PDA

View Full Version : ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Clete
October 7th, 2004, 06:51 AM
Excellent post godrulz! :thumb:

Swordsman
October 7th, 2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Excellent post godrulz! :thumb:

:vomit:

Clete
October 7th, 2004, 08:13 AM
Swordsman,

Whether you agree with it or not, it was a very well written post and an excellent argument. He even used a prominent Calvinist to make his point for him!
How about responding to in some substantive way, or if you cannot, how about agreeing with it? Admitting that you've been wrong your whole life is what Christianity is all about! ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

Swordsman
October 7th, 2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Swordsman,

Whether you agree with it or not, it was a very well written post and an excellent argument. He even used a prominent Calvinist to make his point for him!
How about responding to in some substantive way, or if you cannot, how about agreeing with it? Admitting that you've been wrong your whole life is what Christianity is all about! ;)

Resting in Him,
Clete

I could care less if he is Calvinist. He made a point that said the "Gospel of salvation and life has its source in the love of God." One, usually an Arminian, comes to the point then that God loves all so he died for all. It doesn't, however, explain as to how there are those that still perish in the Lake of Fire.

Did Christ die for those whom He knew who go to Hell? Or if you don't believe in the fact that He knew they would go to Hell, then did He die for those who "freely" rejected Him and were condemned to Hell? Either way you have it, you would have to come to the conclusion that His blood was spilled in vain for those who were condemned. (i.e. Judas Iscariot. Did Christ die for his sins too?)

Hilston
October 7th, 2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by godrulz
Love is seeking the highest good of another.Where did you get that vague definition? Love is "seeking"? What does that mean? At least define a noun in terms consonant with its part of speech.


Originally posted by godrulz
You said world ALWAYS means order or orderly arrangement. This is ONE meaning among many other possible meanings.Find me a single verse where "kosmos" does not mean order or an orderly arrangement.


Originally posted by godrulz
"Elect" is not implicit in this meaning.NOBODY SAID IT WAS!!!!! Try to keep up, godrulz. Are you being deliberately dense?


Originally posted by godrulz
I think it was Kittel or one one the other standard works that explicitly stated the NT usage is not usually of this meaning (it traced all the Greek uses of the word through secular and biblical history).I'm surprised anyone would say this is EVER translated "the elect". No one I've read claims this. I claim it has this referrent, but that's not saying it should translated "the elect".


Originally posted by godrulz
F.F. Bruce (beloved Calvinist and excellent scholar): Why is this important to you? I'm not a Calvinist, godrulz. I don't appeal to Calvinists to justify or to prove my theology. This is what makes me think you're either not paying attention, being deliberately dense, or you're just slow on the uptake.


Originally posted by godrulz
"The Gospel of John"
3:16 "...his intention is rather to set forth in terms of UNIVERSAL applicability the lesson that Nicodemus taught.Well, there is nothing universal about what Nicodemus taught. So Bruce is up a tree as well. This is generally (pun intended) the common error of evangellyfishism and anti-determinist ideologies: Presume universal, vague, ambiguous and murky generality in lieu of narrow specificity, accuracy and precise detail.


Originally posted by godrulz
If there is one sentence more than another which sums up the message of the 4th Gospel, it is this. The LOVE of God is LIMITLESS. It embraces ALL mankind.You still haven't given an adequate definition of love. The usage of agape in the Greek scriptures is unique in all of literature. It is self-sacrificing devotion and it does NOT embrace all of mankind. Jesus loved the church (the elect) and gave Himself (out of self-sacrificial devotion) for them, not for all of mankind.


Originally posted by godrulz
No sacrifice was too great to bring its unmeasured intensity home to men and women: the best that God had to give, he gave- his only Son, his well-beloved.What is this language? "The best He could give"? Where do you get this stuff? As if God had to look around and wonder, "Hmm, what could I do to really show how much I love all of mankind?" It's silly, godrulz. "No sacrifice was too great"? What exactly does that mean?


Originally posted by godrulz
NOR was it for one nation or GROUP that he was given: he was given so that ALL, without distinction or exception, who repose their faith ...Then it is not all without exception, is it? You've imposed an exception with your requirement of "who repose their faith."


Originally posted by godrulz
... he was given so that ALL, without distinction or exception, who repose their faith on Him might be rescued from destruction and blessed with the life that is life indeed. The Gospel of salvation and life has its source in the love of God (vs sovereignty defined as electing some and non-electing others- GR).The gospel of salvation is rooted in love (self-sacrificing devotion) which actually accomplishes its goal. It is love that truly saves, truly pays the price, for real, not just potentially, unlike the diluted and ineffective "love" of Open Theism and Evangelicalism.


Originally posted by godrulz
The essence of the saving message is made unmistakably plain, in language in which people of ALL races, cultures and times can grasp, and so effectively is it set forth in these words that many more, probably, have found the way of life through them than through any other biblical text...To perish is the alternative to having eternal life."This claim does not justify a false understanding of the text. Jn. 3:16ff is written to the elect, specifically of Israel, which included Nicodemus. It doesn't even apply to the elect of Body of Christ.


Originally posted by godrulz
Bruce goes on to put the onus on believing/unbelief; life/death; etc. on the individual, not the mysterious, hidden 'will' of God (Jn. 3).Who cares? Bruce might also pick his nose in the dark. When you stand before God, Bruce won't be there to defend your false doctrine.


Originally posted by godrulz
The love of God and the Gospel message are universal in scope.This is biblically untenable. The irrefragable specificity of God's love is found throughout scripture.


Originally posted by godrulz
Every person who has ever lived who hears the Gospel has the potential to be saved.This is false. Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, appointed to disobedience, have no "potential to be saved." For some, it would've been better if they had never been born. There is no "potential" for them whatever.


Originally posted by godrulz
If they reject the message and persist in sinful rebellion, they will be lost. If they believe in repentant faith, they will have eternal life. ...This is false. The scriptures command belief in Christ, not belief in faith. Where are you getting this stuff?


Originally posted by godrulz
Elect vs non-elect are logical concepts to shore up a theological system.So are "Trinity" and "omnipotent" and "Open Theism." So are "logical" and "concept" and "theological" and "system." This kind of comment demonstrates nothing more but a lack of cogent argument.


Originally posted by godrulz
They are not inherent to the biblical text (corporate vs individual election as developed in "God's strategy in human history" and many other books).Sure they are. I don't expect you to see their inherent presence and pertinence, but they're there, glaringly so.


Originally posted by godrulz
Your view of the 'atonement' is also leading to circular reasoning.Show me.


Originally posted by godrulz
Hyper-sovereignty also leads to incomplete conclusions out of balance with the whole counsel of God in all the relevant verses. You've got that backward. Hypo-sovereignty leads to completely false conclusions out of balance with the revealed counsel of God in all verses without exception. By the way, the idea that God's whole counsel is revealed in scripture is false.

Knight
October 7th, 2004, 10:40 AM
Hilston... :nono:

Hilston
October 7th, 2004, 01:02 PM
Knight ... :freak:

HopeofGlory
October 7th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"

God must also be ignorant of the present. He is asking, "Where are you presently," not "Where will you be in the future?" God must also not be omnipresent, since He obviously does not know where in the Garden they are. So, the God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the present and is not omnipresent.

Gen 3:11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

WOW! God is also ignorant of the past, for He obviously would not have asked, "Who told you..." if He knew perfectly the past. His knowledge of the past must also be the same of the past: imperfect and not exhaustive. Once again, "Have you eaten..." God is obviously ignorant of the past, for if He wasn't, then He would have known that they had eaten of the tree. The God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the past.

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

This definitely shows the ignorance of God. "What in the world have you done Eve?! I never dreamed you would actually do such a thing. I can't believe I actually created you!" God is so ignorant, when Eve sinned, He didn't even know what had happened!

The God of the OV is ignorant of the past, present and future, and He cannot be omnipresent.

OR:

God really knows the past, present, and future, and is omnipresent, and these are rhetorical questions/anthropromorphisms, expressing how God acts in human terms so that we would be able to relate to the infinitely holy and almighty God.

:think: excellent points which I don't believe have been addressed by the ov'ers.

Also the death of an unborn child, exactly how would God determine this child's fate and why? I would like to hear from both sides.

Thank you in advance to all that respond.

Hilston
October 7th, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by natewood3:
...the God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the present ... [the OV conception of] God is also ignorant of the past, for He obviously would not have asked, "Who told you..." if He knew perfectly the past. His knowledge of the past must also be the same of the past: imperfect and not exhaustive. Once again, "Have you eaten..." God is obviously ignorant of the past, for if He wasn't, then He would have known that they had eaten of the tree. The God of the OV is not only ignorant of the future, but He is also ignorant of the past. ... God is so ignorant, when Eve sinned, He didn't even know what had happened!Is "omnipresent" also one of the "omnis" that the OVists deny?

The God of Open Theism is not only ignorant of lots of things, but he also has to send investigators to find out what people have been up to (e.g. when the angels went to Sodom and Gomorrah to find out if it was as bad as the reports had indicated).

How does the Open Theist trust this God? And for what? What does He actually do? He says He has done everything He can -- in the past. What is He doing right now? According to OVists here on TOL, God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible (which means He's doing what, exactly?), yet they pray to God. To do what? More than He is already doing?
:kookoo:

Clete
October 7th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Is "omnipresent" also one of the "omnis" that the OVists deny?

The God of Open Theism is not only ignorant of lots of things, but he also has to send investigators to find out what people have been up to (e.g. when the angels went to Sodom and Gomorrah to find out if it was as bad as the reports had indicated).
:think: Funny how that's precisely what the text says....

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Must be another figure of speech, the meaning of which nobody is able or willing to explain. :rolleyes:

Heaven forbid we actually read the Bible and take it for what it seems to say! That might put our beloved theology at risk! Oh NO! :shocked:

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
October 7th, 2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Swordsman

I could care less if he is Calvinist. He made a point that said the "Gospel of salvation and life has its source in the love of God." One, usually an Arminian, comes to the point then that God loves all so he died for all. It doesn't, however, explain as to how there are those that still perish in the Lake of Fire.

Did Christ die for those whom He knew who go to Hell? Or if you don't believe in the fact that He knew they would go to Hell, then did He die for those who "freely" rejected Him and were condemned to Hell? Either way you have it, you would have to come to the conclusion that His blood was spilled in vain for those who were condemned. (i.e. Judas Iscariot. Did Christ die for his sins too?)

I have found this distinction helpful:

The GROUNDS of salvation (reason for which) is the person and work of Christ (death/resurrection; grace).

The CONDITIONS of salvation (not without which) are repentant faith and continuance in the faith.

Lest you object, faith is not a self-righteous work. It involves a response of the will, intellect, emotions to the truth of God. It involves knowledge, mental assent, and TRUST/love.

One should also not confuse the efficacious provision of redemption with its individual application. Men are culpable for their lostness if they reject the provision of the free gift of eternal life. God's sacrifice or love is not weakened by the wickedness and stupidity of man.

Viewing the atonement as a literal payment or legal commercial transaction also leads to wrong thinking and conclusions. Your objections to the universal love of God seem weak and an attempt to logically maintain a preconceived theology.

godrulz
October 7th, 2004, 10:23 PM
English has one word for love (love God and hot dogs). Greeks have several words (agape, eros, philos, storge, etc.). There is not one sentence that defines love.

It is possible for God to love the whole world and love the church in a special way. I believe love, justice, holiness, etc. are impartial, not arbitrary. Electing some and non-electing others may suit a controlling dictator, but it is not consistent with His character.

Gregory Boyd affirms the great doctrines of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. However, He does not define omnipotence as creating square circles. There are areas of power or knowledge that are absurd or logically contradictory (even for God). The issue is with the nature of what is knowable (recognizing possibilities are not certainties/actualities before they happen if free will is involved). It is not with a deficiency in God's knowledge. He correctly knows reality as it is.

I did not say 'world' is translated 'elect' (though some have done that). I do say that some read it as such in their minds or explanations. This is simply not implicit in the word, but is an assumption based on a preconceived theology.

Hilston
October 7th, 2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
:think: Funny how that's precisely what the text says....

Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.Amazing. You don't even have the clarity of sight to recognize when you're being ridiculed or ridiculous. Do you hear yourself? Do you see what you're defending? You're defending a concept of God that is born out of pagan mythology. If the verse actually meant that God didn't know what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah, He would not be God. But Open View proponents are so eager to latch onto anything that denigrates the power and transcendence of God that they take obvious figures of speech and literalize them to suit their mytheology.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Must be another figure of speech, the meaning of which nobody is able or willing to explain. :rolleyes:Wrong, Clete. It's another of literally thousands of figures of speech in scripture that conveys rich and emphatic points of doctrine, seemingly opposite of what the words say in isolation. And like all figures of speech, the figurative meaning and value is ascertained, not in isolation, but in the context of the passage and the overall teaching of scripture. And it's not that nobody is able or willing to explain, but rather that Open Theists have abundantly proven that they really don't want to know or understand what the figures mean, because if they did, they would no longer be able to use their specious and fatuous criticisms.

How would one go about discovering what the verse actually means? One way would be the process of elimination. Consider first what it does NOT mean:

It doesn't mean that God was ignorant of something as basic as what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.

It doesn't mean the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were able to hide their behavior from God.

Because I believe God is really God and not some incoherent and self-refuting myth, I conclude that the verse must be figurative. You, on the other hand, are committed to darkening and distorting the character of God, limiting His knowledge and power, bringing God down and exalting man.

"... wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?"


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Heaven forbid we actually read the Bible and take it for what it seems to say! That might put our beloved theology at risk! Oh NO! :shocked:You just go right ahead and continue to believe in a God who supposedly can hear all the prayers of His people simultaneously, yet He somehow does not know what's going on in a particular city or two.

Can anyone seriously trust a God who challenges Job: "18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all," yet He Himself doesn't know what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah???

By your theology, Clete, Job had an answer: "I might not have 'perceived the breadth of the earth,' but You're not so great if you still need to send angels to find out what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah."

But no, Job did not answer that way. Instead he said, "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee."

This is the God who knows everything without investigation, who hears all prayers simultaneously and holds every atom in the universe together while listening to those prayers.

But the Open Theists don't agree with Job or the scriptures. God can't be that knowledgeable. God can't be that aware, because that would undermine major OV tenets of God being a Big Doofuss. Again, I ask, how does the Open Theist trust this God? And for what? What does He actually do? He says He has done everything He can -- in the past. What is He doing right now? According to OVists here on TOL, God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible (which means He's doing what, exactly?), yet they pray to God and ask Him to do stuff. To do what exactly? More than He is already doing? How can He do anymore when He is already doing everything He can?

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

HopeofGlory
October 8th, 2004, 08:52 AM
It seems logical to me that God was using the angels as men to relate to Abraham as a man thus allowing Abraham to express his feelings about God's decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Children need the relationships of their parents and parents must communicate to them on their level.

Gen 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.




The death of an unborn child, exactly how would God determine this child's fate and why? I would like to hear from both sides.

Is sin imputed where there is no experience of sin?

Is judgement based on foreknowledge of what the child would have believed if it had lived?

Does God communicate to it in a way that it can understand and exercise freewill?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

godrulz
October 8th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by HopeofGlory

1) The death of an unborn child, exactly how would God determine this child's fate and why? I would like to hear from both sides.

2) Is sin imputed where there is no experience of sin?

3) Is judgement based on foreknowledge of what the child would have believed if it had lived?

4) Does God communicate to it in a way that it can understand and exercise freewill?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

1) Augustine's doctrine of 'original sin' and the Federal Headship of Adam is only a theory. Catholics using infant baptism (sacrament) to deal with this so-called infant sin is specious (not biblical). When David's baby died, he said he would see him again. From conception to newborn certainly cannot make moral choices. They have eternal life because of their non-rejection of Christ (they do not have mental or moral capacity). They have not made wrong moral choices, nor were they lawless (= sin).

Babies, abortions, etc. go to heaven. This is reasonable in light of God's character and our moral make-up. At some point, a child has moral and mental capacity and will be held responsible for chosen sin, selfishness, and unbelief.

2) Do we sin because we are sinners ('imputation')? NO. Sin is not a substance passed on genetically from Adam (physical depravity is inherited; moral depravity is formed through wrong moral choices= sin).

We are sinners because we sin. Sin and rebellion are volitional. There is nothing back of the will causing us to sin (though we have a propensity to sin due to the Fall and flesh). The soul that sins is the one that will did (Ezek.). We cannot blame it on Adam or the devil. We are responsible/accountable because we sin, not because Adam sinned (Federal Headship is one theory of several).

3) This is incoherent. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is not knowable as an actuality/certainty until choices are made. Your thought is philosophical and assumes the 'eternal now'/timelessness concept of God or the simple foreknowledge view of Arminianism. The Hebraic view is that God experiences an everlasting duration of sequence or succession ('time'). If a baby dies in the womb, there is no future to know. This is not Hollywood science fiction. The question is a non-starter and illustrates how problematic the classical understanding of God's relationship to time is. Eternal does not mean timelessness, but everlasting duration (no beginning, no end).

4) The embryo does not have mental and moral capacity. Its spirit could sense God's presence. They are 'saved' based on their non-rejection of God (not possible yet). When they hear and understand the Gospel and conscience, then they are saved by repentant faith or remain condemned by active rejection of truth.

"Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Gen. 18:25 (He does not send babies to hell, nor does He elect some and non-elect others).

Do hyper-Calvinists believe some babies go to heaven and some to hell (since they believe some adults are predestined for heaven and some to hell)? This would be as abhorrent as saying a non-baptized baby goes to hell or that some go to hell that God could have predestined/elected/saved.

TULIP
:down:

natewood3
October 8th, 2004, 10:11 AM
Hilston,

All I have to say is amen...

HopeofGlory
October 8th, 2004, 10:47 AM
godrulz,

Thank you for your response.

1) Sin is transgression of the law but what about the sin nature, is it not necessary to become a new creature? Adam did not sin until he disobeyed God but the sin nature was already present. Adam was created in God's image but limited by his flesh.

2) At this point I believe sin is not imputed but only Christ was capable of not sinning. The propensity to sin (if I understand your use of the word) was present before the fall. We cannot blame God for our existance, we should thank Him for giving us life as we know it and even eternal life for some.

3) A limited understanding of God's foreknowledge coupled with a limited understanding of freewill would not be able to express the ability of God to righteously judge an unborn child.

4) Can you provide scripture where God saves based on non rejection?

godrulz
October 8th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by HopeofGlory

godrulz,

Thank you for your response.

1) Sin is transgression of the law but what about the sin nature, is it not necessary to become a new creature? Adam did not sin until he disobeyed God but the sin nature was already present. Adam was created in God's image but limited by his flesh.

2) At this point I believe sin is not imputed but only Christ was capable of not sinning. The propensity to sin (if I understand your use of the word) was present before the fall. We cannot blame God for our existance, we should thank Him for giving us life as we know it and even eternal life for some.

