the standard of perfect divinity or goodness. God teaches that perfect goodness and righteousness and a holy character, that these are the standard by which the divine is perfect and good, not changlessness.

You go on to say This is also very wrong. God appreciates our ability to change dramatically, and our salvation is a great demonstration of change being a very godly and good thing. Also, humans who get saved will be transformed dramatically

So change is a very good and godly thing. We become
Raised in incorruption
Raised in glory
Raised in power
Raised a spiritual body

So your right that God does not need to change the way man needs to change like all these ways, God already is that way, He always has been that way.

Notice that this change is described in words strikingly similar to one’s used about God
See, the idea is of non-corruption, not non-change. God does not teach that He is corrupt, He teaches His unchanging goodness and righteousness and justice, all His divine attributes are faithful and true.

The way God does change is simply in the ways that God says He does change, like when He repents from doing what He said or thought He would do as in Jer 18 1-10 “the Potter and the clay” and demonstrated in Jonah 3.4&10, or like when He became flesh and dwelt among us as in the incarnation.

If you deny that the meaningful substantial change that is represented in the incarnation, then you are bordering on terrible judgments from God for so doing. This warning does two important things.

1) It warns against false teachings that deny the truth of the incarnation

2) It demonstrates just how fussy God is about certain details, because if you treat Christ’ incarnation wrongly, you are joining league with the Antichrist. And this issue is very simple. Change is not a hard concept, change is the opposite of no change, there is no middle ground, either there is change, or there is not. If Christ did not become flesh and dwell among us, then such would conform to your unchanging God, but if God the Son truly become flesh and dwelt among us, then without a doubt God changed in a most dramatic way.

Change and become are practically the same idea, where becoming is a demonstration of a change. Every change is from one state to another, and we say that state one became state two and so on. So if we just consider these extremely basic ideas we easily realize that God is not perfectly changeless.

Same with Him repenting and not doing what He said and or thought He would do. Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay and Jonah 3.4,10 are conclusive that God repents and does not always do what He said or thought He would do.

The God of the bible is the living God who changes as He sees fit to do.

Rolf Ernst
March 5th, 2004, 05:27 PM
1Way--If you think a meaningful substantial change in the Word of God occurred at the incarnation of Christ, what do you do with Col. 2:9, "...in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."?

There was no alteration in Him by His incarnation at all. He laid aside the outward manifestation of His glory, but God had many times done that before as He appeared to men in theophanies.

For centuries the church has maintained that in Jesus Christ there is both a human nature, and the being of God; two natures in one person with no mixture of their identities. Jesus, in his humanity, never became partially God nor did His diety become less than full Godhood--"In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The fact that He took upon himself the form of a servant-- "tabernacled" among us-- in no way argues any alteration in Himself.
Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, grew in stature, strength, and wisdom. As a man, he knew hunger, thirst, and weariness but learned obedience rather than disobedience by the things which he suffered. As a human, he at all times progressed in wisdom,
knowledge and strength at a rate which pleased God. He was "tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin."
His twofold nature has been acknowledged by the church for centuries. How you draw from it the idea that acknowledging His immutability denies Christ has come in the flesh is beyond me.
The Bible affirms His immutabilily alongside His advent in the flesh--"Jesus Christ--the same yesterday, today and forever." He.13:9

It is on the fact of His twofold nature that many stumble. They read something which pertains to His humanity (like for instance his not yet knowing--in his humanity-- the time of God's return in
judgment) and then, proudly parading their ignorance, they crow triumphantly-- "see, if God knew all things, he would not be ignorant of that." So often, the ignorance of blasphemers makes my stomach turn with revulsion over their proud arrogance and stupidity. They are so unschooled in scripture that they many times have no text upon which to base their proud and baseless claims, yet their pride is so great that they don't let that slow their pratings.

I close this post on a cheerful note, 1Way--Think of this: as a man, in the nature of His full humanity, suffering the greatest of pain He sinlessly, "bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned He stood" and "sealed my pardon with His blood--hallelujah, what a Savior!" Let us remember that everytime we close a door on our finger.

godrulz
March 5th, 2004, 07:21 PM
The incarnation involved change in the relations in the Godhead. The Word was not always flesh, but became flesh and tabernacled among us in space-time history. This was not so before creation or 4 B.C. This change was not for the better or worse. God remained perfect endlessly.

1Way
March 5th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Rolf – Quoting my post without quoting my quotations is hardly reflective of what I said.

I realize that you probably just hit the quote function and copied what was there, but that function does not carry the questions within that post, so you are not quoting my entire post, you are only quoting the unquoted parts. So your quotation of my post does not compare well with what I actually posted, it’s not really a quote of my post, it’s a very partial subset. I’ve mentioned this “issue” to the webmaster, and they prefer it this way so as to inhibit quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes sort of thing, I suppose that many people do not know how to manipulate the quotation code to reformat them in a more reasonable fashion. I do not completely agree with their decision on this regard, but such is life.

If nothing changes with the quotation feature, then perhaps you could handle each quotation manually, especially the quotes that are foundational to the point being made, and I basically never quote unless it is the foundation for my response. There is quotation and text formatting options in the “create a post” window, but as for me, I do all my formatting manually myself.


I accept the incarnation, which is that God BECAME flesh and dwelt among us. If God did not undergo the change

from previously not being incarnate in the flesh,

and then becoming God incarnate in the flesh,

then you are bucking very clear scripture that says the incarnation was a very real change in God, including a harsh warning against nonconformity to this teaching.
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. Now I’m not saying your not saved nor are a false prophet/teacher per say, but you seem to violate the scriptures teachings about the incarnation.

You said
1Way--If you think a meaningful substantial change in the Word of God occurred at the incarnation of Christ, what do you do with Col. 2:9, "...in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."? ??? That was a really bad response. I completely accept Col. 2:9. What varies between your view and mine is not Col 2.9, but your philosophically interjected idea that God can not change = classical immutability!

As you should know by now, I humbly accept the bible when it often and proudly demonstrates that God changes, so, since God can and does change, there is absolutely no problem with my acceptance and conformity to Col 2:9. The ONLY lack of conformity I think you could imply by your remark, is that I don’t comply with your idea of classical divine immutability. And as such I am taken back by your comparison. Your philosophical views are not to be equated with the same authority as God’s word, nor should it violate God’s word, like in this example where God changed via the incarnation and you suggest that represents no change in God at all.


Prior to the incarnation, was God manifest in the flesh?


Has God the Son existed in the flesh from eternity past?


Obviously not, otherwise the teaching that God “became” flesh would be a contradiction to the truth of the matter.


Had God previously humbled Himself to the point of death?


There is only reason that God did that ONCE and for all (Rom 6:10), so surely this once only event of God humbling Himself for the first and only time unto death represented a change in God.

Lastly, I realize how the closed view has a clear tendency to rationalize away these changes as being “seeming” and not “meaningful and real”, so I present to you “the potter and the clay” (Jer 18 1-11) where God teaches that He has the right to repent from doing what He previously said and/or thought He would do. For example, if we accept the closed view that says that God never changes in any way, then the “Potter and the clay” teaching is an anti-biblical teaching, but as we know, all scripture is meaningful and biblically united, so then the false presumption of truth is that God never changes, lets reject that manmade precept in order to accept divine mutability, but lets not reject God’s word on divine mutability in order to protect the manmade precept of classical immutability.

As per the potter and the clay, God even repents from doing what He previous thought He would do. And the closed theist is done, he has no sufficient bible legs to stand on, because Jonah 3:4& esp. 10, combined with the Potter and the clay (among many other such teachings) absolutely deny the closed view.

Rolf Ernst
March 6th, 2004, 01:43 PM
1Way--you are trying to confuse the being of God with the manifestation of God. Get this, and get it good--"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH" That is Bible, friend. GET IT. How DARE you say that His being manifested in the flesh worked a change in His divine excellence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everytime He appeared in the tabernacle in the shekinah glory, it was an alteration of the way He WAS MANIFESTING HIMSELF.
When He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and on the mount, it was a different way of Him manifesting Himself--always
HIMSELF. When He tabernacled among us, the Apostle said of that time, "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH." 1 Tim. 3:16 If you don't like the Apostle's statement on that point, you take it up with him.