3) A limited understanding of God's foreknowledge coupled with a limited understanding of freewill would not be able to express the ability of God to righteously judge an unborn child.

4) Can you provide scripture where God saves based on non rejection?

1) "sinful nature" is a concept. The Greek word in the NIV is 'flesh', not sinful nature (preconceived theology; eisegesis). I believe Adam and Lucifer were created perfect without a sin nature (i.e. innocent). The only inherent reason to sin was a misuse of their God-given will and freedom. Evil was a possibility due to freedom. It was not a foregone conclusion or necessity (God is not responsible for evil). It is an unnecessary assumption to assume Adam had a sin nature before the Fall. The nature of the Fall is disobedience (volitional), not something causative back of the will. Certainly, the desires of the flesh is a limitation and predisposes us to not live in the Spirit. We form a nature or character through moral choices. It is not a substance lodged in our bodies or genes (anatomy, physiology, genetics=metaphysics; vice and virtue are in the realm of morals=choices).

2) Imputation implies sin and righteousness are 'things'/substance. In fact, they are in the realm of free moral agency (choices).

3) God judges moral choices, not the physiology of a fetus.

4) There may not be a proof text, but it is self-evident and inferential from John 3; Rom. 1-3, etc. that salvation or damnation is based on receiving or rejecting Christ. A baby does not have mental or moral capacity to do these things. It seems reasonable that the blood of Christ is sufficient for those who do not have capacity who do not knowingly reject Christ (babies; mentally retarded; brain injured at a young age, etc....this leads to the concept of the age of accountability, which varies with individuals).

Jesus said to let the little children come for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

When David's son died in the womb (if I recall), he said that he would see him someday when he dies. This implies babies go to heaven (though not a didactic passage).

Your underlying understanding of sin and salvation affect your views. Most theologians agree that babies go to heaven. I think the principle of non-rejection is reasonable. I do not think the Catholic idea of 'original sin' and sacramental infant baptism is biblical, nor self-evident. The Reformed people who believe in 'original sin' also baptize babies. What if you do not sprinkle the kid and what about abortions? I do not think God sends them to hell for lack of a religious ritual. So, I would argue from the character of God and the true nature of sin/salvation to defend my view. Some theological ideas are not explicit in Scripture, but require godly philosophy and reasoning based on general biblical principles.

Clete
October 8th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Amazing. You don't even have the clarity of sight to recognize when you're being ridiculed or ridiculous. Do you hear yourself? Do you see what you're defending? You're defending a concept of God that is born out of pagan mythology.
I'm not nearly as stupid as you seem to take me for Jim, nor am I half as ignorant as you like to insinuate when you don't want to actually argue the issue at hand.
What I am defending is nothing but what the Bible clearly says. You are the one who says that is is saying something other than what it seems to be saying and so it is on you to prove it. My point is proven by simply quoting the text. No linguistic hocus pocus is needed, there is no ripping things out of context going on, it's just simple reading. Taking the words at their face value unless given contextual or grammatical reason to do otherwise.
Further, it is not me who is arguing for a pagan God, but you. The idea of an immutable God is born out of the writings Plato and Aristotle not the Bible. And it is upon this foundation that fate (meticulous predestination) is founded upon, as are the remainder of the tenets of what is commonly referred to as Calvinism. A label which you deny vehemently, but a theology which you embrace with enthusiasm or one so closely resembling Calvinism as makes no odds.
The God I serve is alive and reactive, strong and merciful, just and truly loving. A God who designed the universe to work and so it does. A God who wasn't afraid to take the chance that one of His creations might dare to love Him if given the opportunity.
Your version of God, on the other hand, is an immutable bump on a log; a god who cannot think, move, or feel without blowing completely apart. Your version of God "cannot be moved by love", says C.S. Lewis. He cannot have a new thought in His head because that would destroy not only the doctrine of predestination and/or foreknowledge but would destroy immutability as well. Your version of God is forced to be continuously present and fully aware of every aspect of the goings on in every toilet in the world. Every drop of urine that slashes on the floor, God not only predestined to land there but is consciously and actively causes it to happen.
I quote the Bible and you accuse me of having a pagan type of God. I say put up or shut up. If Gen 18:21 doesn't mean what it says, what does it mean? And I'm as serious as a heart attack Jim, I want to know what it means and I'm calling you out to explain it or stop claiming that you can. This little act you're putting on, blowing smoke up everybody’s backsides is wearing thin. If you have an argument, make it. I know for a fact that I have an argument that is based on historical facts that anyone can easily confirm, the Bible and what a simple reading of the text says, and upon sound reason. If you think you can refute it then do so, you'd be the first that I have ever seen.


If the verse actually meant that God didn't know what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah, He would not be God.
By what logic did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you going to tell God that He is not allowed to turn His back on even the most vile of human activity? Are you going to go tell God that He isn't allowed to be God unless He persists in being a first person witness to the perversion of Sodomy? I'd like to see that!


But Open View proponents are so eager to latch onto anything that denigrates the power and transcendence of God that they take obvious figures of speech and literalize them to suit their mytheology.
Obvious? Which hermeneutical principle are you employing to insist that Gen. 18:21 is a figure of speech? What portion of the context of the passage indicates the presence of a figure? Which common Hebrew idiom is employed, if any? What grammatical construct is present that indicates that the passage doesn't mean what it says?
Give me something Jim, anything.
Can you?


Wrong, Clete. It's another of literally thousands of figures of speech in scripture that conveys rich and emphatic points of doctrine, seemingly opposite of what the words say in isolation.
What specific point of doctrine is this passage conveying that is not in direct opposition to not only this "figure of speech" but the entire context of the passage. Or are you suggesting that the whole 18th Chapter of Genesis is a figure of speech?


And like all figures of speech, the figurative meaning and value is ascertained, not in isolation, but in the context of the passage and the overall teaching of scripture. And it's not that nobody is able or willing to explain, but rather that Open Theists have abundantly proven that they really don't want to know or understand what the figures mean, because if they did, they would no longer be able to use their specious and fatuous criticisms.
And you are no longer able to make such a statement without blatantly lying. I tell you now before everyone hear and before God Himself that if such passages can be explained in some reasonable way I do want to know it. I just told a leader in my home church, not two days ago, that if someone, anyone can show me from Scripture or by sound reason or both that I am wrong then I want them to do just that. I am not lying, I am not blowing smoke or posturing, if you can show me then do so.


How would one go about discovering what the verse actually means? One way would be the process of elimination. Consider first what it does NOT mean:

It doesn't mean that God was ignorant of something as basic as what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Jim. You've not eliminated anything you've simply said what you don't want it to mean.


It doesn't mean the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were able to hide their behavior from God.
No one suggested that they were able to hide anything from God. This point is not in dispute. The OV position is that God knows everything that is knowable, that He wants to know. Nothing that God wants to know can be hidden from Him but He also cannot be forced to be a present first person witness if He decides that He doesn't want to be.


Because I believe God is really God and not some incoherent and self-refuting myth, I conclude that the verse must be figurative.
You have not established that God must be a know it all in order to be God. You have presented nothing to suggest that the OV theology proper is incoherent or self-refuting. And as I have pointed out already, the immutable God of Calvin, Arminius, Luther, and Augustine is derived directly from Aristotelian Greek mythology, not the God of the OV.


You, on the other hand, are committed to darkening and distorting the character of God, limiting His knowledge and power, bringing God down and exalting man.
Nothing I've said exalts man in any way, unless you're saying that giving man a truly free will is exalting him. And as for limiting God's power, I do no such thing, God's power and knowledge are what they are. I just don't buy your illogical and unbiblical overstatements concerning the nature of God and am more than happy to follow the God presented to me in the pages of Scripture which He has infallibly inspired.


"... wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?"
Excellent example of just how not to use the Bible, Jim. Is this how you've formulated the entirety of your theology?


You just go right ahead and continue to believe in a God who supposedly can hear all the prayers of His people simultaneously, yet He somehow does not know what's going on in a particular city or two.
I not only believe that but believe also that God could hear honest prayers if they were to come out of those couple of cities. My God is great at multitasking! He can ignore you completely while paying total attention to the guy next to you on the couch.


Can anyone seriously trust a God who challenges Job: "18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all," yet He Himself doesn't know what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah???
Straw man city!
It's not as if God got duped or something. God chose to ignore Sodom and Gomorrah, no one got away with anything.


By your theology, Clete, Job had an answer: "I might not have 'perceived the breadth of the earth,' but You're not so great if you still need to send angels to find out what's going on in Sodom and Gomorrah."
This is stupid. No response is even required. I would simply ask, whether or not this is the sort of logic you intend to use to refute the Open View? If so, you're fixing to get crushed to powder (in the debate). You might actually get to be familiar with the OV position before saying such silly things.


But no, Job did not answer that way. Instead he said, "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee."
Wow! Pretty neat how Job's response lines right up with what the OV teaches! God know everything that He want to know!
Do you always argue so effectively?


This is the God who knows everything without investigation, who hears all prayers simultaneously and holds every atom in the universe together while listening to those prayers.
Can you establish Biblically that God does not investigate anything? Not without finding an adequate way of explaining away Gen 18:21 you can't!


But the Open Theists don't agree with Job or the scriptures. God can't be that knowledgeable. God can't be that aware, because that would undermine major OV tenets of God being a Big Doofuss.
Which OV tenets would that be exactly, Jim? I've already stated plainly that I agree completely with what Job said, are you going to ignore me and put your blinders on and insist that I don't agree with it or are you going to admit that you either misunderstood or intentionally mischaracterized the OV position?


Again, I ask, how does the Open Theist trust this God? And for what? What does He actually do? He says He has done everything He can -- in the past. What is He doing right now? According to OVists here on TOL, God is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible (which means He's doing what, exactly?), yet they pray to God and ask Him to do stuff. To do what exactly? More than He is already doing? How can He do anymore when He is already doing everything He can?
People have a free will Jim. God cannot make somebody love Him despite what your theology teaches. So God works through and sometimes in spite of His people in whatever ways He can to bring as many people as will to come to Him in faith. How hard is that to understand?
It would be just like a parent whose child is lost in sin. That parent would do everything (assuming they are a good parent) they could to get their child saved. They would use every resource at their disposal in a variety of ways but at the end of the day, they do not have the power to make their child love God, they just can't do it! And neither can God. God has a lot of power and a lot of resources at His disposal and He will do everything that can be done that is right and just but at the end of the day, if someone chooses to hate God then God can't do anything about that. Love must be volitional in order to be love. It cannot be forced by definition. I cannot imagine how this could be disputed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No time for thorough editting! Please excuse any errors of grammar. Thanks!

godrulz
October 8th, 2004, 11:41 PM
Is God creative, responsive, relational, providential, loving, free, omnicompetent, dynamic, etc.?

OR is He impassible (no feelings), strongly immutable (does not change in any sense), static, etc.?

The former is the biblical God (Hebraic) who is alive; the latter is a philosophical God (Greekish).

In fairness, modern theology has toned down the rhetoric on classical Greek ideas of what a perfect Being should be (deductive vs inductive).

Does sovereignty mean meticulous control (blueprint model) or providential control with other free moral agents (warfare model)?

The former is closer to Calvinism (human construct); the latter is exemplified in the life and ministry of Jesus, the representation of the Father and His kingdom.

Balder
October 8th, 2004, 11:46 PM
I can't remember where, and I'm too lazy to look it up this late at night, but somewhere in the OT Jews are instructed to bury their excrement because God walks frequently around in their camp and no one would want God to accidentally ...

You get the idea.

Is this literal or figurative?

Hilston
October 9th, 2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Poly

My answers to your above questions and comments can be found in posts #1 and #4 of this (http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=538256#post538256) thread. Poly,

From what you wrote of your former church, it's no wonder you never truly learned what the anthro' figures mean. I'd almost go as far as saying it's no wonder you became an Open Theist. It's kind of like how some women choose to become lesbians because they've had bad relationship after bad relationship with men who are losers, users, players, and lecherous swine. They get so disgusted and assume that all men must be that way and decide to become lesbians. You've obviously made the same mistake regarding Calvinists. You falsely assume that all Calvinists are like the theological losers, users, players and religious swine you experienced at your former church, and you've decided to throw the theological baby out with the pseudo-religious bathwater and became an Open Theist.

I hasten to say that I'm not a Calvinist, nor do I defend them. My criticism is of those who claim to be ebating Calvinism but don't know what they're talking about.


Poly writes in the other thread:One thing that stands out about a Reformed Baptist is that you'll always hear them say how humbling the sovereign grace message is. They say this because they are supposedly humbled at themselves being one of the "elect" that God chose to be saved.Do you understand why this is true? Sure, the fakers and poseurs you were involved with had no clue, but whatever your experience, people who have been saved from disasters truly know this reality. Sole survivors of plane crashes can tell you: It is utterly humbling to know that you could've died with everyone else, but you didn't, and through no talent or effort of your own.

It's sad to say, but from what you wrote about anthro' figures in the other thread, the theological meat-heads from your former church didn't help you one bit with understanding them. So your Calvinistic background is useless to your anti-Calvinism arguments, and you're basically in the same boat as the rest of the Open Theists here on TOL who don't know what they're talking about.

HopeofGlory
October 9th, 2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

1) "sinful nature" is a concept. The Greek word in the NIV is 'flesh', not sinful nature (preconceived theology; eisegesis). I believe Adam and Lucifer were created perfect without a sin nature (i.e. innocent). The only inherent reason to sin was a misuse of their God-given will and freedom. Evil was a possibility due to freedom. It was not a foregone conclusion or necessity (God is not responsible for evil). It is an unnecessary assumption to assume Adam had a sin nature before the Fall. The nature of the Fall is disobedience (volitional), not something causative back of the will. Certainly, the desires of the flesh is a limitation and predisposes us to not live in the Spirit. We form a nature or character through moral choices. It is not a substance lodged in our bodies or genes (anatomy, physiology, genetics=metaphysics; vice and virtue are in the realm of morals=choices).

2) Imputation implies sin and righteousness are 'things'/substance. In fact, they are in the realm of free moral agency (choices).

3) God judges moral choices, not the physiology of a fetus.

4) There may not be a proof text, but it is self-evident and inferential from John 3; Rom. 1-3, etc. that salvation or damnation is based on receiving or rejecting Christ. A baby does not have mental or moral capacity to do these things. It seems reasonable that the blood of Christ is sufficient for those who do not have capacity who do not knowingly reject Christ (babies; mentally retarded; brain injured at a young age, etc....this leads to the concept of the age of accountability, which varies with individuals).

Jesus said to let the little children come for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

When David's son died in the womb (if I recall), he said that he would see him someday when he dies. This implies babies go to heaven (though not a didactic passage).

Your underlying understanding of sin and salvation affect your views. Most theologians agree that babies go to heaven. I think the principle of non-rejection is reasonable. I do not think the Catholic idea of 'original sin' and sacramental infant baptism is biblical, nor self-evident. The Reformed people who believe in 'original sin' also baptize babies. What if you do not sprinkle the kid and what about abortions? I do not think God sends them to hell for lack of a religious ritual. So, I would argue from the character of God and the true nature of sin/salvation to defend my view. Some theological ideas are not explicit in Scripture, but require godly philosophy and reasoning based on general biblical principles.

1) Adam was created a perfect human but not with the perfection that God requires. Creation was in it's infancy and man lacked the capacity to resist sin but God had a plan before the foundation of the world to complete or put man in final conformity with His law which is an expression of His nature. The freewill of man must conform to the will of God and this perfection is only found in Christ. Adam was not deceived but he could not give up his existence as he knew it because of his flesh. Adam said that Eve was flesh of his flesh or his body, a perfect union. We are perfected in a Spirtual body of Christ and receive circumcision made without hands which separates who we are in the flesh from the new creature created in Christ.

Adam had the freewill to do all that was possible until God commanded "do not eat". The knowledge of evil came from the tree that God provided. Sin was a possibility due to God's law. The nature of the fall was in Adam's flesh or existence as he knew it, he could not refuse Eve.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. --Gen. ii. 24.

Who was Adam's father?

2) Sin is not imputed but the nature of it resides in our very existence as it did with Adam. We are slaves to sin by existing in a body of flesh and held captive by it's nature. It is a mortal existence suject to death but when freed from the body it is immortal or everlasting. Christ's life is imputed to us through spiritual circumcision removing the body of the sins of the flesh.

3) Now your being silly, God does not judge flesh for flesh alone is dust. But mix it with a soul that depends on it for it's very existence and you have life as we know it. If you did not have a body of flesh what would you desire?

4) You're free to believe as you will but salvation is not based on not rejecting Christ. You do not understand that man was not created with God's righteousness or His will. Sin is not being able to conform to His law. It is not an act but a will. The law was given to reveal sin but sin was already there in it's dormacy. God judges the heart of man not a muscle that pumps blood to his body giving him the power to act. It is impossible for a creature of flesh to conform to God's law if given freewill. Adam was not created a God.

If you did not limit God's foreknowledge you would not have a problem with His ability to righteously judge an unborn child. I do not believe anyone will go un-judged. All must be born again or become a new creature and circumcision is a must. In Abraham's day newborns needed to be circumcised on the eighth day or before they knew sin. Why do you suppose God required such a thing? What seems reasonable to you does not reflect God's will.

You believe the mentally retarded are at liberty to commit sin? Where is this concept found in the bible?

Jesus did not make an all inclusive statement about little children. When you say "Jesus said" you need to be more careful.

Chapter and verse concerning David's statement about his child?

godrulz
October 10th, 2004, 10:29 PM
HG: 1)Adam had the freewill to do all that was possible until God commanded "do not eat". The knowledge of evil came from the tree that God provided. Sin was a possibility due to God's law. The nature of the fall was in Adam's flesh or existence as he knew it, he could not refuse Eve.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. --Gen. ii. 24.
Who was Adam's father?



RULZ: Adam did not have an earthly father. God is the father of humanity in a sense. He becomes our Heavenly Father when we come to Him through Christ (Jn. 1:12; 14:6).

Adam could refuse God, Satan, or Eve. He was not forced to disobey. This is why he was also culpable for his own fall into sin. He did not have to disobey since he had free moral agency.



HG: 2) Sin is not imputed but the nature of it resides in our very existence as it did with Adam. We are slaves to sin by existing in a body of flesh and held captive by it's nature. It is a mortal existence suject to death but when freed from the body it is immortal or everlasting. Christ's life is imputed to us through spiritual circumcision removing the body of the sins of the flesh.



RULZ: This sound like the Greek heresy that the body or flesh is inherently evil compared to the spiritual nature. Our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. NT use of 'flesh' refers to sin and putting the demands of the body ahead of the glory of God. Adam's fall was related to the misuse of his will, not a God-given nature that was deficient. Like Lucifer, he was created innocent and perfect. Freedom involves the potential for good or evil, either wise we are mere robots incapable of a love relationship with the Creator.