I believe something you apparently NEVER WILL: "Jesus Christ--the SAME yesterday, and today and forever."

Even you might be amazed if you took the time to winnow your comments on this forum to see how many times you have pontificated points without any scriptural basis.

You say I have made comments that were not Scripture based but were merely philosophical. Any time you make that charge, it would be only civil if you took the TIME TO BE SPECIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT have I said which is only a philosophical point. As long as you don't have the civility to be specific, you don't have to defend your charge. Is THAT why you are NOT spoecific??????????????

Rolf Ernst
March 6th, 2004, 02:20 PM
1Way--Jeremiah 18 portrays a nation altering its course in response to divine counsel. God is not the one who repents.
The nation is the one which alters or changes its course. It moves from disobedience to obedience, or from obedience to disobedience and God judges it accordingly. If He did NOT judge accordingly THEN He would have altered in His being. He extends
frogiveness upon repentance. He does NOT upon impenitence. If a nation turned from its wicked way unto obedience and God did NOT remove from it the threatening which He had earlier made, THEN He would be changing in His essence.
When He promises a nation prosperity and IT changes to a nation of wickedness, the only way He can be faithful to Himself is to judge that nation accordingly. The nation ITSELF moved in relation to Him from a state of His pleasure to a state of displeasing rebellion. It would be a massive and monumental alteration of who He is if He did not retract that promise of blessing. The use of the word repent here signifies no more than the fact that God WILL alter his course toward a nation from blessing it to cursing it, or from cursing it to blessing it.
God's actions towards nations are predicated upon their conduct before Him. Do you want a God who will NOT alter from the blessing of a nation to judging a nation if it turns to wickedness, or do you want a God who will NOT withdraw a threatened judgment if a nation turns back from evil to obedience.
That is what is taking place in Jer. 18 and you are using THAT as an excuse to charge Him with NOT being immutable,
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, CHARLIE BROWN !!!!!!!!!!!!

God_Is_Truth
March 6th, 2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--you are trying to confuse the being of God with the manifestation of God. Get this, and get it good--"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH" That is Bible, friend. GET IT. How DARE you say that His being manifested in the flesh worked a change in His divine excellence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everytime He appeared in the tabernacle in the shekinah glory, it was an alteration of the way He WAS MANIFESTING HIMSELF.
When He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and on the mount, it was a different way of Him manifesting Himself--always
HIMSELF. When He tabernacled among us, the Apostle said of that time, "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH." 1 Tim. 3:16 If you don't like the Apostle's statement on that point, you take it up with him.

I believe something you apparently NEVER WILL: "Jesus Christ--the SAME yesterday, and today and forever."

Even you might be amazed if you took the time to winnow your comments on this forum to see how many times you have pontificated points without any scriptural basis.

You say I have made comments that were not Scripture based but were merely philosophical. Any time you make that charge, it would be only civil if you took the TIME TO BE SPECIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT have I said which is only a philosophical point. As long as you don't have the civility to be specific, you don't have to defend your charge. Is THAT why you are NOT spoecific??????????????

what does it mean when you say Jesus IS God then? if he is just manifest in flesh, then is it correct to actually say Jesus IS God? wouldn't it be better to say "Jesus is just a manifestation of the real God?"

Rolf Ernst
March 6th, 2004, 04:28 PM
God is truth--Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. In Him are both the nature of man, and the nature of God. You cannot separate Him from His human nature. You cannot separate Him from His diety. He is both God and man. He is NOT the son of A man, even though He referred to Himself as the son of man because He had taken upon Himself "the FORM of a servant." He is both fully human, and fully God.
In His Diety, He is the Word of God spoken of in John chapter one--the creator of all. In His humanity, He is descended from the loins of David through Mary.

Turbo
March 6th, 2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--Jeremiah 18 portrays a nation altering its course in response to divine counsel. God is not the one who repents. According to the text, He does. There's no getting around that.

God_Is_Truth
March 6th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

God is truth--Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. In Him are both the nature of man, and the nature of God. You cannot separate Him from His human nature. You cannot separate Him from His diety. He is both God and man. He is NOT the son of A man, even though He referred to Himself as the son of man because He had taken upon Himself "the FORM of a servant." He is both fully human, and fully God.
In His Diety, He is the Word of God spoken of in John chapter one--the creator of all. In His humanity, He is descended from the loins of David through Mary.

what do you mean when you say he is "fully God". if he is just a manefestation of God then how is Jesus ANY different from say the burning bush? would you also say that the burning bush was fully God?

godrulz
March 6th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Heb. 13:8 Jesus is the same...this is not in the context of incarnation/kenosis didactic material (Phil. 2 deals with this, but the context there is humility/servanthood as exemplified by the incarnation). Jesus' character is always consistent as is His ministry. However, the Word was not the same yesterday, today, forever in every sense due to the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection. He maintained a relationship with the Father and Spirit, retained His Deity, but changed by taking on a human nature as well.

This verse does not mean the Word/Son is immutable in every sense. Classical theology (conservative J.I Packer, etc.) understands that the incarnation led to a change in the triune God. The Word became flesh, but was not always flesh. He is now the glorified God-Man at the right hand of the Father (I Tim. 2:5 one mediator, the MAN Christ Jesus). The Word was not the Christ before He came to earth. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the 'anointed one' refers to Himself on earth as the God-Man, not His name before creation.

His birth, death, resurrection, and ascension are space-time changes in His experience (e.g. He did not die as Deity trillions of years ago). He did not cease being God while on earth, but did not have a human nature before the incarnation.

This is conservative, orthodox, biblical theology. Perhaps we are misunderstanding Rolf, or His definition of immutability is Platonic, rather than biblical (and thus needs to conform to revelation, not reason).

1Way
March 7th, 2004, 12:39 PM
God is Truth – and Turbo (below)

God is Truth - LOL, excellent point! Rolf doesn’t like the factual reality of the unavoidable change in God the Son when He became flesh, not just was nearly like flesh, but actually became flesh and dwelt among us. So he speaks about it loosely as though this was no “real” change at all in order to protect his preconceptions.

Was the incarnation just an epiphany, an illusion/dream as in anything less than God the Son, or was He fully God the Son in person?

I’d say fully God the Son in person, no doubt about it, and since He had not been God incarnate (born of a virgin) from eternity passed, the change in the person of God is unavoidable and rather significant to world history. :o



Turbo - Your point is most excellent too. Rolf along with a myriad of closed theists, in a vain attempt of protecting their ideology (i.e. Greek philosophy), they say ...

that whenever God’s word says that He repented and did not do what He said (or thought) He was going to do,

that actually means that ...

God did not repent, (!!!)

thus necessarily implying that He did do what He said or thought He was going to do. The contextual development squashes yet another closed view theist! I love God’s truth, I love God, He is so good and true and it’s so bad that folks like Ralf refuse to trust God at His word without

voiding it of meaning
and replacing it with nothing,
or worse yet, contradicting it with their manmade traditions.

The scriptures say over and over again, that God repented, but we have the closed theists say that such texts mean that He did not repent. Repenting actually means to not repent. Could they get it any more wrong than diametrically opposing the truth? :chuckle:

Turbo
March 9th, 2004, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Turbo - Your point is most excellent too. Rolf along with a myriad of closed theists, in a vain attempt of protecting their ideology (i.e. Greek philosophy), they say ...

that whenever God’s word says that He repented and did not do what He said (or thought) He was going to do,

that actually means that ...

God did not repent, (!!!)

thus necessarily implying that He did do what He said or thought He was going to do. Or they think He never thought He would do what He said He would do, and what He said He thought He would do. He may have said He would do something, but He knew all along He wouldn't and never had any intention of doing what He said. :think:

1Way
March 11th, 2004, 06:41 PM
Acts9_12Out – I know your busy, but I haven’t heard from you on this yet, and just wondered if you caught it the first time. Also I thought I’d add a link to the OnLineBible’s Mac page, here it is.

http://www.online-bible.com/maconlinebible.html

It has two or three Greek texts available for download for free, including Revised Thayer's Greek English Lexicon. And again, on the IBM clone side, even some of Bullenger is available from the CCEL.org site. :o