HG: 3) Now your being silly, God does not judge flesh for flesh alone is dust. But mix it with a soul that depends on it for it's very existence and you have life as we know it. If you did not have a body of flesh what would you desire?





RULZ: Lust is legitimate desire gone awry. Sex is very good unless it is outside God's parameters. Gluttony, not eating, is a sin. He judges what we do with our bodies. Hands can murder or they can help. God judges our wrong moral choices=sin.



HG: 4) You're free to believe as you will but salvation is not based on not rejecting Christ. You do not understand that man was not created with God's righteousness or His will. Sin is not being able to conform to His law. It is not an act but a will. The law was given to reveal sin but sin was already there in it's dormacy. God judges the heart of man not a muscle that pumps blood to his body giving him the power to act. It is impossible for a creature of flesh to conform to God's law if given freewill. Adam was not created a God.

If you did not limit God's foreknowledge you would not have a problem with His ability to righteously judge an unborn child. I do not believe anyone will go un-judged. All must be born again or become a new creature and circumcision is a must. In Abraham's day newborns needed to be circumcised on the eighth day or before they knew sin. Why do you suppose God required such a thing? What seems reasonable to you does not reflect God's will.

You believe the mentally retarded are at liberty to commit sin? Where is this concept found in the bible?

Jesus did not make an all inclusive statement about little children. When you say "Jesus said" you need to be more careful.

Chapter and verse concerning David's statement about his child?




RULZ: I did not imply that adults are saved by non-rejection of Christ. Romans 1-3 says all men stand condemned by rejection conscience and creation. Babies do not have the moral or mental capacity to receive or reject Christ, so the principle is that they are innocent. If they could reject Christ they would be condemned further for rejecting truth. Since they cannot reject Christ, logically they are not sent to hell based on non-rejection of Christ (theoretical principle to account for reality of baby's destiny).

An act involves the will.

Circumcision is no more necessary for salvation than water baptism is. The Bible teaches believer's baptism, not infant baptism.

I did not say the mentally retarded are free to commit sin. Severely vegetative people do not have the moral or mental capacity to receive or reject Christ, so it seems reasonable that God would not hold them accountable. Some mentally handicapped people know right from wrong and are able to live for God or Self (e.g. many Down's Syndrome). The Bible does not address this explicitly anymore than it talks about the heathen who never heard about Christ. We must infer principles.

David: I was unclear if it was a fetus or a newborn. It turns out is was a young child (soon after birth?). II Sam. 12:23 "But now that he is dead...can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

(v. 14 the son born to you will die...)

Ps. 23:6 David dwelled in the house of the Lord forever.

Though not a proof text, we can infer that babies go to heaven (Jewish expectation).

A baby does not have sins to judge. They do not exist unless he grows up and makes them. God judges actualities/reality, not theoretical future possibilities that never come to pass if the baby dies.

God_Is_Truth
October 11th, 2004, 12:33 AM
nate, i am hoping to respond to your posts sometime this week. i was at home all weekend and was too busy to respond. sorry for the delay.

Peace,

GIT

Yorzhik
October 11th, 2004, 12:50 AM
First, I'd like to thank Hilston for consistent thinking. Also, unlike so many people who believe God has declared/works/knows exhaustively the future, Hilston gave a straight answer.

Here is what Hilston said a few pages ago:
The kosmos refers to the order of God's elect.

16 For God so loved the kosmos [the order of the elect], [hina -- to the intent] that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him [i.e. each believing-on-Him one] should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the kosmos [the order of the elect] to condemn the kosmos [the order of the elect]; but [hina -- to the intent] that the kosmos [the order of the elect] through him might be saved.

When the scriptures speak of God's intentions, we can be assured of their certainty of coming to full and precise fruition. This further strengthens the subjunctive verb because God always gets what He intends. He sent His Son to the intent of saving each one that believes on Him, not to condemn the elect, but to the intent that the elect through Him will certainly be saved.

It fits within the bounds of a lay-persons ability to understand Greek. But I thought we should ask Tim McMahon, a Greek scholar, for more than a lay-person's take on the passage. Here is the most pertinent part he responded with, if need be I'll post the rest, but it is just supportive material for the Calvinist viewpoint as it relates to this topic, and not Hilston's translation directly:


On Hilston's idea that kosmos means 'the elect':

It's inconceivable to me that anyone could propose the idea that kosmos in the NT means 'the elect' unless trying to prove something. The word kosmos in ancient Greek certainly can mean 'order', but I know of no examples where that usage denotes a specific group of persons by calling them an 'order'. The most original sense of the word is denote something well crafted, assembled well from its constituent parts (e.g., the Trojan Horse). In Greek thought, the ultimate example of that is the universe. From there, the scope is focused on the earth, then specifically on the human race, the population of the world. The sense of kosmos for 'human race, all of humanity' is so well recognized in Greek I won't even cite the references. Perhaps the best example in the NT is Romans 3:19, "that all the world might become accountable before God." Hilston needs to provide an unequivocal example --i.e., a theologically neutral example, where the text has no direct bearing on the issue at hand -- of kosmos in the sense of 'the elect' before I would be willing to entertain the possibility the word could have that meaning. I have never seen a legitimate dictionary or lexicon that would support this claim. It was invented to rationalize the biblical material on God's "love for humans" (Titus 3:4) in order to sustain the doctrine of limited atonement.

So there you have it. Hilston should be able to provide a theologically neutral example of 'kosmos' meaning "the elect". Or, we could start with a theologically neutral example where 'kosmos' means a subset of humans.

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

edited to add Hilston's original quote

godrulz
October 11th, 2004, 10:32 AM
I'm confused. Are you commending Hilston's view and conclusions, while giving evidence that they are problematic?

I detailed word study on 'kosmos' will not support TULIP (unconditional election of the elect only and limited atonement).

God's condemnation of the human race (world) is universal as is His impartial love for His creation. He died for all, He does not want anyone to perish. This is the impetus of the imperative of the Great Commission. All are not saved due to their rejection of the provision, not because they are non-elect in the will of God before they existed.

Yorzhik
October 11th, 2004, 10:56 AM
godrulz writes:
I'm confused. Are you commending Hilston's view and conclusions, while giving evidence that they are problematic?

Answering what I bolded in the above quote... I said Hilston is consistent and straightforward. I'll stick with the scholar in commending (or not), Hilston's view. ;)

God_Is_Truth
October 11th, 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,

All of us do know God exists and that we should give Him glory. However, the text you gave shows that ALL people reject God, exchange Him and His glory for other things. The essence of sin is trading and exchanging that which is infinitely valuable (Christ) for the deceitful and fleeting pleasures of this world. I would have to say all of us would continue to refuse God if it was not for the Spirit.

If the spirit doesn’t convict us of that sin and if the father doesn’t begin to draw us towards him, then yes, no one will come to Christ. I agree.



However, what do you mean by “combined?? I would say we would NOT have this sorrow for sin and even acknowledge our sin if it wasn’t for the work of the Spirit. When this is brought to our attention by the Father’s drawing and the Spirit’s conviction, then we become aware of our sinful state, which is why the glory of Christ in the Gospel looks absolutely irresistible: it is that which we have been searching for our entire lives, so why would we ever reject it now that we have found it? That would be foolishness and absurd…

Once we are convicted of sin and drawn the father, we must still make up our mind that we are going to take the salvation that is being offered. Remember, I hold that one fully understands and sees Christ in all his glory AFTER he repents and believes, not before. The repenting and believing are able to be done with the help of the father and the spirit.



So you admit that there must be a gracious work of the Spirit BEFORE we can ever come to repentance…This does NOT just make it easier; it ENABLES us to see our sinfulness and the beauty of Christ. It IS still the sinner’s choice to repent and believe, but as I said above, it would be foolishness and absurd to think that we would reject the gift we have been searching for our whole lives, especially when we see our sinful state and that the Gospel can save us and enable us to know and love Christ, the One for whom we were made.

I agree totally that “godly grief is what one experiences when they see Christ and his sacrifice with joy and beauty,? but I see nowhere in the text that says it does not necessarily lead to repentance. It says that it DOES, not it might not. I think it would be a presupposed inference to draw that from that text.

I admit that there is work done by the spirit before we repent. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. However, I don’t think it enables us to do anything we couldn’t have done before in the sense of us having a new capability or something. Rather, it helps us do what we should have done the whole time—repent and believe.



I agree with you; it wasn’t for doctrine’s sake. He is not necessarily giving a treatise on salvation. He does start from eternity past until the present to show them what Christ had done for them. I see no reason to insist that we put in “He did this after we accepted the Gospel? or “This is what happened because they believed? or anything like that because the text doesn’t do that.

I completely agree that the things were done to “us? from the creation of the world. But my point is that they are general things decided to be done to the people of God. It was not decided who would make up that group. That would be reading into the text.



That has absolutely nothing to do with this text:

1Pe 2:2 desire the sincere milk of the Word, as newborn babes, so that you may grow by it.

This text COMMANDS us to desire the sincere milk of the Word. As far as I know, I cannot make myself desire ANYTHING. I cannot make my self desire foods I do not like, let alone God and His Word. That alone is a work of God.

1 Peter 2
2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

can we long for something that we don’t really desire? I think we can in a sense, as a part of our mindset. I think we can tell ourselves that we want something and to go searching for it and to think about it, even though we don’t have the feelings to go with it yet. So in that sense, I think we can long for something even though we may lack the emotions.



That is irrelevant. The point is that WE are commanded to do it, yet we are told in other places that GOD will be the One who circumcises our hearts.

Well if that’s the case then I think it makes sense for us to let go and let God. In other words, our part is to recognize what God is going to do and open our hearts for him to do it while God is the one who actually does it.



Is looking to Christ and reliance on Christ of grace? Is it not of grace that we have the desire to look and rely on Christ?

Everything in this world is done by grace!



Who in their sinfulness, even after salvation, would ever recognize the goodness of God? I forget and ignore the goodness of God in my Christian life a lot. You know why? Because I am sinful and blind and arrogant! If God doesn’t remind me, then I doubt I will see it.

I cannot just be sitting there and be unthankful, and suddenly make myself be thankful if I am really not. If God doesn’t open my eyes and let me see His goodness, and I not see it, and as a result, will not be thankful. Thankfulness and gratitude is an emotion that when you have it, you have it, and when you don’t, you just don’t. Whether or not it is MORE than an emotion, I could probably agree, but the principle exists.

If you were paralyzed from the neck down tomorrow, and could not do anything except sit in a wheel chair, could you MAKE yourself thank God for that?

Do we not see it when we read the bible? When we converse with fellow Christians? Are we not reminded in those ways as well?

I said:

God has the right to command of us what we OUGHT to give even if by virtue of our profound rebellion and corruption we cannot give it. The problem is with US, not the command or with God. We should give thanks whether we are able to or not, and we are responsible for doing so. Ingratitude is still sin because the very nature of ingratitude is arrogant and hateful; it matters not whether we can produce it on our own. Either way, we are still responsible.

You said:


You agree that God can command of us what we ought to give even if by virtue of our profound rebellion and corruption we are unable to give it?[/QUOTE]

Hmm, that’s an interesting way of putting it. What I think I was getting at is that even though we may not feel thankful, we should still give thanks. In other words, our actions should not be dependent on how we feel, but what we know we should do. I’m not sure I agree that God can still command of us what we cannot do. I think that’s unjust.

For example, if I command my cat to swim the Atlantic Ocean knowing full well that it cannot, am I not being cruel? And would I not be even more cruel if I then punished it for not doing what it couldn’t do? It’s because all men can do what is right and repent that we are held responsible for our sins. If all we could do is sin, our whole nature was inherently evil such that repentance and good work were impossible, then to punish us for not repenting and for simply doing what we can do is simply wrong and cruel, as the example I gave showed.


Your statement that “someone is controlled by something it means that they are submitting themselves completely to it? is totally false. They may submit to it, but it does not follow that this submission is voluntary and willful (Holocaust maybe?). Your entire response in this part above was based on that assumption, which I see totally false and inconsistent with reality.
You seem to ignore that we ARE slaves to sin before we are saved…

You seem to be insisting that slaves have absolutely no will or desires of their own. Slaves in the days of the NT were still free people! They had masters whom they served and did their will, but they were not under lock and key such that they had no free will. A slave to sin just means that our actions are always done to serve our sinful nature. It is our master while we are slaves to it. but there is no reason, none whatsoever to think that one can’t serve another master whom comes along who is better.



The heart is just as sinful as the mind…that was the point.

Agree, which is why God gives us a new one…..



Your idea of the “will? is, at least to me like this: I have my soul and heart and mind, then over here, I have a completely different part of me which is not in association with any of the other parts of who I am. The will is not a separate part of a person, acting in complete disassociation with the other parts of who the person is. All parts work together. The will is not a separate entity with a human, working apart from the mind and heart.

:confused:

um, what I meant was that all parts do work together, but no part has complete control over what action is taken. That decision is always left up to the soul who is influenced by all those things.



I see the intellect, emotion, and will as part of the soul, not separate from it. The soul was created in the image of God, which is the exact reason why we have intellect, emotions, and will. Once, again, the will does not act apart from these other parts of the soul…

I think the will is free in that the heart and emotions do not dictate what is willed. They influence it, persuade it at times, but do not necessitate a course of action. The will is then subject to the soul of the person who ultimately decides whether to do what he wills or to do apart.



Is the Gospel not the “wisdom of God????

No.



You make out to sound like there are a bunch of terrible, sinful and corrupt people in the world, and then there are those who are ok people, and they don’t really do much bad, and they are smart enough to choose to NOT sin and choose Christ. THERE ARE NO SUCH PEOPLE! EVERYONE rejects the cross and the Gospel. It is utter foolishness and folly and a stumbling block to them. We are idiots to them! That is not just some people, that is ALL people: moral, immoral or amoral.

Yes, when the Holy Spirit convicts and the Father draws, this all changes. Hence, we see our sinfulness, the beauty and all-sufficiency of Christ, which produces godly sorrow, repentance, and faith.

I agree with most of this. the only thing I disagree with is that we always repent when the father draws us and the spirit convicts us. I think that one can reject that if they so choose.



No. I am simply saying that there are two aspects: a sense in which God has ALWAYS known us (foreknew), and a sense in which God comes to know us (in time and in reality).

So you don’t hold that God exists in all times? In other words, he doesn’t exist in the future right now? He’s not in an eternal now?



The verse does equate “coming to know Him? with “being known by God.? Hence, the word “rather.? It further explains what Paul meant. We came to know God, which is to say that in a sense, God came to know us, and came to make us His people.

The word rather indicates the other perspective of things. It says that as we came to know God, or from the other side of things, as God came to know us, that’s Paul’s point.



We were not a part of the people, but God always had a people and Christ came to die for that SPECIAL people, not a general unknown people.

Christ’s death is only applied to those people, I completely agree. However, given that most of the people didn’t even exist at the time of Christ, the only way he could provide for them is to make a general way for all people to come so whoever believed would be saved.



This is not in any way a strawman. Look at the verse:

Phi 4:6 do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

You say this does not say anything about whether or not God knows them, but I am drawing the same kind of inference you are: Let them “be made known? to God. If we are to make them known to God, then He must not know the present needs of His people. What else could “let them be made known? mean? If we must make them known, they cannot already be known!

The problem here is what we are saying by “made known?. I say it’s meaning “bring to light?, it’s being discussed and talked about. When something is made known, it’s brought forth and seen. It doesn’t have to mean something new or something that was hidden before.



I did not say that is why you hold to it. It is one of the supposed benefits, which I do not think it is consistent in doing.

GIT, I thought you were smarter than that?! You judge the Bible by your experiences?! I agree that is what OVers do, but I have never seen them say it! If I start with Scripture, I have it backward??? There is something more authoritative and more sufficient than Scripture??? You seem to be getting out of the realm of orthodoxy and evangelicalism. You have the audacity to judge the Word of God by your puny and limited experience?
The OV does logically have to hold to a low view of Scripture, but it is the logical implication, not what they actually state. At least you are consistent, and at least you admit where your entire problem lies.

Why would anyone interpret a book to lead them to contradictory ideas about reality? In case you forgot, the writers of the bible also lived in reality! You cannot deny free will as it takes it to deny it which is contradictory. That said, any doctrine which leads us to say that we have no free will MUST be discarded and any texts indicating such things must be interpreted in this light. Do you honestly interpret scripture with no regards to reality?

God is a logical being. He’s not going to contradict himself. He can also not create a contradiction like a square circle. Thus, any logical contradiction cannot exist and since free will and exhaustive foreknowledge are contradictory concepts together, I discard EFK for I cannot discard free will.



I am not talking about the sins themselves. There could be no wrath concerning these sins for Christ to bear since the sins were not yet committed. Jesus could not have took upon Himself the death I deserve because I was not yet existent and did not deserve such a death yet. There was not price for Christ to pay concerning me, for I did not exist.

Well then how did Christ die for you? Unless you are now agreeing with me?



1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

These “elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia? are SPECIFIC people, not just a general group. Peter was writing to specific people, not just whoever happen to read. How can Christ “foreknow,? which seems to have come before predestination in Romans 8, the “body of Christ? which did not even exist?

Huh? :confused:



You want to know why Christ died?

Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Who is this “us?? Is this just a general people? It is a special people, a peculiar people, a people for His own possession.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

Christ died to give life to ALL THOSE GIVEN to Him by the Father?

General people? I don’t think so.

Try reading 1 John 2:2 or Hebrews 2:9.



No, I am suggesting what I said: God is not like you and me. We are like Him.

Well I completely agree with this sentence.



Our sins didn’t have to be bore? Show me where that is not so…
Our death and wrath was a result of our sin! There would be no death and wrath to bear since we did not yet exist to sin. God would not have any wrath toward “us? because “us? did not exist. When Christ died, He would have had to bear on the wrath of those who lived before and those up until the time of His death. We had no “punishment? for Him to take upon Himself.

You’re misunderstanding me. I completely agree that Jesus had to bear the penalty of our sins for their to be hope for us to be saved. However, that doesn’t mean he literally bore them in his flesh. How could he? For they had not been committed yet and the entire idea of them being literally placed on him seems illogical to me.



General predestination? A group of “people? before they exist?? To predestine a “group of people? would presuppose you knew there would be a group of people that would exist. It would also presuppose a specific people, for it would have to be a “group? of people out of humanity. Why would God only predestine a “group? of people if He loved everyone?

Yes, a person can predestine a group before they exist. Why is that so hard to understand? I think its because of how you understand “predestine? and the things it entails which I don’t hold to. The reason God only predestines that group is BECAUSE of love. The group is open to everyone. Admission is free! Faith in Christ is the key and is available to all. To force what is done to those who freely choose Christ also on to those who rejected Christ would not be right, for there would be no reason to choose Christ.



Can you show me a couple text where it speaks of God working with us to bring about good or nothing God does contradicts our free will or a couple texts that define our will?

Those my questions, and you ran with a philosophical assumption of what free will is. I do not deny, nor do any Calvinists, that we make choices and have a will. Those verses show me nothing new. God doesn’t force us to love Him.

Well, Romans 8:28 comes to mind, as well as Philippians 2:13. are you looking for things like that? The reason I don’t think God ever takes away our free will is because if he ever did, it was never free to begin with. Free means just that, free. If it can be taken away at any time then it wasn’t free, it just had some freedom and I don’t hold that our will just has some freedom, I hold that it is free, truly free.



If God were to go against our wills, then how do you explain your comments concerning the Proverbs passages that God can work to NOT let us do something He doesn’t want to happen?

God will never take away our free will. God does work in this world as well, doing things like say thunderstorms, or anything else he likes. If God doesn’t want me to get to my class tomorrow then he can cause me to stay asleep through my alarm in the morning or he can cause my alarm to not go off at all. Things like this, that’s what I was talking about earlier.


The desire and strength are from God? That is all Calvinists teach when they speak of irresistible grace…

And there again is a difference, I hold that it comes after, you hold that it comes before.



Well, lets take the command to do “that which is pleasing in His sight.? Are ALL people
not under obligation to do that?

where is this found?



If so, then all must have the ability to do it, according to your logic. However, you said earlier that unbelievers

“are not capable of living a Godly life for Christ and loving as he loved.?

So can they all do that which is pleasing in His sight or can they not? If they cannot, then God can still command all to do something that they are totally unable to do in and of themselves. Besides, you have admitted that we are unable to repent unless God works in us first…Thus, you are being inconsistent in saying the above, namely, “if it's given to everyone then we all have the ability.?

I need to first know where you are getting this from.

Blessings,

GIT

God_Is_Truth
October 11th, 2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

GIT,

Yes, they are getting long. :)

Phew! We should start dropping some topics as these are beginning to feel like war and peace ;)



I agree, but OVers seem to use this whenever it fits their theology best, not whenever we can. Who judges when it leads to “problems? or “contradictions?? Obviously, this “straightforward? reading can lead to inconsistencies in other views.

It should be read straightforward so long as it doesn’t lead to absurdities, IMO. Open theists use hermeneutics too you know ;)



If God does not want you to drive to the store necessitates that God knows you are going to drive to the store. What if God does not want you to think an evil thought? Can He stop that as well?

Can? Definitely. Will he? No because that would mean he’d have to take away my free will and he will not do that.



I think God can ordained that something be while not directly doing the actions or necessarily causing them to happen. However, I do think God can ordain and cause something to happen through secondary causes and not be responsible for the actions, as if He was the One doing the actions, such as the death of Christ.

So how much of the process was ordained by God and from how long ago was it ordained? Lets’ just keep this to the cross for now.



I agree God is not ignorant of the present. Once again, can God stop you from thinking an evil thought, if He so chooses?

Can he? Yep, but he won’t.



I think Prov. 16:9 defines it as “set up, prepare, or render sure.? So how does God does this and not violate our “free will??

Well, he did all those for the cross through various means. I’m not sure what kind of an answer you are looking for here. All I know is that he can do things like that without violating our free will.



He hardened Pharaoh ultimately to make His power known. How is this consistent with our “free will?? Can God create and give desires to our hearts?

The hardening was a judgment. God is allowed to judge those in this lifetime as well as the next who refuse him. However, a hardening does not mean one has lost free will. It only means that one’s heart is now less inclined to do the will of God than it was before. As I stated in the other post, the heart does not necessitate the course of action the individual will take.



You didn’t really answer. “Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would NOT choose Him? Or: God can affect our hearts and desires so that we would do that which is pleasing in His sight, which we would NOT have done otherwise??

I’m confused here. What are you asking?



I say sin is in a sense done by His power, but not by Him. We are the ones responsible, yes. I agree with you. ALL things are from Him and through Him and to Him, so that He would get the glory forever and ever.

By his power, but not by him, I completely agree.



Let me see you responses to both of my last posts, and I will see if you stay consistent with what you have been saying throughout these posts…

How’d I do? ;)

Blessings,

GIT

Hilston
October 13th, 2004, 12:21 AM
Reply to Clete's post #220 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=601683#post601683):


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It just seems that you read more hostility into than is intended.Coming from you, this doesn't mean much, Clete. You're the reigning champion of overreaction.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I really believe that all Knight wanted was for you to make a real argument instead of just lobbing emotional stink bombs.You really need to go back and read that. Knight started it. I answered in kind, quite cogently. You said nothing to Knight for his emotional stink bomb. Double standard, Clete. That's what stinks.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
While I know you've made substantive arguments before, it does seem sometimes that you're not interested to really debating but just scoring cheap points for impact.We all do it, Clete. It's quite effective. You and Knight both have done it to the point of being disgusting.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And I'm sure it is true that Knight reads more hostility into your posts than is there as well. The point being, nobodies perfect. All this just seems a bit overly sensitive to me.You're still missing the point. I was called unchristian and unfriendly for it. But when Open Theists do it, they get a pass.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
There is no double standard, at least not an intentional one.The double standard is never intentional. But the blindness to it is deliberate. That's what needs to be exposed.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I don’t really think Knight believes that saying such things is unfriendly and unchristian but that it is when that's all you seem to do and then refuse to substantiate your statements. Maybe I'm wrong.I see no apology forthcoming. In PMs, he has been utterly defiant.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
He gets no pass. If his intent was as you suggest then he was wrong for having said what he said. It seems to me however that he was simply trying to draw you out, albeit ineffectively.You're a good friend, Clete. You're giving him the benefit of the doubt. It's interesting that when Knight called me a friend and said he expected more from me, I wasn't afforded the same friendly courtesy.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Yes, no one denies that such figures exist. The problem is that the text cannot be saying that God didn't repent when the whole context of the statement makes it clear that God was unhappy about the condition of things.
I'll show you what I mean...

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at his heart.

There is no way to read this passage and get that God was happy with the situation on the Earth.No one claims otherwise. You clearly don't know what anthropopathism means, or at least how it applies.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
He did kill everybody, so we know that he really was upset.Agreed, but do you realize that saying "he was really upset" is to verbally describe God's anger in an anthropopathic way?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
So if the figure here is saying the opposite of what it seems to be saying then how does the second half of the sentence fit with the first?Both are figurative, Clete.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It just simply cannot mean the opposite unless the whole thing is a figure that means the opposite of what it says, in which case God would not be grieved at His heart but encouraged!You just don't get it. To say God is encouraged is also an anthropopathic description. The figure is not based on the difference between grief and encouragement but rather between human feelings and Divine feelings. You should already know this, Clete. How long have you been debating this? That's what I find so annoying. After all this time (20+ years as a Calvinist?) just don't know what you're talking about, but you go on and on as if you do.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
But if that is true then why did he wipe out the whole planet minus 8 people? It just doesn't make any sense!Of course not. That should tell you one of two things: Either (a) you don't understand the argument of your opponent, or (b) your opponent is an imbecile. You've conceded that I'm not an imbecile, so that leaves (a).


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Give a title and author of a book or article that addresses this issue head on and I will promise to read it. How’s that?

I personally have told you at least a half dozen times that if you have something to teach me, do it. I wasn’t kidding.Lots of people say this, Clete. Why haven't you learned this stuff on your own? Why do you have to be shamed into this? How long have you been debating so-called Calvinists and you still don't know this stuff?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have actually looked a few things concerning this Presuppositionalism thing you espouse. All of it either makes little or no sense or it bares no resemblance to anything I've ever seen you post. This is why I have asked you about it more than once before (with no response, by the way).Presuppositionalism is the biblical form of debate. I rarely venture outside of it. Whenever I do wander, I always get popped, so I try to avoid that. Since it's one of my favorite subjects, it's highly unlikely that you didn't get a response from me. It's probably more like you didn't understand the response, which is more than likely because it isn't an easy concept to grasp right off the bat. That's not due to any failure or deficit of scriptural apologetics, but rather to the pervasive and ubiquitous use of unbiblical apologetics in Christendom.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I explained myself when I said it but for the sake of clarity. Yes, God would love it if everyone in the world responded to Him in faith. There are none that He would turn away.So then it's NOT an overstatement to say that God wants to save more than He can?

Hilston wrote: Once again, you've missed the point. The Open Theist God has a problem. God wants to save more than He can, because of His stipulated standards. The determinist view has no such problem.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
How is this a “problem?? God would be justified in sending every last person to Hell if He wished.You wouldn't have a problem with that? Justified means "right." Are you saying that God would be right for sending every last person to Hell for no other reason than it was according to what "He wished"?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The salvation of even one soul would be a great victory for God.Not according to scripture. It's all or nothing with God. There are no acceptable losses. He will save every single one He loves, without exception.

Mt. 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
That’s one soul less than what would have gone to Hell otherwise.Open Theists like to talk about some innate sense of justice. Doesn't that innate thing tell you there's something wrong when God's highest creation, by the vast majority, prefers Satan to God? Doesn't your innate sense of score-keeping tell you that God is a Big Loser if His own special pinnacle creation, by the vast majority, doesn't want anything to do with Him?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You seem to forget that the whole kit and caboodle was condemned in Adam the moment he fell in the Garden.On the contrary, no one is condemned for the sins of their ancestors. They pay for their own sins and no one else's. The idea of inheriting the guilt of Adam's original sin is unbiblical.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If God had “cut His losses? as you put it, none of us would be here and millions of saved souls would never have existed.On your view, that would be the case. On my view, there are zero losses.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
So my version of God is a big loser, and yours is the author of evil and the creator of beings designed specifically and only for His wrath.Nice stink bomb.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I’ll take a just and righteous loser over the author of evil any day of the week and twice on Sundays, thank you very much.So be it.

Hilston wrote: It's not weakness I'm implying. It is incoherence. How could a God who wants all men to be saved and to come to the saving knowledge of Christ sit by and watch scores of people plummet into hell?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
With a heavy heart, full of sorrow and grief over the needless tragedy of it, that’s how.That's what I'm talking about. My God is joyful. There is joy in heaven. My God is not subject to mood swings, or an emotional victim of the actions of others. He is in control of His own state of mind, not psychologically tossed to and fro by actions of finite men. There is no sorrow in the Third Heaven. No grief. What you call a "needless tragedy" is God's doing, according to your view, Clete. He could stop it all today and prevent scores and scores of people from plunging into hell, but He doesn't? Why?

Hilston wrote: Statistically, He is losing big-time (hence the term, Big Loser), and any economist, statistician or gambler would suggest He cut His losses and end it all right now. The "God Who Risks" is betting against the house, and He loses big every single day.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It’s a matter of perspective I suppose. It seems to me that you are not qualified to make such an assessment anyway. God obviously thinks it worthwhile to do things the way He is doing them, and He’s smarter than the both of us put together.You've begged the very question. My view is coherent. Yours relegates your thinking to the kind of response you just offered above: "It's a matter of perspective, I suppose." Doesn't your innate ability to keep score tell you that the God of Open Theism is a Big Loser? And that His loss grows exponentially with the population and mortality rates of the human race?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Nope on the contrary Jim, to get what I think that verse says all anyone has to do is read it no specialized knowledge is needed at all accept an ability to read. A third grader who knows nothing at all about theology could read and understand it perfectly.You've begged the question again, Clete. You're assuming you have perfect understanding of the passage. You've committed a logical fallacy.

Hilston wrote: I already knew that is what you think. It's Open View arrogance. I've seen it before. Open Theists just can't fathom the possibility that their view could be wrong, so they blithely dismiss it. If you really thought it was possible to be wrong, you'd stop at nothing to find out, much like I've stopped at nothing to investigate Open Theism. But you don't really care, do you?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
All I’m waiting on is someone to show me where I’m wrong. You up for it?That's the difference between you and me. I don't wait around for someone to show me. I'll even put up with deliberate obfuscation and evasion to try to get answers to my questions. As to your question, I've led many horses to water, Clete. So your question is misdirected.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Oh yeah, heaven forbid that we actually ask someone to make an argument for the theology they believe on a web site which is in existence for that express purpose. Give me a break. Swordsman start this thread and titled it in a manner so as to make sure Knight (and probably myself) would be sure to engage him in a debate about Open Theism. What would you like for us to say…
“Uh Swordsman, I can’t respond to your mindless ranting right now, to do so would require that I rehash material I’ve already covered with Hilston on another thread and he said I don’t know what I’m talking about but didn’t explain what he meant or how I was wrong so I need to go read every post Jim’s ever written to see if he’s explained himself elsewhere and in addition he mention some guy named Pink so I need to read all his stuff too so that I know for sure that I know that Calvinism is heresy before I crush you into powder in this debate.?You've missed the point entirely. The point is that you give every indication that you don't really care. If swordsman gave similar indications, sure, say whatever you want to him and refuse to answer his disingenuous questions (were that the case).


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have read some of Calvin’s writing although admittedly very little. I’ve read a few different books (at least in part) by A.W. Pink – A Study of Dispensationalism, Gleanings in Genesis and Gleanings From Paul, maybe small portions of one or two more. I’ve read most of what is on a website that features the writings of a man names R.L Babney http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney.htm His is by far the one I’ve read the most of. I read Pink’s books when I was in high school, when I was still up to my neck in Calvinism myself. That’s been a long time ago. There are others, mostly modern authors like R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur and Charles Stanley. All of whom, by the way, teach the exact same tenets of Calvinism that I believed for the first 20+ years of my Christian life. I, for one, do not buy your assertion that we (open theists) are ignorant of what Calvinism actually teaches. The TULIP mnemonic device is relatively new and Dabney wrote before it was in common use but he would have agreed with it fully, as would have Pink and as far as anything I’ve seen so would Calvin, Luther, and Augustine.I haven't complained about the use of TULIP, so I'm not sure why you're making this argument. My complaint is that you guys don't understand what you're critiquing and you just don't seem to care.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
This isn’t a complete list but in addition to books, I’ve also read lots of articles, mainly on the internet, by various authors whom I couldn’t begin to name. I usually end up reading them because someone claims that they “do the best job of defending their beliefs that they’ve ever seen, blah, blah, blah? So, I’ll read it and discover that they use the exact same arguments that you and others here on TOL use, the exact same ones, sometimes verbatim.Then you should be pretty skilled at refuting them by now. What is baffling to me is that you spent 20+ years as a Calvinist and you still don't know this stuff. You must've gone to the same church as Poly.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Anthropopathisms are figures of speech that attribute the attributes of man to something other than a man (emotion, intellect, sight or another of the senses, etc). It is not quite the same thing as anthropomorphisms which attribute the form of man onto things other than men(arms, legs, eyes, etc). See, I knew that without even having to look it up! Have I read any books on the subject? Well, “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible? by E.W. Bullinger discusses this and I’ve read that portion of his book along with one or two others, but I have not read the entire volume.Then this is even worse. You can give the definition off the top of your head, but when it comes to actually applying it to the text, your brain shuts off. Why do you go around accusing Calvinists of saying God felt the opposite emotion conveyed in the scriptures in question?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
No I don’t. Guess what Jim, you don’t get to define what Calvinism is! Sproul is probably the leading Calvinist in this country at the moment and I just heard him less than a month ago say on national radio that God cannot change at all period.If you want to use Sproul, that's fine. I don't presume to define Calvinism; I let history do that. My point is you don't care. That's my complaint.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I think his exact words where “God is utterly immutable.? And then he went on for half an hour making the point painfully clear and explaining how this doesn’t cause the logical problems that one would intuitively think it would.Did you understand what he taught on the subject? To test your understanding, ask yourself this: Do you find it surprising that Sproul teaches that that immutability refers to God's character and being, not his actions [Character of God, R.C. Sproul]? If it does surprise you, then you did not understand Sproul's teaching.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
C.S. Lewis, another prominent Calvinist whom I’ve read quite a bit said in his book “Miracles?, that “God cannot be touched by love.?, a statement about God’s impassibility, a related doctrine to immutability. And both he and Sproul used the same exact arguments that I’ve seen Swordsman and Z Man and other Calvinist on this site use to defend those beliefs. Are you going to suggest to us that R.C. Sproul and C.S. Lewis are a couple of half baked theologians like the rest of us here at TOL?Nope. I'm suggesting that your Open Theism lenses and blinders prevent you from understanding anything more than you've already decided in advance.

Hilston wrote: While appreciate your kind remarks, and I sincerely desire to have a cordial and respectful discussion with you, your exit interview with Zman made me re-think even wanting to talk to you on the phone. Something told me that I was seeing my future.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Well, that won’t happen unless you start shooting blasphemies all over the place on threads where more than one unbeliever is known to be present and sure to read it.He stated his beliefs, Clete, and you went ballistic. This isn't a church, Clete, where you have to take responsibility for what others teach. This is a public forum where debate is encouraged. Your public trashing of Zman served only to discourage debate.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Those sorts of things coming from an unbeliever do plenty of harm but are somewhat expected. But coming from someone who claims to be a follower of Christ, statements like that do dramatically more harm and must be staunchly and publicly opposed, especially in the presence of someone who is already a skeptic.Good grief, Clete. No wonder you're so uptight. If I made it my mission to protect the TOL skeptics from false teaching, I wouldn't have time to breathe.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You may disagree with my reasoning on this and I’m sure you disagree with the way I handled it but at least now you know how to avoid such treatment yourself.You know what, Clete, those words sicken me. If I didn't know you at all and didn't care about you, I wouldn't give a fig. But when I see the ugly side of people I like, it sickens me.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Let me know if you would like to set up a phone call and we’ll figure out a time.I would, despite the warnings going off in my head.

godrulz
October 13th, 2004, 10:20 AM
Hilston:

I do not believe in the classic Augustinian doctrine of 'original sin' nor the Federal Headship of Adam theory. Do I understand from a line in your last post that you also do not believe in this?

Sin is a wrong moral choice, not a substance passed on from Adam. The soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezekiel).

Would you agree that we are sinners because we sin (volitional), and not that we sin because we are born sinners (genetic)?

godrulz
October 13th, 2004, 10:43 AM
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/webpages54/ap/presup.html

Presuppositionalism is from Van Til.

It seems to me that Calvinism is based on logic and deduction, rather than sound exegesis and inductive study (we should pull the meaning out of the text to formulate a belief, rather than read a preconceived theology back into the text).

I do not know much about Van Til, but I wonder if there are some applications and limitations to his view. It may be helpful for some apologetics, but not for every doctrinal dispute.

Hilston
October 18th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Hilston:

I do not believe in the classic Augustinian doctrine of 'original sin' nor the Federal Headship of Adam theory. Do I understand from a line in your last post that you also do not believe in this?You and I seem to agree on this point, godrulz. My view is that "original sin" should really be called, "original guilt," which is horribly anti-biblical.