***Beginning of repeat post***

Acts9_12Out – You said
I wish I had a program that automatically inserted greek fonts. I use the vb tags bold, size=3 and font=symbol and manually type in the letters. I have been studying Greek with Bob Hill for almost 8 years now, and know many of the "popular" passages by heart in the original. BTW, excellent points raised. Just think if I inserted "come" into my passage... I use the OnLineBible (OLB) and it does it for me automatically just fine. I run a windows machine, but I would think the same should hold true for Mac. The only issue is that one or two letters from the online bible’s Greek font do not correspond to the Greek font used in symbol, so you might have to do an occasional edit here and there. It is a great freeware program. It is wonderful for searching, you can even search using Greek text, you can do proximity searches which find occurrences within a “passage” not just within a “verse”! It has phrase and word search and many Boolean search functions.

The OLB has great third party freeware add on modules. I own a $400-500 bible study program from Logos, “the original languages” package in the new improved series X version no less, and I rarely use it(!) except for the various electronic references that I don’t otherwise have, the OLB is that much more practical. It’s better at doing the kind of searches I usually do, and it’s easy for copy and paste functions. And it’s free, unless you want some copyrighted translations.

I’ve used the OLB program and several others since the 286/386 days, and I have done a lot of comparisons. It’s weak points are that it’s install routine is sort of clumsy although that has improved of late (it’s not a big learning curve), and the windowing options have been glitchy and sometimes a hassle to deal with, but that too has been almost completely fixed. You can get a CD for like 30 bucks and the NKJV is included in the price, a $5 royalty value, and it makes the install process a bit easier. It’s not a point and click and your done thing, but it is not hard to get yourself set up. If you do get it, I’d be more than happy to do phone in tech support and get you oriented.

You can download about everything you need from the internet

http://www.onlinebible.net/

and you can get a bunch of add on modules, including some on Bullenger and Scofield and Darby and many more at

http://www.ccel.org/olb/

But the NKJV costs $5 dollars to activate. :o

Happy trails!

***end of repeat post***

1Way
March 11th, 2004, 07:34 PM
Turbo – Exactly, they make God into a liar in order to protect their manmade tradition. And in so doing, they do two main things.

They void or invalidate the meaning of the scripture that shows God changing/repenting,

then they follow up that violence by not replacing the meaning directly from God’s word,

instead, they just imply that their philosophy of closed theism forces their hand and so God simply did not change/repent, yet they have no clue what God is saying when He says that He did repent and not do what He said He would do.

I don’t mean to drive the same point home any harder than it already has, but this issue, especially the way you put it, brings to my mind what happens at the very point when the closed viewer’s attempt to deal with such divine mutability teachings as divine repentance. They just can’t stand what God’s word plainly says, so they ignore it and then mistreat it terribly. Not that many of them mistreat it on purpose because if you first grant classical divine immutability, then these mistreatments are a natural result. I believe most of them are sincerely mistaken, but what they actually do to God’s word is none the less, unmitigated violence.

If you would examine some of my recent exchanges with Z Man over in the Does Calvinism Limit God thread, Z demonstrated this perfectly (actually it was several pages back from the latest over there). He would say, oh, ya, God did repent (all words no meaningful action), but God did do what He always intended on doing! He says that even though the text specifically says that God did “not” do what He said He would do.

In particular I’m thinking of when Z would try to answer the closed theist challenge of Jonah 3:10 (subsection “b”) (chuckles). He would not even use the words “do what God said He would do” except to quote that scripture, he is that afraid of the text.

Instead of using

“God did not bring the destruction that He said He would bring, and He did not do it”,

when it came right down to the matter of Z Man supposedly handling the divine repentance aspect of the specific text in question, he would look completely away from God’s word and say something like,

God did what He always intended on doing, nothing changed in God, only in man.

So at the very heart of their mistreatment of scripture, they ignore and void God’s word, and worse than that, they replace the voided meaning with nothing but their contradictory manmade ideas.

I “usually” find them unwilling consistently maintain that God is untrue, except for perhaps folks like Jobeth and smaller for example. Thanks for your interest and comments!