Originally posted by godrulz

Sin is a wrong moral choice, not a substance passed on from Adam. The soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezekiel).Exactly. However, I maintain that the fallen nature, figuratively referred to as "the flesh", is passed on, but not as a traducian or physical transference. Man's propensity toward selfishness and sin is now in our very nature as the result of Adam's fall.


Originally posted by godrulz

Would you agree that we are sinners because we sin (volitional), and not that we sin because we are born sinners (genetic)? I believe we are conceived with the sin nature, though I wouldn't claim it is genetic. It is spiritual. The human spirit was designed to commune with and worship God. Since Adam, all humans are born with a dead spirit (not "lifeless", but disconnected from Life) and is thus sinfully focused solely upon the self from the point of conception.

godrulz
October 18th, 2004, 09:22 PM
I guess 'original sin' is one extreme and my rejection of this is another extreme. You seem to have a moderate position that retains some language of sin nature. The NIV correctly translates 'sinful nature' ( a preconceived theology) as 'flesh' (which I believe is a metaphor for living for Self and the physical over and above living for God and in the Spirit).

I clarify the issue by saying we inherit physical depravity from the Fall of Adam. This includes death and a propensity from an early age to live to please the flesh vs spirit.

I do not believe moral depravity is inherited. Morality is based on choices, which are not inherited. From a young age, we live for Self rather than God. Our choices form a habit which forms a nature/character which leads to a destiny. So, I would not say we have a 'sinful nature' at conception. Babies are born innocent with a bent to sin, not a causative force back of the will.

"Dead in sin" is also a metaphor, not that our spirits in the image of God are literally dead/annihilated. Death= separation. We should not confuse metaphysics (essence, stuff, substance) with morals (choice).

Total depravity (Calvinism) does not have to mean total inability. Again, I would distinguish physical and moral depravity.

STONE
October 18th, 2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

I guess 'original sin' is one extreme and my rejection of this is another extreme. You seem to have a moderate position that retains some language of sin nature. The NIV correctly translates 'sinful nature' ( a preconceived theology) as 'flesh' (which I believe is a metaphor for living for Self and the physical over and above living for God and in the Spirit).

I clarify the issue by saying we inherit physical depravity from the Fall of Adam. This includes death and a propensity from an early age to live to please the flesh vs spirit.

I do not believe moral depravity is inherited. Morality is based on choices, which are not inherited. From a young age, we live for Self rather than God. Our choices form a habit which forms a nature/character which leads to a destiny. So, I would not say we have a 'sinful nature' at conception. Babies are born innocent with a bent to sin, not a causative force back of the will.

"Dead in sin" is also a metaphor, not that our spirits in the image of God are literally dead/annihilated. Death= separation. We should not confuse metaphysics (essence, stuff, substance) with morals (choice).

Total depravity (Calvinism) does not have to mean total inability. Again, I would distinguish physical and moral depravity.
Though true to a point, being the natural, there is a supernal aspect which is being overlooked.

natewood3
October 19th, 2004, 12:21 AM
GIT,

I might not respond to every single thing, due to the length of these posts lately...however, there are things I want to point out.

You say:


If the spirit doesn’t convict us of that sin and if the father doesn’t begin to draw us towards him, then yes, no one will come to Christ. I agree.

Then you say:


Once we are convicted of sin and drawn the father, we must still make up our mind that we are going to take the salvation that is being offered. Remember, I hold that one fully understands and sees Christ in all his glory AFTER he repents and believes, not before. The repenting and believing are able to be done with the help of the father and the spirit.

I admit that there is work done by the spirit before we repent. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. However, I don’t think it enables us to do anything we couldn’t have done before in the sense of us having a new capability or something. Rather, it helps us do what we should have done the whole time—repent and believe.

Now, a few points need to be made. First, you say the Spirit "helps" us do what we should have done the whole time, namely, repent and believe, but at the same time you want to say that we were totally able to do this before the Spirit began to convict us. Do you not see the incoherence of that? If you are totally able to do so on your own, then why do we need the Spirit's conviction and the Father's drawing? If we have to have it to be saved, then we obviously are unable to truly be saved unless GOD does something first.

Secondly, you say you believe that we "fully understand and see Christ in all his glory AFTER we repent and believe, not before." I suppose you did not think this statement all the way through before you said it.

Why would anyone "repent and believe" in Someone who they do not see or understand, Someone who does not look gloriously beautiful and all-satisfying? Why would anyone come to Christ if they do not see Him? Why would anyone believe in Christ if they don't see Him as the all-satisfying Treasure they have been searching for? I agree that we do not FULLY understand or see Him, but we do see Him and understand what He done for us BEFORE we are saved, otherwise, we would never have any desire to be saved. God's initial activity of letting us "taste and see that the Lord is good" is what causes our desire for Him and our desire to believe in Him.


can we long for something that we don’t really desire? I think we can in a sense, as a part of our mindset. I think we can tell ourselves that we want something and to go searching for it and to think about it, even though we don’t have the feelings to go with it yet. So in that sense, I think we can long for something even though we may lack the emotions.

First, the word "long" in that text means "desire." You are confusing terms. Second, if we are "desiring" the Word by just trying to make ourselves do it, then it is probably fake. I can "make myself desire" a food that I hate, but that is not real desire and longing. Desire comes from tasting and savoring. The more we taste the Word and savor the Word, the more we will desire it. The point it this: If God does not open our eyes to see His Word as great and marvellous, we won't desire it, yet we are commanded to do it.


Well if that’s the case then I think it makes sense for us to let go and let God. In other words, our part is to recognize what God is going to do and open our hearts for him to do it while God is the one who actually does it.

You do not understand the relationship between God's actions and our actions if you think that is what you should do. That is like saying, "God gives and sustains life, so we should just stop breathing." That is crazy. Just because it is GOD that does the work in us, it does not follow for us to be lazy or to just "let go and let God." That is actually antibiblical.

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

I said:
Is looking to Christ and reliance on Christ of grace? Is it not of grace that we have the desire to look and rely on Christ?


Everything in this world is done by grace!

Hence, you support my argument that we would never see Christ or even have the desire to look and rely on Him without God's grace and God's decisive actions before our dependent actions. Therefore, how are we not totally unable to come to Christ unless God performs an awesome miracle in our hearts first?


Hmm, that’s an interesting way of putting it. What I think I was getting at is that even though we may not feel thankful, we should still give thanks. In other words, our actions should not be dependent on how we feel, but what we know we should do. I’m not sure I agree that God can still command of us what we cannot do. I think that’s unjust.

If I give thanks for the loss of my wife, and I am not really feeling thankful, it is hypocritical GIT!!! True gratitude is there when it is there, and when it isn't, it just isn't there. If you just try to muster up some "gratitude" without truly being thankful and feeling thankful in your heart, it is pseudo-gratitude. It is hypocritical.


For example, if I command my cat to swim the Atlantic Ocean knowing full well that it cannot, am I not being cruel? And would I not be even more cruel if I then punished it for not doing what it couldn’t do? It’s because all men can do what is right and repent that we are held responsible for our sins. If all we could do is sin, our whole nature was inherently evil such that repentance and good work were impossible, then to punish us for not repenting and for simply doing what we can do is simply wrong and cruel, as the example I gave showed.

The problem with your example is that your cat cannot swim across because it is PHYSICALLY unable to do it. We cannot come to Christ because we are MORALLY unable to do so. It is not as if God is not allowing some people to come to Him who would have came had they been given the opportunity. No one seeks God. No one understands spiritual things. No one sees the Cross as beautiful. Why? Because they don't WANT to and they are UNABLE to do so because of their sinfulness, corruption, and rebellion. Do not make it as though it is God's fault that we are sinful. As I have always said, we make choices and we choose sin. It is OUR fault we cannot come to Christ. That does NOT in any way lessen weight of the command, "Repent and believe."

I said: The heart is just as sinful as the mind…that was the point.


Agree, which is why God gives us a new one…..

Now, in relation to what I have said above: How would a person with a deceitful and wicked heart ever turn to Christ? If we can turn to him with a sinful heart, why do we need a new heart?

I said: Is the Gospel not the “wisdom of God????

You said:

No.

1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

You say this verse only refers to God's wisdom. I said the Gospel is the wisdom of God. You said it is not.

1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

That whole context of 1 Cor. 1 and 2 is speaking of the Gospel of Christ, and how it is considered the wisdom of God and is foolishness to the world.



I agree with most of this. the only thing I disagree with is that we always repent when the father draws us and the spirit convicts us. I think that one can reject that if they so choose.

If one does not repent, it is because he/she hasn't seen Christ as the all-satisfying Treasure that he/she has always been searching for, because when he/she does, they sell all they have to get it.


Why would anyone interpret a book to lead them to contradictory ideas about reality? In case you forgot, the writers of the bible also lived in reality! You cannot deny free will as it takes it to deny it which is contradictory. That said, any doctrine which leads us to say that we have no free will MUST be discarded and any texts indicating such things must be interpreted in this light. Do you honestly interpret scripture with no regards to reality?

God is a logical being. He’s not going to contradict himself. He can also not create a contradiction like a square circle. Thus, any logical contradiction cannot exist and since free will and exhaustive foreknowledge are contradictory concepts together, I discard EFK for I cannot discard free will.

I DO NOT DENY FREE WILL! I DO NOT DENY FREE WILL! One more time? I DO NOT DENY FREE WILL! What I deny is a will that is contrary to "reality." Libertarian free will is not biblical. It is a presupposition and a philosophical assumption. There is no way on earth I would have ever come to that idea of free will by reading the Bible. I had never even heard of such a thing until I started reading about the OV.

BTW, EFK and free will do not contradict each other in the Calvinist view, only in the OV.

I said: I am not talking about the sins themselves. There could be no wrath concerning these sins for Christ to bear since the sins were not yet committed. Jesus could not have took upon Himself the death I deserve because I was not yet existent and did not deserve such a death yet. There was not price for Christ to pay concerning me, for I did not exist.

You said:


Well then how did Christ die for you? Unless you are now agreeing with me?

You keep stressing that Christ didn't literally bore our sins, but that He bore the wrath of our sins. What you do not seem to understand is this: How can Christ bear the "wrath" for sins that were not yet know? God just gave Christ some general wrath for some general sin for some general people? Paul said that Christ gave Himself for "me." Christ cannot bear Paul's wrath unless God already knew all the sins Paul would ever commit, and therefore be able to remove all the wrath standing between Paul and God.


Try reading 1 John 2:2 or Hebrews 2:9.

I love how you ignored the text.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

Christ died to give life to ALL THOSE GIVEN to Him by the Father?

Who are "all those given to Him by the Father"?


Yes, a person can predestine a group before they exist. Why is that so hard to understand? I think its because of how you understand “predestine? and the things it entails which I don’t hold to. The reason God only predestines that group is BECAUSE of love. The group is open to everyone. Admission is free! Faith in Christ is the key and is available to all. To force what is done to those who freely choose Christ also on to those who rejected Christ would not be right, for there would be no reason to choose Christ.

You imply we "become predstined," which seems, at least to me, totally contradictory. How can we become something that took place before we ever existed?

Who said anything about forcing?

I asked: Can you show me a couple text where it speaks of God working with us to bring about good or nothing God does contradicts our free will or a couple texts that define our will?

You said:


Well, Romans 8:28 comes to mind, as well as Philippians 2:13. are you looking for things like that? The reason I don’t think God ever takes away our free will is because if he ever did, it was never free to begin with. Free means just that, free. If it can be taken away at any time then it wasn’t free, it just had some freedom and I don’t hold that our will just has some freedom, I hold that it is free, truly free.

Neither one of these texts state God works "with" us:

Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Phi 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

God does not work around your free will; He works in it to do HIS will and HIS good pleasure. Big difference than Him working "with" us.


God will never take away our free will. God does work in this world as well, doing things like say thunderstorms, or anything else he likes. If God doesn’t want me to get to my class tomorrow then he can cause me to stay asleep through my alarm in the morning or he can cause my alarm to not go off at all. Things like this, that’s what I was talking about earlier.

How would you be "free" to go to class if God "causes you to stay asleep"?

I said:

Well, lets take the command to do “that which is pleasing in His sight.? Are ALL people not under obligation to do that?

If so, then all must have the ability to do it, according to your logic. However, you said earlier that unbelievers

“are not capable of living a Godly life for Christ and loving as he loved.?

So can they all do that which is pleasing in His sight or can they not? If they cannot, then God can still command all to do something that they are totally unable to do in and of themselves. Besides, you have admitted that we are unable to repent unless God works in us first…Thus, you are being inconsistent in saying the above, namely, “if it's given to everyone then we all have the ability.?

You asked where this was found:

Col 1:10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.

Eph 5:10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.

Heb 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
Heb 13:21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

If we produce that which is pleasing in His sight on our own, you know who will get glory and praise? US!!! However, if it is God who gives and produces that which is pleasing in His sight IN us and through us, then GOD gets the glory. The Giver gets the glory.


Can? Definitely. Will he? No because that would mean he’d have to take away my free will and he will not do that.

Pro 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.

How does this go along with what you said above?


So how much of the process was ordained by God and from how long ago was it ordained? Lets’ just keep this to the cross for now.

2Ti 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before time began,

"Before time" began seems like a LONG "time" ago. Maybe, from all eternity (as other translators translate it)? How much did it involve? Well, look at the hundreds of prophecies and it seems as though all the details were included.

Question: How can God ordain that He would save us through the cross before time began, being He didn't even know Adam and Eve had sinned or would sin, and therefore, we did not need a Savior yet? Why would God ordain the cross before time began if He didn't know the cross would even be needed?


Can he? Yep, but he won’t.

You say God CAN stop you from thinking an evil thought, but what you seem to ignore is the fact that God must KNOW that you are going to think that evil thought if He has the ability to stop the thought. Whether or not God WILL is irrelevant in this issue. You say God CAN stop a person from thinking an evil thought. God must KNOW the evil thought will take place beforehand in order to be able to stop the evil thought.


Well, he did all those for the cross through various means. I’m not sure what kind of an answer you are looking for here. All I know is that he can do things like that without violating our free will.

In other words, you punted on Prov. 16:9...


The hardening was a judgment. God is allowed to judge those in this lifetime as well as the next who refuse him. However, a hardening does not mean one has lost free will. It only means that one’s heart is now less inclined to do the will of God than it was before. As I stated in the other post, the heart does not necessitate the course of action the individual will take.

So Pharaoh COULD HAVE repented and changed everything?



How’d I do?

Well, you punted on the verse we were discussing. So, you either don't understand quite what you believe or I am right. God can work in us and through our desires to produce whatever He wants to produce, without violating our choice and freedom. Hence, it is both God (which is decisive) and man (which is dependent), which equals compatiblism.

Clete
October 19th, 2004, 06:38 AM
godrulz and/or Jim,

I agree with you both on this issue of original sin, to a point. That is to say, I do not believe that anyone goes to Hell because of Adam's sin but because of their own sin. However, I believe that this is so only because of what was done at the cross. Without the cross we would all be without hope and we would be without hope because we are all fallen 'in Adam'. (I Cor. 15:21-22)

Could I get either one of you or both to explain your understanding of the following two passages?

I Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I look forward to your response.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Jim,

I'm sorry that I was unable to respond to you over the weekend. I should be able to type up a full response to your post later this afternoon or this evening.

God bless!

Hilston
October 19th, 2004, 08:14 AM
I've answered this before in greater detail, so I'll just hit on the main idea here.

Both 1Corinthians and Romans were written to members of the Body of Christ, i.e. those who were individually chosen/elected from before the foundation of the world (The elect of the Body were chosen logically prior to the elect of Israel and the nations, who were chosen from the foundation of the world.). That is to say, in the logical order of God's decrees, God made decisions about the Body of Christ before He made decisions about creation, the Fall, sinful man, and the redemption of the elect. So Paul is answering the question: "Since the members of the Body of Christ were chosen before the existence of sin, how is it that members of the Body are found to be sinners?"

So when Paul uses the word "all" in these contexts, he is referring to "all in the Body of Christ," not "all without exception in the world/history."

Otherwise, if you place a high value on the atonement/work of Christ, you're left with universalism. The only way out of universalism is to devalue Christ's sacrifice and to relegate its efficacy to the "real saviors," namely, those who save themselves by being smart enough to cash in the Heaven Rebate Coupon.

Clete
October 19th, 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

I've answered this before in greater detail, so I'll just hit on the main idea here.

Both 1Corinthians and Romans were written to members of the Body of Christ, i.e. those who were individually chosen/elected from before the foundation of the world (The elect of the Body were chosen logically prior to the elect of Israel and the nations, who were chosen from the foundation of the world.). That is to say, in the logical order of God's decrees, God made decisions about the Body of Christ before He made decisions about creation, the Fall, sinful man, and the redemption of the elect. So Paul is answering the question: "Since the members of the Body of Christ were chosen before the existence of sin, how is it that members of the Body are found to be sinners?"

So when Paul uses the word "all" in these contexts, he is referring to "all in the Body of Christ," not "all without exception in the world/history."

Otherwise, if you place a high value on the atonement/work of Christ, you're left with universalism. The only way out of universalism is to devalue Christ's sacrifice and to relegate its efficacy to the "real saviors," namely, those who save themselves by being smart enough to cash in the Heaven Rebate Coupon.

I honestly cannot fathom how you cannot consider yourself a Calvinist. Calvin himself couldn't have said this any better.

Be that as it may, isn't this a backward way of interpreting Scripture? You openly admit that your assumption that "all" means "all in the Body of Christ" is because of your theology concerning the atonement. It seems to me that our theology should be influenced by the text not the text by our theology.
Is there a grammatical or contextual reason within the text itself that would suggest such an understanding of the word "all"?
The books of Romans and I Corinthians are both part of the Bible obviously, but they are also their own books and what they say must be interpretable within their own context. In other words each book of the Bible must logically stand on its own. Is there anything in I Corinthians or Romans that would suggest such an interpretation or the word "all"? If not, then your position is disproved on the basis of unsound exegesis.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
October 19th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Jim,

I'm going to let the double standard stuff drop. Suffice it to say that I understand your point and as for me, I will endeavor to avoid any such double standard in the future and I am also endeavoring to keep my emotions more in check than they have been in recent weeks.