Aside
(Suggestion, if you “restore” your browser window so that it is not “max” or “min”, and then make the width of this window smaller like perhaps 2/3's width or so, then this post’s long and skinny paragraphs will be easier on the eyes to read as exampled by most bible’s being printed in two column format to help the reader “track the next line” a bit easier. At 1024x768, my para’s aspect ratio is about 6-8 times longer and skinnier than standard bible formatting and such skinny formatting can make line tracking that much more difficult to accomplish. It’s just a thought that helps me sometimes. :o

Actually I think that the bible’s common “two column per page” formatting does two other main things. It packs the text into less pages, which idea is not intuitive because of the added central white space, but I’ve done it before, I tried formatting the entire bible on MS word and the pages get smaller if you use multi column than if you don’t. And secondly, I think it is better suited for oratory reading. Shorter text lines are more easily assimilated and then spoken while also improving tracking for the next text to be spoken.)

Rolf Ernst
March 12th, 2004, 01:09 PM
Godrulz--granting that there was a time when "The Word became flesh," as you and J.I. Packer say, that did not mean that there was a change in His essence. In the same sense you could say that when God created the universe, there was a change because He afterward had creatures with which to deal. But, friend, that was no change at all in His being. Nor was it a change in His decree, for He from everlasting had decreed that which took place at the very time He had appointed.
Similarly, The Word becoming flesh at the precise time and in the precise manner He had purposed from everlasting did not alter Him one iota from what He still is today, and notice that the incarnation took place at the precise time He had purposed--"In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son..."
Those who would argue that there has been to any extent a change in God Himself must show how their believing that is not a misrepresentation of Scripture, or else openly admit that they disagree with certain plain statements of Scripture, such as "I am the LORD. I change not."
I appreciate your referral to J.I. Packer. He is an excellent theologian far above my qualifications, but I believe that a fuller consideration of the context wherein he spoke of change in a sense would show that Packer's fullest explanation of his meaning would be in agreement with mine. Check it out. Let me know if otherwise, or let me know exactly where he made that statement, please.

Rolf Ernst
March 12th, 2004, 01:20 PM
Godrulz--your comment in the 112th post on this thread--precisely!
Very well said, friend.

Rolf Ernst
March 12th, 2004, 02:01 PM
1Way--we make God into a liar? My! Getting nasty aren't we? What if the problem is in your lack of understanding? What if there is a REAL agreement between those verses which say that God is "not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent."?
and those verses which speak of Him altering His actions toward a people in accord with His immutable purpose of showing mercy to the repentant? There are many places in which God is spoken of in an anthropomorphic sense.
Did you see that verse above? Where does it rate on your list of scriptures worthy of being "God-breathed"? He is not a "son of man that He should repent."
Do you believe that text? Can you reconcile your view of Scripture with it? That text gives me no difficulty. But from the view you have shown of some scriptures which refer to God in an anthropomorphic sense, you have to now come up with an explanation for why you can claim to believe that the Bible is not self-contradictory. So why don't you do that now? Show us all how your belief that God changes in in accord with the verse and does not contradict the verse where He Himself says, "I am the LORD. I change not."
When you get that done, show us all how your charge that God does repent does not attack those verses which say that God does NOT repent. Kindly do that, please. And use scripture. It will give you something to do besides maklng insulting comments about others.

godrulz
March 12th, 2004, 04:27 PM
I am not referring to a specific Packer quote, but merely assume that his view and mine are classical, orthodox theology (he is a name associated with sound theology...though I am not Calvinistic like he is).

The triune God has one eternal spirit essence (monotheism).

The Word incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ (one person with 2 natures= divine/human= Phil. 2).

The Father, Son, Spirit all are the one essence of God.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. The Father and Son did not take on flesh (3 personal, eternal distinctions within the one Godhead).

The great creeds and Scripture affirm these truths. The exact way that God became a man, the relationship of the 2 natures of Christ (incarnation/kenosis), the exact nature of the triune God, etc. are areas of speculation.

Semantics must be precise. Regardless, God did not always have a human nature in Christ. This is a change in relations in the Godhead, if not in an aspect of His essence. I will leave this to greater theologians and philosophers to contemplate.

Rolf Ernst
March 12th, 2004, 09:08 PM
1 Way--in the 124th post of this thread, you are up to your usual mischaracterizations of others. You esteem yourself as the one to define those whom you are opposing while at the same time you altogether ignore the positions which they put forth.
Again, there are those times when God "repents" in a figurative sense such as when He declares that if that wicked nation repents of their evil then He will repent of the evil He had in store for them.
Again, that is not a change in Him, but merely a difference in His treatment of them based upon their repentance. That happens everytime a sinner is brought to life and faith through the working of his "mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raiosed Him from the dead."
Prior to His raising a sinner from the dead by the working of His mighty power, that sinner was continually under the wrath of God--the wrath of God always bearing down upon him. But when God is pleased to show mercy and regenerate, the sinner is placed by God into a new relationship. The sinner believes and is moved out from under God's wrath into God's favor. God did not change. The grace He exercised when it pleased Him, He had from everlasting purposed to exercise on that elect one. What was changed was the sinner.
NOW---if after the sinner was given the gift of repentance God did not bless him and receive him unto himself THAT would be a change in God because He has from everlasting purposed to show mercy
when He pleased upon that sinner; just as Paul said of his being called by Christ, "When it pleased God..."
Don't let me distract you from reconciling your belief that God both changes and repents when He himself has said in His word that He does neither. We are waiting.

Rolf Ernst
March 13th, 2004, 12:48 PM
1Way--In the 124th post on this thread, you attack Z Man with misrepresentations of his meaning. You characterize him of being afraid of a text of scripture.
On whose authority do you say that he is afraid of Jonah 3:10?
Did he tell you he feared that text? If he did not tell you he feared that text, who are you, and where do you get the hutzpah, to report to the entire forum that Z Man fears Jonah 3:10? Instead of going in attack mode against other members of the forum, why not just deal with the scriptures in question and when you have done your best in that regard, submit it to the judgment of other members without making personal attacks?
There is no reason ZMan should be afraid of Jonah 3:10 and I don't believe he IS fearful of it, if you don't mind me rejecting your presumptuous judgment of him. I believe that the real issue concerns your refusal to acknowledge the fact that those scriptures which say God repents or repented do not at all contradict the scriptures which clearly teach that God neither repents nor changes.
Your tactics are like those of politicians who are always happy to tell others what their opponent has done, what he thinks, or what their motives are. Politicians do that to gain an advantage which they cannot otherwise win, but what they refuse to realize is that to misrepresent someone's position, motive, or attitude toward an issue (or text of scripture) is to bear false witness against them. I am 67--old enough to remember a time in this country when men were too honorable to define someone who had taken a position contrary to theirs. They would say instead, "if you want to know that, you will have to ask him. I have no right to speak for him, and I will not do so because I might misrepresent him."
God's sparing of Ninevah is similar to His healing of Hezekiah, 2Kings 20. Neither of the two incidents is contrary to the teachings of Reformed theology, nor do they at all even present a problem. Rather, both show that God is merciful and makes use of human instruments in the accomplishing of His purposes of grace and mercy. Overlooking those main things which display the glory of God in His grace and mercy and the means by which He accomplishes those works to focus instead on some SEEMING contradiction with other clear texts of scripture is very much like warning that there is poison in wholly nutritious bread.

In a separate post, to defend the truth, I will deal with both hezekiah's healing and God's mercy to the Ninevites.

1Way
March 15th, 2004, 07:10 PM
Rolf - I'm starting a new thread to deal with this somewhat off topic issue (challenging my accusations of biblical violence) so as to respect the very specific and interesting nature of this thread and so that others will have a natural way of easily locating this new topic.

Please respond over in the new thread in this forum called

“An open challenge to all closed theists”

AndrewLevicki
March 16th, 2004, 12:11 PM
Is there any way to filter out the childish posts on this service?

smaller, if you believe all are saved then you believe contrary to scripture and to what Jesus explicitly said.

God_Is_Truth
March 16th, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by AndrewLevicki

Is there any way to filter out the childish posts on this service?

smaller, if you believe all are saved then you believe contrary to scripture and to what Jesus explicitly said.

well, you can add people to your "ignore" list so you don't see their posts. not sure besides that though.