Originally posted by Hilston
You just don't get it. To say God is encouraged is also an anthropopathic description. The figure is not based on the difference between grief and encouragement but rather between human feelings and Divine feelings. You should already know this, Clete. How long have you been debating this? That's what I find so annoying. After all this time (20+ years as a Calvinist?) just don't know what you're talking about, but you go on and on as if you do.
You are the one who doesn't understand the argument Jim, or at least it seems so.
If you want to call all this stuff anthropomorphisms, great! Call the whole Bible an anthropomorphism if you like, but in so doing you must be prepared to explain what it means. That's all I'm saying.
If Gen. 6:6 is 100% figure of speech then what does the figure mean? All figures of speech, including anthropopathisms convey information of some kind or else they are meaningless, right? So what information is this particular figure of speech conveying to us?
The only answers I have been given are always one of three things; either its just plain silence in which case they don’t know what it means, or the figure is conveying information that is the direct opposite of what the whole context would seems to indicate, or the figure means what the verse actually says, in which case its not a figure of speech in the first place.
The point is that figures of speech are basically multi-word words only with figures the words themselves do not convey the intended meaning it’s exactly the same as having a completely different word in the sentence. And just like regular words, you have to know what a figure means before you can make sense of a text that uses it. All I’m asking you to do is define the terms used in this particular text or admit that you cannot. If it doesn’t mean the opposite, that’s great! What does it mean then?


Lots of people say this, Clete. Why haven't you learned this stuff on your own? Why do you have to be shamed into this? How long have you been debating so-called Calvinists and you still don't know this stuff?
I have been shamed into nothing; I have never had any other attitude. If you have something to teach me, I really wish you would just get on with it and do it. I am not willfully ignorant, if you can show me how I am wrong then I will changed my position. I've done more than once before and I'm sure I'll do it more than once more. Now do you have some reading material for me or not?


Presuppositionalism is the biblical form of debate.
Would you mind explaining and establishing this statement?


I rarely venture outside of it. Whenever I do wander, I always get popped, so I try to avoid that. Since it's one of my favorite subjects, it's highly unlikely that you didn't get a response from me. It's probably more like you didn't understand the response, which is more than likely because it isn't an easy concept to grasp right off the bat. That's not due to any failure or deficit of scriptural apologetics, but rather to the pervasive and ubiquitous use of unbiblical apologetics in Christendom.
I agree that this is a possibility, however, I would say that it is not the responsibility of the "student" to find a way to understand the "teacher" but it is the teacher's responsibility to convey that which is being taught in such a way as his student with understand the material. If you are talking above my head, that's not my fault, but yours.


So then it's NOT an overstatement to say that God wants to save more than He can?
God is not impotent as you phrasing suggests! He can do anything that He wants, including limiting those whom He saves to those who respond to Him in faith. And if He does so, you can rest assured that it is the wisest and most effective course of action possible.


Hilston wrote: Once again, you've missed the point. The Open Theist God has a problem. God wants to save more than He can, because of His stipulated standards. The determinist view has no such problem.
It is not a problem Jim. That's the way God wants it, and so that's the way it is. He wants to have a people who genuinely love Him and so He cannot force the situation. Not because of any deficit in God ability but because of the definition of the word "love".

God would be justified in sending every last person to Hell if He wished.
[quote]You wouldn't have a problem with that? Justified means "right." Are you saying that God would be right for sending every last person to Hell for no other reason than it was according to what "He wished"?
I didn't say that but it is what you say, isn't it? At least it's what you say about all those who do go to Hell. They go because God wished to send them there, period.
What I said is that God would be justified in sending us all to Hell if that is what He decided to do. We all, actually do deserve Hell, Jim; all of us including "the elect". It would not be unjust for Him to send us there because of what we have done.


Not according to scripture. It's all or nothing with God. There are no acceptable losses. He will save every single one He loves, without exception.

Mt. 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. 14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Notice that verse 13 is an "if, then" statement. "If" he finds the lost sheep, then he rejoices.
Also the verse simply communicates God desire; it is not making an absolute statement here accept to say that God does not want to see any of Israel lost. In other passage it speaks of God wanting good grapes and getting wild ones. It is clear that God does not always get what He wants when it comes to people responding to Him in faith. This is the risk one takes when asking someone to love you, sometimes, perhaps more often than not, people reject you. When one does respond though, it makes all the rejection worth it and then some.


Open Theists like to talk about some innate sense of justice. Doesn't that innate thing tell you there's something wrong when God's highest creation, by the vast majority, prefers Satan to God? Doesn't your innate sense of score-keeping tell you that God is a Big Loser if His own special pinnacle creation, by the vast majority, doesn't want anything to do with Him?
On the contrary, with the possibility of love comes the possibility of hate. With a great potential for good comes an equally great potential for evil. The great evil of the human race speaks only to the tragedy of the loss of its awesome potential. Most of which, I believe, has been recovered by the redeeming work of the cross. The simply fact is, that you have no idea what God has in store for those of us who love Him and how that might compare with all the misery and evil that has been visited upon creation up to this point in history. The Bible itself says this explicitly...
Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.


That's what I'm talking about. My God is joyful. There is joy in heaven. My God is not subject to mood swings, or an emotional victim of the actions of others. He is in control of His own state of mind, not psychologically tossed to and fro by actions of finite men. There is no sorrow in the Third Heaven. No grief.
So you are saying then that God was not grieved at His heart, right? That Gen. 6:6 says something that is just simply not true at all! It's obviously just a figure of speech, an anthropopathism!
Well if that's the case then why isn't saying that he is joyful a figure of speech as well? Why isn't saying that He is in control of His own state of mind a figure of speech that doesn't mean what it says?
You are simply wrong Jim. The Bible says that He will dry every tear when we get to heaven. That means that there will be some shed. It's sort of difficult to dry non existent tears. And the Bible speaks over and over and over again about God being not only joyful, glad, and happy but also angry and jealous, vengeful, grieved, frustrated, etc.
You can call all of that figures of speech if you like, but I would wager that you are unable to present any contextual or grammatical reason for doing so. The only reason possible is to prop up one's theology. It is theology influencing the interpretation of the text instead of the text influencing the theology. No one, including you, has ever given me any reason to think otherwise.


What you call a "needless tragedy" is God's doing, according to your view, Clete.
No sir! It is according to yours! It is your theology that teaches that those who go to Hell go there because God intended from the beginning that they should, not mine. The Open View teaches that Hell has an all volunteer army. If you go there it’s because you decided to go.


He could stop it all today and prevent scores and scores of people from plunging into hell, but He doesn't? Why?
Because the alternative is better! If He stopped people from going to one he'd have to stop people from going to the other as well. As I've said, the good far out weighs the bad, despite the raw numbers.


Hilston wrote: Statistically, He is losing big-time (hence the term, Big Loser), and any economist, statistician or gambler would suggest He cut His losses and end it all right now. The "God Who Risks" is betting against the house, and He loses big every single day.
Two poker players sit across the table from each other. One has 10 chips the other has 10,000. Who has more money? You can't tell can you?


You've begged the question again, Clete. You're assuming you have perfect understanding of the passage. You've committed a logical fallacy.
So says you. Unsupported statements like this will be ignored from now on.


Hilston wrote: I already knew that is what you think. It's Open View arrogance. I've seen it before. Open Theists just can't fathom the possibility that their view could be wrong, so they blithely dismiss it. If you really thought it was possible to be wrong, you'd stop at nothing to find out, much like I've stopped at nothing to investigate Open Theism. But you don't really care, do you?
On the contrary. Open Theism does the best job of putting forth a theological system that meets up with the Biblical evidence with the least amount of rendering whole passages meaningless and without pulling out the antinomy card on difficult issues. I have read several books on Open Theism, most of which I do not completely agree with and am reading one right now that is a debate between two established theologians, one of which is a Calvinist, and the other an Open Theist. I am just as critical about the Open Theist's arguments as I am the Calvinist's which is why I usually find something that I disagree with. The fact still remains, despite my disagreement on some points, that Open Theism, in general is the system that best fits with the Biblical data that I have yet seen.


That's the difference between you and me. I don't wait around for someone to show me. I'll even put up with deliberate obfuscation and evasion to try to get answers to my questions. As to your question, I've led many horses to water, Clete. So your question is misdirected.
There is no difference except that when I tell someone they are wrong I am fully prepared to explain to them why even if I've done so for many people before. You should know this better than just about anyone here. Repeating myself annoys the fire out of me, but I just seem to keep right on circling the same old barn over and over again, hoping that the hundredth time I've rephrased my point will be the time that whoever I'm speaking to will finally get it.


You've missed the point entirely. The point is that you give every indication that you don't really care. If swordsman gave similar indications, sure, say whatever you want to him and refuse to answer his disingenuous questions (were that the case).
You are a very poor mind reader, Jim. I recommend backing up and resetting. I care very, very much. My relationship with God (and all that implies) is very simply the only thing that matters to me and therefore the correctness of my theology is absolutely vital. I'll say it again, if you have something to teach me, do it; I'm listening.


I haven't complained about the use of TULIP, so I'm not sure why you're making this argument. My complaint is that you guys don't understand what you're critiquing and you just don't seem to care.
What is Calvinism if not the TULIP? What is Calvinism if not its core teachings? What is it that you think I am misrepresenting if it is not the core beliefs of Calvinism? Haven't you complained that I and the other OVers on this site argue against theological points that Calvin did not teach? If Calvin didn't teach what we know today as the TULIP then he didn't teach anything. Maybe it was another one of those mysterious figures of speech!


Then you should be pretty skilled at refuting them by now. What is baffling to me is that you spent 20+ years as a Calvinist and you still don't know this stuff. You must've gone to the same church as Poly.
Yeah, whatever Jim. You don't get to define what Calvinism is. Every Calvinist on the planet that I've ever heard of believes that God is immutable, impassible, and that He predestined every minute detail of every event that ever occurred or ever will occur as well as everything those beliefs logically imply, including the idea that Gen 6:6 doesn't mean what it says.


Then this is even worse. You can give the definition off the top of your head, but when it comes to actually applying it to the text, your brain shuts off. Why do you go around accusing Calvinists of saying God felt the opposite emotion conveyed in the scriptures in question?
I do not make such an accusation out of thin air. I'm telling you, when asked what these figures mean, I get mostly silence and when I get a response it is almost always basically that they mean the opposite of what the text says. This is actually the minority response though; total silence is usually what you get. They simply do not know what it means. All they do know is that it can't mean what it says because if it did then a whole lot of other things that they believe would fly right out the window.


If you want to use Sproul, that's fine. I don't presume to define Calvinism; I let history do that. My point is you don't care. That's my complaint.

Did you understand what he taught on the subject? To test your understanding, ask yourself this: Do you find it surprising that Sproul teaches that that immutability refers to God's character and being, not his actions [Character of God, R.C. Sproul]? If it does surprise you, then you did not understand Sproul's teaching.
He only spent a half hour (and more on subsequent shows) establishing that God does not change at all, period. He even used the logic that Plato used about something that is perfect, if it changes must change for the worse and since God would not be willing to make such a change He must be utterly immutable. There can be no doubt about it. Plato taught absolute immutability; Augustine believed it and interpreted the Bible around that belief. Luther (an Augustinian monk) learned it from Augustine’s teachings and dutifully passed in on to his students and Calvin finally formalized the belief into the theological system which has come to be known as Calvinism. There is a direct historical line which can be drawn from person to person to person all the way from Augustine's bishop who practically worshiped Plato to modern day Calvinism, it is fundamentally and irrefutably founded upon the notion that God is absolutely immutable. Remove that cornerstone and the entire construct comes crashing down around it.


Nope. I'm suggesting that your Open Theism lenses and blinders prevent you from understanding anything more than you've already decided in advance.
Hey pot! Which shade of black did you say that kettle was again?


Hilston wrote: While appreciate your kind remarks, and I sincerely desire to have a cordial and respectful discussion with you, your exit interview with Zman made me re-think even wanting to talk to you on the phone. Something told me that I was seeing my future.

He stated his beliefs, Clete, and you went ballistic. This isn't a church, Clete, where you have to take responsibility for what others teach. This is a public forum where debate is encouraged. Your public trashing of Zman served only to discourage debate.
And hopefully to discourage mindless spewing of blasphemies.
I am responsible for that which I can influence nothing more, nothing less. The venue of that influence is irrelevant. You are free to disagree, if you like.


Good grief, Clete. No wonder you're so uptight. If I made it my mission to protect the TOL skeptics from false teaching, I wouldn't have time to breathe.
His comments were direct to me, Jim. It's not like I comb through the archives looking for opportunities to jump on people for saying something stupid in front of skeptics.


You know what, Clete, those words sicken me. If I didn't know you at all and didn't care about you, I wouldn't give a fig. But when I see the ugly side of people I like, it sickens me.
Nobody's perfect. I admit that my reaction got overly personal and have said as much but it genuinely makes me viscerally agree when people say things that make God out to be Hitleresque or the like and I have no problem letting people know it regardless of who it is or where they are. If you think that's ugly, well I suppose I can't help that.


I would, despite the warnings going off in my head.
Excellent! I look forward to it!

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
October 20th, 2004, 12:04 AM
I Cor. 15 and Rom. 5 would lead to universalism if the parallel is pressed too far (Adam/Christ).

Adam was the OCCASION/opportunity for sin entering the world. He was not the cause of all subsequent men sinning. Adam introduced the penalty of death for sin into the human race. The soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezek.). Every person after Adam freely choses to sin, and will experience the same penalty of death as Adam. Death came to all men, because all men sinned.


Likewise, Christ is the occasion vs cause for all men to be saved. There is a conditional aspect or Rom. 5:18 would teach universalism with everyone saved because Christ died for all men. Not everyone is saved, because not everyone trusts God's provision (Jn. 3). The resurrection of the dead becomes possible through Christ. All those who are in Christ through repentant faith will be saved and raised. It does not mean that all evil men will be raised in Christ just because the resurrection comes through Him or that all will be made alive. This refers to believers, but has nothing to do with a series of decrees.

Hilston
October 20th, 2004, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

I Cor. 15 and Rom. 5 would lead to universalism if the parallel is pressed too far (Adam/Christ).

Adam was the OCCASION/opportunity for sin entering the world. He was not the cause of all subsequent men sinning.That's neither my claim, nor a requirement of my view.


Originally posted by godrulz
Adam introduced the penalty of death for sin into the human race. The soul that sins is the one that will die (Ezek.).Romans 5 is not about condemnation, despite the KJV mistranslation. It is about the effect of Adam's transgression upon the Body of Christ, namely the death nature and the subsequent punishments and trials of this life that inevitably result.


Originally posted by godrulz
Every person after Adam freely choses to sin, and will experience the same penalty of death as Adam. Death came to all men, because all men sinned.It is a contextual mistake to assume that death here refers to physical dying or eternal death. It does not. It refers to the nature of death that is passed on to all the elect, and in context Paul is explaining how a pre-chosen people, chosen before sin was even decreed, came to be subject to the death nature.


Originally posted by godrulz
Likewise, Christ is the occasion vs cause for all men to be saved. There is a conditional aspect or Rom. 5:18 would teach universalism with everyone saved because Christ died for all men.That is if you have a value-less sacrifice or place a low value on Christ's sacrifice. I do not. Christ's sacrifice accomplishes exactly and precisely that for which is was intended: The salvation of each and every person for whom He died. "All" refers to all members the Body of Christ only.


Originally posted by godrulz
Not everyone is saved, because not everyone trusts God's provision (Jn. 3).On your view, Christ's is not sufficient to save. It is only a partial provision.


Originally posted by godrulz
The resurrection of the dead becomes possible through Christ.Biblically, Christ's death is not a matter of possibility, but of certainty, full payment, sufficiency and guarantee.

Hilston
October 20th, 2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I honestly cannot fathom how you cannot consider yourself a Calvinist. Calvin himself couldn't have said this any better.Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Be that as it may, isn't this a backward way of interpreting Scripture? You openly admit that your assumption that "all" means "all in the Body of Christ" is because of your theology concerning the atonement. It seems to me that our theology should be influenced by the text not the text by our theology.That's a very naive, or at least over-simplistic, way of stating the hermeneutic enterprise. In a manner of speaking, my theology should have nothing to do with it. It is the theology of the original audience that I'm concerned about. If I determine that the original audience understood "all" very rarely to mean "all without exception," then I am justified in viewing such an idea as the exception and not the rule. When I find pas in a context that supports particularity, specificity, and not universality, then it logical follows that "all without distinction" is to be preferred as how the original audience would have understood the term.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Is there a grammatical or contextual reason within the text itself that would suggest such an understanding of the word "all"?Of course there is. First, there is the overarching point of whom Paul is writing to. Second, Paul refers to his audience as being without strength and ungodly. This cannot refer to the elect of Israel (they were not without strength and ungodly, Ro 5:6). Third, if you place a high value on the redemptive work of Christ, which I will not compromise, then the passage can only refer to the elect, otherwise we are logically forced into universalism. If you impose a condition on this passage, as godrulz does, then you're logically forced into a value-less or low-value redemption, which is no redemption at all. There are many more contextual reasons that would take more time and space than is reasonable to develop here. Eventually I hope to have everything from our Romans study posted online. Maybe after I retire.

godrulz
October 20th, 2004, 03:45 PM
Well, I have never heard the doctrine of election/Body of Christ being read into Romans 5 before.I would be surprised if the great Calvinist D. Martyn Llyod-Jones reads it this way in his Roman commentaries.

Romans 1-3:30 condemnation

3:21-5:21 justification= (TULIP or election is not explicit here...those who believe are justified).

5:6 Christ died for the ungodly (vs elect only)
5:8 died for sinners (Jn. 3:16= whole world)
5:12 ff. death/condemnation came to all men

6-8 sanctification

9-11 dispensation; election of Israel

12-16 practical exhortations

Hilston
October 20th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Well, I have never heard the doctrine of election/Body of Christ being read into Romans 5 before.It's not read into Romans 5. It is exegeted out of it.


Originally posted by godrulz

I would be surprised if the great Calvinist D. Martyn Llyod-Jones reads it this way in his Roman commentaries.Yeah, me too. Why should be concerned about D. M. Lloyd-Jones' view of the passage?

godrulz
October 20th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

It's not read into Romans 5. It is exegeted out of it.

Yeah, me too. Why should be concerned about D. M. Lloyd-Jones' view of the passage?

I thought he might represent Calvinism. Romans 5 is not a usual proof text for election/non-election in Calvinistic circles. I do not see it explicitly in the passage. It seems that it is referring to the fact that man is universally guilty and condemned. In light of other passages, those who come in repentant faith will be justified by the person and work of Christ. I do not see limited atonement or unconditional election in this passage.

Christ's provision is fully efficacious. Notice in both of our views not everyone is saved. To say the atonement is limited to the elect is a disingenuous loop hole to try to explain why all are not saved. It is not necessary to say that the provision is insufficient in my view. This is parallel to me saying it is not sufficient in your view, because all are not saved. I do not say this because it does not logically follow either of our arguments. No one disputes that God's provision is perfect (grounds for salvation). The issue is that a response (condition) and appropriation of the perfect provision is necessary. All are not saved because some reject the provision and trust themselves rather than God. To locate the reason why all are not saved in the sovereign, mysterious will of God is more problematic with His revelation and character.

Hilston
October 20th, 2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

I thought he might represent Calvinism.I do NOT represent, defend, or espouse Calvinism.


Originally posted by godrulz
Romans 5 is not a usual proof text for election/non-election in Calvinistic circles.I don't think Calvinists are able to do so, because they tend to be covenantalists, which is an indefensible doctrine in light of Romans 5.


Originally posted by godrulz
I do not see it explicitly in the passage.It is implicit, but emphatic, given the thrust of the Romans epistle.


Originally posted by godrulz
It seems that it is referring to the fact that man is universally guilty and condemned.That's because you assume a non-normative interpretation of the word "all."


Originally posted by godrulz
In light of other passages, those who come in repentant faith will be justified by the person and work of Christ. I do not see limited atonement or unconditional election in this passage.That's because you assume a non-normative interpretation of the word "all."


Originally posted by godrulz
Christ's provision is fully efficacious. Notice in both of our views not everyone is saved.Yes, but on my view, the unsaved are not regarded as losses and every person for whom Christ died is infallibly saved.


Originally posted by godrulz
To say the atonement is limited to the elect is a disingenuous loop hole to try to explain why all are not saved.To say a person is justified before God by repentant faith is a disingenuous loophole to try to explain why all are not saved.


Originally posted by godrulz
It is not necessary to say that the provision is insufficient in my view.Of course not. It's theological suicide.


Originally posted by godrulz
This is parallel to me saying it is not sufficient in your view, because all are not saved.Wrong. Universal salvation was never the goal or intent of Christ's death. There is no parallel. My view presents a fully successful, zero losses, guaranteed salvation based on the full and sufficient payment in behalf of every elect person. Your view presents a partly successful, riddled with losses, potential salvation based on the partial payment in behalf of all men without exception.


Originally posted by godrulz
I do not say this because it does not logically follow either of our arguments. No one disputes that God's provision is perfect (grounds for salvation).Actually, your view implies this very thing. It is an imperfect provision because it doesn't accomplish anything. The determining factor is something outside of God's control: Man's decision.


Originally posted by godrulz
The issue is that a response (condition) and appropriation of the perfect provision is necessary.There you go. Not a perfect provision.


Originally posted by godrulz
All are not saved because some reject the provision and trust themselves rather than God. To locate the reason why all are not saved in the sovereign, mysterious will of God is more problematic with His revelation and character. That's the logical conundrum forced by your view. I have no such conundrum.

Clete
October 21st, 2004, 06:53 AM
Jim,

Just to be perfectly clear and to disallow the continued honest use of some of the characterizations of the Open View that you seem to enjoy employing, I would like to say and to make perfectly clear that I believe firmly and absolutely that the price God paid at the cross was of INFINITE value. Allow me to repeat that so I'll know you've gotten it...

THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF
INFINITE VALUE!

If there were a billion planets with 100 million souls on each planet and all (and I mean every last single one) came to faith in Christ it would not diminish by even the smallest fraction the remaining value of that which was paid at Calvary.
Jesus' death at the cross is what made God's grace available to ALL, that is, anyone who responds to Him in faith. (And again I do mean anyone at all.) We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. His blood shed for us is the object of our faith and it is our faith which triggers God's grace not the blood itself otherwise you would indeed have universalism. The blood is what made that grace available. If we do not respond to Him in faith then He will not cleanse us of our sins and we will be left to pay the price we owe ourselves, namely death. Which, by the way, is totally His prerogative to decide. It was His sacrifice, His Son, His blood that was shed, He has the absolute right to say to whom that blood will be applied and under what circumstances. If He wants to place a condition of faith within the plan of salvation then that's up to Him, and rightly so.
Now, that's the way God set it up. If you don't like it, I suggest you get over it! You do not get to decide what the plan of salvation is, God does. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with nothing less than the very gospel itself and thereby the one who authored it. But be that as it may, if I see that you have accused me or any other person who holds to the Open View of believing that Christ's death was of anything but infinite value, know that you will be guilty of intentionally lying and that I intend to call you on it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Turbo
October 21st, 2004, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer


THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF
INFINITE VALUE! Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
NChristy06: No


:(

Poly
October 21st, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
NChristy06: No


:(
Yikes! :shocked:

Clete
October 21st, 2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
NChristy06: No


:(
:doh:
Seems like a total no-brainer to me!
How much is the life of God worth?
What other answer could there be but that it is of infinite value? :duh:

Resting in Him,
Clete

godrulz
October 21st, 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

Just to be perfectly clear and to disallow the continued honest use of some of the characterizations of the Open View that you seem to enjoy employing, I would like to say and to make perfectly clear that I believe firmly and absolutely that the price God paid at the cross was of INFINITE value. Allow me to repeat that so I'll know you've gotten it...

THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF
INFINITE VALUE!

If there were a billion planets with 100 million souls on each planet and all (and I mean every last single one) came to faith in Christ it would not diminish by even the smallest fraction the remaining value of that which was paid at Calvary.
Jesus' death at the cross is what made God's grace available to ALL, that is, anyone who responds to Him in faith. (And again I do mean anyone at all.) We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. His blood shed for us is the object of our faith and it is our faith which triggers God's grace not the blood itself otherwise you would indeed have universalism. The blood is what made that grace available. If we do not respond to Him in faith then He will not cleanse us of our sins and we will be left to pay the price we owe ourselves, namely death. Which, by the way, is totally His prerogative to decide. It was His sacrifice, His Son, His blood that was shed, He has the absolute right to say to whom that blood will be applied and under what circumstances. If He wants to place a condition of faith within the plan of salvation then that's up to Him, and rightly so.
Now, that's the way God set it up. If you don't like it, I suggest you get over it! You do not get to decide what the plan of salvation is, God does. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with nothing less than the very gospel itself and thereby the one who authored it. But be that as it may, if I see that you have accused me or any other person who holds to the Open View of believing that Christ's death was of anything but infinite value, know that you will be guilty of intentionally lying and that I intend to call you on it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bravo. Our view affirms the sovereignty and love of God. God sets conditions, provides salvation, and desires all to be saved without bias. We are created to know and love Him.

The other view limits the love of God to the elect and wrongly understands His sovereignty as opposed to genuine, impartial love.

It is horrible to think of God as creating babies to damn them apart from their heart choices. This is a pagan god who would do this.

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 09:41 AM
Clete writes:
Just to be perfectly clear and to disallow the continued honest use of some of the characterizations of the Open View that you seem to enjoy employing, I would like to say and to make perfectly clear that I believe firmly and absolutely that the price God paid at the cross was of INFINITE value. Allow me to repeat that so I'll know you've gotten it...
THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF
INFINITE VALUE!I don't doubt for one second that you claim that and that you think you believe it. I just don't think you know what it means. As soon as you invoke a contingency, the value is stripped away. See below.


Clete writes:
If there were a billion planets with 100 million souls on each planet and all (and I mean every last single one) came to faith in Christ it would not diminish by even the smallest fraction the remaining value of that which was paid at Calvary.Here's the problem: You claim you believe in the transaction view of the atonement, that Christ's blood actually paid for our sins. But if no one "cashed" their blood coupon by choosing first to believe, there would be no payment for anything. On that view, Christ's blood doesn't pay for the sins of those who don't believe, so it's value is contingent, not actual. Therefore, not infinite.


Clete writes:
Jesus' death at the cross is what made God's grace available to ALL, that is, anyone who responds to Him in faith.There's the contingency [in bold]. And that makes it not infinite. It actually makes it insufficient.


Clete writes:
(And again I do mean anyone at all.) We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.Eph 2:8,9 isn't talking only about eternal salvation, but also daily, ongoing sanctification. Check the tense of the verb.


Clete writes:
His blood shed for us is the object of our faith and it is our faith which triggers God's grace not the blood itself otherwise you would indeed have universalism.That is a low-value-atonement view, whether you like it or not. Such an atonement is not sufficient to save. Something must be added, namely "our faith." I don't rely upon my own faith. My own faith fails on a daily basis. I am justified before God by the faith of Christ, that is, Christ's faithfulness in actually and sufficiently paying the penalty in my behalf, not by my own faith.

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

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


Clete writes:
The blood is what made that grace available.See what I mean? It's merely "available." It's sitting there, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, insufficient to do anything alone. Something must be added.


Clete writes:
If we do not respond to Him in faith then He will not cleanse us of our sins and we will be left to pay the price we owe ourselves, namely death. Which, by the way, is totally His prerogative to decide. It was His sacrifice, His Son, His blood that was shed, He has the absolute right to say to whom that blood will be applied and under what circumstances. If He wants to place a condition of faith within the plan of salvation then that's up to Him, and rightly so.Then it isn't of infinite value. If a condition is placed on the application, it isn't a sufficient payment. It is value-less in and of itself. Its value depends on something is added. "Infinite" and "insufficient" don't seem to go together.


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

By the way, Clete. "You don't get to decide" is one of the funniest phrases I've heard in a long time, especially in a debate setting. Can I use it?


Clete writes:
But be that as it may, if I see that you have accused me or any other person who holds to the Open View of believing that Christ's death was of anything but infinite value, know that you will be guilty of intentionally lying and that I intend to call you on it.Good grief, lighten up, Alice. I don't doubt that you believe it, I just don't think you know what it means. I'm not lying when I say that your view of the atonement is one of low value. You call it "infinite value," but it's not. Henceforth, I will say that Open Theists believe in a so-called-infinite-value-but-in-actuality-low-value-insufficient atonement [SCIVBIALVI atonement, for short. Pronounced: skiv-bee-AL-vee].

Knight
October 21st, 2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
NChristy06: No


:( :shocked:

Clete
October 21st, 2004, 10:22 AM
Jim,

We do not save ourselves; it is God who saves when and if we respond to Him in faith. The only reason He can do that and remain holy and just is because of the Sacrifice that was paid by His Son on the cross. It is not our "coupon" to redeem, it is His. As I said it is His sacrifice, His Son, His blood. He can redeem with that blood whomever He wishes under what ever conditions He wants to set up.
Notice all the monetary metaphors. These are the very same ones that the Bible uses over and over again. And it is a good metaphor. It works very nicely, even your "coupon" addition works fine. You know coupons do have real value when redeemed by those who issued it. If you have a coin in your pocket it too has real value. You know why? It's because everyone involved in the economy in which that coin is used agrees that it has value, otherwise it is nothing but a not so nice piece of sculpture. The same is true of the blood of Christ only it has intrinsic value because it is the blood of God Himself. But the value of it belongs to God, not us. It was a sacrifice made to God, by God for our benefit and it is the only thing that pays for our sin, THE ONLY THING. Nothing is added, not our faith, not God's grace, nothing nothing nothing nothing! Got it?
Let me explain what I mean by making an analogy that is similar to one that Jesus made. Let's say that some very rich man or a king perhaps makes an offer to pay off the debts of anyone who asks, no strings attached, all that is needed is that people ask for the free gift. Pretty neat deal, especially if you are in up to your neck in debt that you have no possible way of paying!
This is exactly the position we are in with God. He has offered to pay our sin debt with absolutely no strings attached; all we must do is ask Him to do it and He will. Your suggesting that by my asking for my debt to be paid that the act of asking is part of the payment! That's ridiculous.
So your insistence that we hold a view that places a low-value on the blood of Christ is ridiculous and is only said to have an emotional impact but has no basis in fact. It has nothing to do what you think or whether you think I know what it means for it to be of infinite value. I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that under no circumstances can it be rightly said that we believe that Christ's sacrifice was of a low value, or that what we believe can lead logically to that conclusion, period. Now, will you continue in what is now an intentional mischaracterization of the Open View or will you debate honestly and substantively?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Poly
October 21st, 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

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


Hilston, please explain this verse.

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

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

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


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The only reason He can do that and remain holy and just is because of the Sacrifice that was paid by His Son on the cross. It is not our "coupon" to redeem, it is His.See what irrationality results? First it's your decision and you redeem the coupon, now it's God.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
As I said it is His sacrifice, His Son, His blood. He can redeem with that blood whomever He wishes under what ever conditions He wants to set up.No He can't. Not on your view. He can't redeem someone who rejects Him, can He?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Notice all the monetary metaphors. These are the very same ones that the Bible uses over and over again. And it is a good metaphor. It works very nicely, even your "coupon" addition works fine. You know coupons do have real value when redeemed by those who issued it.Yes, but they are insufficient in and of themselves. They have no intrinsic value.


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


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The same is true of the blood of Christ only it has intrinsic value because it is the blood of God Himself.It has no intrinsic value if something must be added to it.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
But the value of it belongs to God, not us. It was a sacrifice made to God, by God for our benefit and it is the only thing that pays for our sin, THE ONLY THING.But it has no value until it is "cashed in." That means it is insufficient to actually do anything apart from man's choice.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Nothing is added, not our faith, not God's grace, nothing nothing nothing nothing! Got it?I hear you, but you're contradicting yourself.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Let me explain what I mean by making an analogy that is similar to one that Jesus made. Let's say that some very rich man or a king perhaps makes an offer to pay off the debts of anyone who asks, no strings attached, all that is needed is that people ask for the free gift.Question: "Free?! No strings? What's the catch?"
Answer: "The catch is you gotta ask for it."

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


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Pretty neat deal, especially if you are in up to your neck in debt that you have no possible way of paying! This is exactly the position we are in with God.That's where you're wrong, and your flawed view of total depravity is the underpinning of your error. The position is not merely of debt and no possible way of paying, but of debt and no desire to pay. The carnal mind cannot submit to God's requirements. Spiritually dead, we must be made alive, regenerated, before we even realize our need, let alone desire its payment.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
He has offered to pay our sin debt with absolutely no strings attached; ...He didn't offer anything. It's not an offer. All men everywhere are commanded to repent.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... all we must do is ask Him to do it and He will. Your suggesting that by my asking for my debt to be paid that the act of asking is part of the payment! That's ridiculous.No, the fact that the payment is impotent in and of itself, on your view, is what is ridiculous.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
So your insistence that we hold a view that places a low-value on the blood of Christ is ridiculous ...No, what is ridiculous is that you claim it has infinite instrinsic value, but the logical conclusion of your view is that it only has an insufficient and potential value.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... and is only said to have an emotional impact but has no basis in fact.Not only fact, but logic.


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


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

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Hilston, please explain this verse.

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. Wow! Either you've completely forgotten your Calvinist roots, or your former church was full of dolts and dunderheads. Did your former teachers ever discuss this verse?

If "whole world" means all human beings without exception, and if Christ propitiated the wrath of God in behalf of all human beings without exception, the every human being without exception will be saved. Unless, of course, you view the atonement as having low value, in which case you can add man's faith to it and thereby declare the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

The apostle was speaking to specific Jews. The collective pronoun "our" refers to himself and his immediate audience. The "whole world" refers to the rest of the kingdom elect, viz., proselyte Gentiles and the rest of true Israel.

Clete
October 21st, 2004, 12:15 PM
Jim,

You have now proven yourself a liar.
You are not interesting in debate but only in lies and intentional mischaracterizations used for cheap emotional points.
You claim repeatedly that you are not a Calvinist and yet all you do is spout Calvinist doctrine all over the place. Up until now I have honored your desire to not be referred to as a Calvinist but since you insist on continuing with this ridiculousness I will, from now on, call that which quacks a duck.
And since you like the phrase so much let me use it again, you do not get to decide what Calvinism is. Practically everything you say is in perfect agreement with Calvinist doctrine if its not a verbatim quote of it, and you are therefore a Calvinist of one stripe or another.
Now, are you satisfied with the results of your dishonesty? You've accomplished exactly nothing except alienating yourself from those who are interesting in real debate. Of course, as a Calvinist you must admit that this whole conversation and its outcome was predestined anyway, so what's the difference? I was predestined to believe in free will and you were predestined to be a jerk. C'est la Vie'!

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

Poly
October 21st, 2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Wow! Either you've completely forgotten your Calvinist roots, or your former church was full of dolts and dunderheads. Did your former teachers ever discuss this verse?


Don't even go there. You and your "don't try to pull any verses over on me cause I've got it all covered" attitude is really annoying. There are many onlookers, not aware of these arguments, who deserve to see the warped answers that Calvinists will give. (I know, I know, you're not a Calvinist. :rolleyes: )

Yes, I've heard this same sickening argument time and again. He didn't mean "whole" when He said "whole". Just like I'm sure that when God says "reconciling the world to Himself" in this passage:

2nd Corinthians 5:19
"....that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

.....He really didn't mean that He reconciled the world to Himself. How do we know that God didn't really mean He reconciled the world to Himself even though that's what is said here? Because Hilston says so.

And please, by all means, tell us what God really meant when He said that some will "deny the Lord who bought them"....

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

You have now proven yourself a liar.I saw this coming, Clete. This is the way you deal with discussions that go over your head. You're as predictable as an Arminian. But I'll go through the motions, since this is what you want: I've said nothing untrue (that's what I'm supposed to say, right?).

Why are you so eager to demonize? Because that's the only way you can win an argument?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You are not interesting in debate but only in lies and intentional mischaracterizations used for cheap emotional points.You don't get to decide my interests, Clete. I'm interested in cigars (which I can no longer smoke) and breakfast cereal (which I can no longer eat), but I'm not interested in stooping to Knight-like, Nineveh-like, Kerry-like and Bush-like childishness.

While those points may be emotional for you, they're not intended that way by me. I honestly, substantively, fail to see how your logic works. At least be honest and admit that you have a dehydrated view of the atonement (just add the water of faith). For you to say it is "infinite" in value, and then to proceed to demonstrate what needs to be added or supplemented or catalyzed or initiated or whatever, it remarkably self-refuting.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You claim repeatedly that you are not a Calvinist and yet all you do is spout Calvinist doctrine all over the place.Maybe what I'm saying is just biblical, and Calvin happened to get this part right. He was wrong about lots of things, Clete, which is why I don't accept the label. But if it will help you get past your flame-out (to borrow a phrase from another TOL psychoanalyst), I'm willing let you call me a Calvinist. That is, if I can call you Betty. And Betty if you call me, you can call me Al.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Up until now I have honored your desire to not be referred to as a Calvinist but since you insist on continuing with this ridiculousness I will, from now on, call that which quacks a duck.That's exactly what I expect from the kind of reasoning that espouses an "infinite value" atonement but then devalues it with contingencies.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And since you like the phrase so much let me use it again, you do not get to decide what Calvinism is.I guess you do, then. OK, call me a Calvinist if you want, Betty. But everytime one of your cronies takes your cue and starts debating me on some Calvinist doctrine that I reject, I will blame you directly for the mischaracterization.

Crony: "Hilston, why are you denying 'original sin'? I thought you were a Calvinist."
Hilston: "You must've seen Betty call me a Calvinist. I'm not."
Crony: "Betty?"
Hilston: "I meant, Clete Pfeiffer. He's hyper-Arminian/modified Deist/quasi-Process-Theology proponent who goes around calling me a Calvinist. I call him Betty."
Crony:
Hilston: "You know, Betty. From the Paul Simon song?"
Crony:
Hilston: "BETTY! [singing] 'if you'll be my bodyguard, I can be your loooong lost paaaaaal ..."
Crony: Please stop. I get it.
Hilston: [still singing] "... I can call you Betty, and ..."
Crony: "I get it I get it I get it."
Hilston: "Sorry."
Crony: "So."
Hilston: "What?"
Crony: "Does he call you Al?"


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Practically everything you say is in perfect agreement with Calvinist doctrine if its not a verbatim quote of it, and you are therefore a Calvinist of one stripe or another.Really? I thought I was being original. Figures. Just my luck to be born too late.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, are you satisfied with the results of your dishonesty?I find it "infinitely" amusing how those who make the accusations are the guilty. Your charge of dishonesty is dishonest, Clete. You have no response to my points of argument, so you resort to this stuff. I never read many of Zman's posts, but I would guess he probably backed you into a similar corner.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You've accomplished exactly nothing except alienating yourself from those who are interesting in real debate.On the contrary, Clete, things are going quite swimmingly, especially given the title of this thread. It is accomplishing exactly what the subject purports to demonstrate.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Of course, as a Calvinist you must admit that this whole conversation and its outcome was predestined anyway, so what's the difference? I was predestined to believe in free will and you were predestined to be a jerk. C'est la Vie'!Exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself. By the way -- as a "Calvinist," I would have to say that I believe in free will, wouldn't I? But that would confuse you, wouldn't it? Just like the doctrines of impassibility and immutability; all concepts which cause Open Theists to pop a gasket because they just. Can't. Fathom what these words mean.

godrulz
October 21st, 2004, 03:44 PM
I Jn. 2 exegesis or eisegesis?

I contend that the 'literal payment' or 'commercial transaction theory' is problematic and not the only explanation of the nature and extent of Christ's death. Accepting it leads to mental gymnastics to explain things.

godrulz
October 21st, 2004, 03:49 PM
Thread: OT makes me FURIOUS.

In fairness, Open Theism should make us CURIOUS to do our due diligence. If it is a pernicious heresy, we should understand it to apologetically refute it. If it is closer to the truth of who God is and His ways, then we want to move beyond blindly accepting tradition to embrace a more scriptural position.

The Open View represents God as dynamic, responsive, loving, relational, experiential, personal, providential.

Even non-OV people are modifying the traditional, classical understanding of God as absolutely immutable (unchanging) and inpassible (without feeling). God is not a static blob.

Christine
October 21st, 2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
NChristy06: No


You act like this is both terrible and incomprehensible. Yet surely Open Viewers will not deny that not all men will be saved. So, I present the following challenge.



Orignally written by Dr. John Owen, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, England
"For Whom Did Christ Die?"

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either:

All the sins of all men.

All the sins of some men, or

Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.

That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead, suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

Knight
October 21st, 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Christine

You act like this is both terrible and incomprehensible. Yet surely Open Viewers will not deny that not all men will be saved. So, I present the following challenge. You call that a challenge????

It's like getting tossed a softball!!!
"For Whom Did Christ Die?"

ANSWER: All men.
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

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

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

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.?

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.?
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either:

All the sins of all men.

see above


All the sins of some men, or

Some of the sins of all men.

False dilemma. The author of this question is leaving off the obvious answer intentionally and hoping nobody will notice. :rolleyes:

Christ died for all the sins of all men. But only those that reckon themselves (associate themselves with) Christ will avail themselves to the payment of their sin.

Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Turbo
October 21st, 2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

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

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

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.?

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.?

Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. I've recently come to learn that when Christine is shown verses like these that don't line up with her theology, she just changes "all" to "all the called" and replaces the "world" with "elect." :(

Poly
October 21st, 2004, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I've recently come to learn that when Christine is shown verses like these that don't line up with her theology, she just changes "all" to "all the called" and replaces the "world" with "elect." :(

ALL Calvinists do this.

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 08:36 PM
Combined reply to Knight and Turbo:


Originally posted by Turbo

I've recently come to learn that when Christine is shown verses like these that don't line up with her theology, she just changes "all" to "all the called" and replaces the "world" with "elect." :( Is this new to you? This is standard determinist exegesis. And Christine is absolutely right for doing that. It's what the passages are teaching. God's love, sacrifice and purpose for the elect.

The saddest thing -- actually it's no longer sad; it's just "infinitely" amusing -- is the fact that a truly devastating critique of universal atonement is presented and you guys just. Don't. See it. What Knight calls a false dilemma was actually a set of three propositions. THREE, Knight! False dilemma? Do you hear yourself? Has anyone ... any friend ... any Open Theist compadre ... was there anyone who saw this faux pas and pointed it out to you? My guess is "no." That's the kind of theological inbreeding that is so fascinating. It is this the kind of sloppy, knee-jerk, unreflective, specious, and willfully ignorant thinking I've come to expect from Open Theists. I admit that I am occasionally guilty of all these things. But with the Open Theists, it is standard operating procedure.

What's a "dilemma," Knight? Look it up. Do you realize how badly you cheapen the work of Christ? Your view makes Christ's sacrifice insufficient. It's a dehydrated salvation, sitting in a jar or a foil envelope, impotent, and intrinsically static. Your view does violence to the language of scripture and the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Christ, in fact, is truly and effectually the substitute for each and every person He died for. On your view, the substitution is merely potential, which is no substitution at all.


Originally posted by Knight
The author of this question is leaving off the obvious answer intentionally and hoping nobody will notice.That is how myopic and inbred your theology is. Owen didn't leave off the "obvious answer" as you call it. You even quoted it, Einstein! Remember this?:

"The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either: All the sins of all men. ..."

It's the same answer you gave! Sheesh. If you would slow down long enough to engage your mind and the rational faculties God gave you, you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this. But then again, if it weren't for these kinds of arrogant nonsense responses, my friends and I wouldn't have as much to crack up about.

Here's the arrogance I'm talking about:


Originally posted by Knight
You call that a challenge????

It's like getting tossed a softball!!!I might joke occasionally about the similarities between Open Theists and the Black Knight of Monty Python's Holy Grail, but occasionally it really is true. You don't realize that John Owen lopped off both arms and both legs and has left you there, a bloody, limbless torso.

Let me hasten to say that there are some exceptions, well at least one. I think Yorzhik has thus far shown himself to be a reasonable and reflective person, despite his Open Theism. At the moment I can't think of any others.

Turbo
October 21st, 2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Is this new to you? From Christine, yes. From you, no.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

She convinced herself that this verse was mistranslated in ever Bible version before she even looked up the Greek. And when she finally did look it up, she found nothing that indicated that "all" should have been "all called," yet maintained her position.

Christine
October 21st, 2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

From Christine, yes. From you, no.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

She convinced herself that this verse was mistranslated in ever Bible version before she even looked up the Greek. And when she finally did look it up, she found nothing that indicated that "all" should have been "all called," yet maintained her position.

I got on to take a peek at this thread before I went to bed, so I wasn't going to post, but when I saw this I had too. :D Turbo, I said that if it did indeed mean "all men" (ie, all men in the whole wide world), then it would be in direct contradiction of the rest of scripture. I know that the Bible does not contradict itself.

Knight
October 21st, 2004, 09:36 PM
Hilston :yawn:

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 09:43 PM
:first: POTD Knight! Congratulations! You must be very proud. Great job! :thumb:

Turbo
October 21st, 2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Christine
Turbo, I said that if it did indeed mean "all men" (ie, all men in the whole wide world), then it would be in direct contradiction of the rest of scripture. No, it wouldn't. Take the verses Knight quoted for instance.

ShadowMaid
October 21st, 2004, 10:50 PM
nt

Yorzhik
October 21st, 2004, 10:53 PM
Now... the front page says Yorzhik is logged in, but ShadowMaid posted... what's up with that?

natewood3
October 21st, 2004, 10:56 PM
Knight,

The verses you quoted does NOT in any way settle the issue. You think because it says "all" that it settles the issue, but it does not. If said, "Look the Bible says Christ only gave Himself for some men, not all," and then proceed to quote the following verses, does this settle the issue?

Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mar 14:24 And he said to them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

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


Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God out of every tribe and language and people and nation,

I guess that settles the issue, right? Jesus Himself said He would give His life as a ransom for MANY, not all. You quoted a few verses and expected people to believe you because the verse used the words "all" or "world." So, now I am quoting verses that are using the word "many," so which did He die for, "all" or "many"? If I take your approach, you should agree that He only gave His life for many, not every single person.

Let me ask two simple questions:

IF Christ died for all people who ever would live, then why does the Bible use restrictive language to speak of the atonement? Why do the authors not say what they really mean? (BTW, you are not able to reverse this question to me, for the word "all" IS used to mean a group or specific people and not all people who ever lived frequently)

What was the PURPOSE of Christ's death? What was God seeking to accomplish in the cross of Christ?

Hilston
October 21st, 2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

From Christine, yes. From you, no.

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. John 12:32

She convinced herself that this verse was mistranslated in ever Bible version before she even looked up the Greek.What do you think? Is it an accurate translation? Do you believe Jesus was lifted up from the earth? If so, do you believe He has drawn each and every man, woman and child who has inhabited the face of the earth? Even those who had already died before He was lifted up? Yes or no?

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

What do you think? Is it an accurate translation? Do you believe Jesus was lifted up from the earth? If so, do you believe He has drawn each and every man, woman and child who has inhabited the face of the earth? Even those who had already died before He was lifted up? Yes or no?

If I may jump in a sec,

When Christ said that He would draw all men unto Himself, the context makes it clear that He meant all men without distinction and not all men without exception. Meaning that Jesus indeed died for the whole world, but the whole world won't accept it. John 3:16 is very clear here.

Hilston
October 22nd, 2004, 01:34 AM
Turbo, do you agree with drbrumley?

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 01:50 AM
Hilston, I noted your apparent anger and dismay, that Open Thiests misunderstand what Calvin taught.

I found this along time ago and think I will share it here. It's by Bob Hill.

Calvin

Calvin on Immutability:

“God remains unchangeably the same. God is here contrasted with created beings, who, as all know, are subject to continual changes...he is here placed in a state of settled and undisturbed tranquillity...Although he subjects the world to many alterations, he remains unmoved; and that not only in regard to himself.? 1)

“The book of life being nothing else than the eternal purpose of God, by which he has predestined his own people to salvation. God, it is certain, is absolutely immutable..? 2)

“To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable.? 3)

“Besides as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father.? 4)

“By that immutable counsel of God, by which he predestined to himself whomever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation...That Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.? 5)

“Because his immutable decree had once for all doomed them to destruction.? 6)

“Where it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively. Shortly after it is added, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should repent.? In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure.? 7)



1) Calvin, John, trans. James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.462

2) ibid, p. 73

3) Calvin, John. Calvin’s Institutes, Book One, Chapter XVII, c2, p. l03.

4) Ibid, p. 517.

5) Ibid, p. 494.

6) Ibid, p. 522.

7) Ibid, p. 109.



As proof that God remains unalterably the same Calvin declares that God remains unmoved. Compare this statement with Aristotle (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, The Loeb Classical Library, trans. by Hugh Tredennick, Harvard University Press, 1933, p. 207) “for there is something which always moves that which is moved, and the prime mover is itself unmoved.? Calvin obviously is borrowing his ideas from Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, and mixing them with his theology of immutability.

Why is Calvin certain that God is immutable? Is this plainly asserted in Scripture? In this article most of the occurrences of the Hebrew word for repent are listed. Of the 32 occurrences, 26 are references to God. God is said not to repent 6 times. 20 references are to God repenting. Is Calvin certain that God does not repent because of Scripture or because of his Platonic influence?

Does Scripture prove God’s immutable counsel. Where is this clear evidence? It is interesting that when Calvin is presented with the evidence that God changes he dismisses it lightly.

Calvin’s explanation that “change? is just a figure of speech is unacceptable. A figure of speech is used to represent one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two concepts allows an analogy to be drawn. There is no analogy between the concepts of “does not change his mind? and “changes his mind?.

The Niphal form of the Hebrew word naham is used in 1 Samuel 15:11 and 1 Samuel 15:35 to mean that the Lord repented. However in 1 Samuel 15:29 the same word is used to say that the Lord does not repent. If we understand that the Lord does not repent but that in this specific instance God will not change his mind the apparent conflict is easily explained. However Calvin uses another approach. Calvin is convinced that God is immutable and therefore the term change is used figuratively with God. Where does Calvin obtain his conviction that God is immutable? Why does he dismiss without an explanation the idea that God could change his mind?

Calvin quotes Augustine as a source for immutability. As we have already demonstrated Augustine received his doctrine of Immutability from Plato.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 01:56 AM
Going to bed, catch up with this tomorrow.

Yorzhik
October 22nd, 2004, 07:45 AM
Betty, Al... :chuckle:

Hilston
October 22nd, 2004, 08:23 AM
drbrumley,

I don't give flying fudgepan anymore about whether or not you guys understand immutability or impassibility. It used to concern me because I liked some of these Open Theists and I was concerned that they were making fools of themselves by critiquing things they didn't understand. But each and every Open Theist I've encountered thus far, with the possible exception of Yorzhik, has demonstrated an intransigent insistence on maintaining a false understanding of these terms. It is the epitome of willful ignorance in its full glory.

What I now find to be typical of Open Theists is the theological inbreeding that perpetuates your ignorance, to your shame (and you don't even have the clarity of vision to be ashamed of yourselves). Rather than going to the source yourself and understanding for yourself what Calvin and Augustine mean by immutability, rather than reading modern theologians to espouse these views, especially after you've been told repeatedly and shown from excerpted Calvinist material that you're wrong and do not understand, you still take the distorted and partisan "journalism" of one of your own co-bunglers.

Here's the bottom line: Open Theists don't care. All that matters is that Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or some other Open Theist Bob has declared it to be so, and it is uncritically accepted and promulgated like political talking points.

Bob Hill's definition of a figure of speech is so simplistic that it's embarrassing, but that's the thing about willful ignorance: It doesn't allow a person to even know when to be embarrassed. He accuses Calvin of "lightly" dismissing the language that says God changes. Yet Bob Hill himself doesn't bother to do the research to explain what is meant by the figure of speech. He dismisses lightly the importance and richness of figures of speech just so he can get back to his distortions of immutability (and by implication, impassibility).

It's all par for the Open Theist course, dr. I'm no longer surprised or annoyed by it. Now I expect it and have become profoundly amused by it. With each new bud that grows from the Open View weed I find new opportunities to marvel at the depths to which the human condition will distort and demonize the God of the Bible in order to justify itself.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

Clete
October 22nd, 2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

drbrumley,

I don't give flying fudgepan anymore about whether or not you guys understand immutability or impassibility. It used to concern me because I liked some of these Open Theists and I was concerned that they were making fools of themselves by critiquing things they didn't understand. But each and every Open Theist I've encountered thus far, with the possible exception of Yorzhik, has demonstrated an intransigent insistence on maintaining a false understanding of these terms. It is the epitome of willful ignorance in its full glory.
I have seen you say this a hundred times and have yet to see you post a single thing that substantiates it. To my knowledge you have never given any reason for any of us to believe that Calvin believed anything different that what the above quotations clearly depicts. You make claims all the time that we do not understand his (Calvin's) teachings but never even try to prove that claim.
I'm sure you don't care what I think but be that as it may, it is my firm conviction that you are blowing smoke. You make lofty claims and pretend to be smarter than everyone else on the planet but I'm not buying it! I have personally asked you dozens of times to make the argument and all you do is tell me to find it myself. That is a load of crap! You are a liar Jim. You had me fooled for a long time and even when I had doubts about your intellectual honesty, I persistently gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to pursue discussions with you because, well I don't really now why, I guess I just wanted to believe that I was missing something important. But no longer; I am convinced that you are a deceiver, you prefer playing intellectual games to telling the plain truth. You're a liar of the highest order and I no longer trust you any further than I could throw you.


What I now find to be typical of Open Theists is the theological inbreeding that perpetuates your ignorance, to your shame (and you don't even have the clarity of vision to be ashamed of yourselves). Rather than going to the source yourself and understanding for yourself what Calvin and Augustine mean by immutability, rather than reading modern theologians to espouse these views, especially after you've been told repeatedly and shown from excerpted Calvinist material that you're wrong and do not understand, you still take the distorted and partisan "journalism" of one of your own co-bunglers.
We aren't reading modern theologians we are reading Augustine's own words. And as I said, you've never bother to show me anything that would suggest that Augustine didn't believe in the absolute immutability of God. It is interesting however that your having said such a thing demonstrates your acknowledgment that God cannot be immutable and remain logically coherent.


Here's the bottom line: Open Theists don't care.
An outright, intentional lie! I know for a fact, that you must know that this is not true. You wouldn't even be on this site if it were not for an Open Theist you goof!


All that matters is that Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or some other Open Theist Bob has declared it to be so, and it is uncritically accepted and promulgated like political talking points.
Yet another intentional lie! Can you not understand that everyone here can still see the Dr.'s post and that we can all read?

Bob Hill QUOTED CALVIN'S OWN
WORDS!!!!

WAKE UP!


Bob Hill's definition of a figure of speech is so simplistic that it's embarrassing, but that's the thing about willful ignorance: It doesn't allow a person to even know when to be embarrassed. He accuses Calvin of "lightly" dismissing the language that says God changes. Yet Bob Hill himself doesn't bother to do the research to explain what is meant by the figure of speech. He dismisses lightly the importance and richness of figures of speech just so he can get back to his distortions of immutability (and by implication, impassibility).
This is laughable to anyone who knows anything about Pastor Hill. To suggest that he, of all people, hasn't bother to do his research would be funny in any other context. In this context, it just makes you look silly, which is as good a refutation of what you've said that could be done.


It's all par for the Open Theist course, dr. I'm no longer surprised or annoyed by it. Now I expect it and have become profoundly amused by it. With each new bud that grows from the Open View weed I find new opportunities to marvel at the depths to which the human condition will distort and demonize the God of the Bible in order to justify itself.
Just words Jim, words without substance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
October 22nd, 2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

drbrumley,

I don't give flying fudgepan anymore about whether or not you guys understand immutability or impassibility.

What I now find to be typical of Open Theists is the theological inbreeding that perpetuates your ignorance, to your shame (and you don't even have the clarity of vision to be ashamed of yourselves). Nice post PASTOR Jim. :rolleyes:

Yorzhik
October 22nd, 2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Hilston:
The position is not merely of debt and no possible way of paying, but of debt and no desire to pay
So we could pay the debt if only we had the desire to do so?


Originally posted by Hilston:
Question: "Free?! No strings? What's the catch?"
Answer: "The catch is you gotta ask for it."
Again using the debt analogy; If one were commanded to take a gift that pays a debt, the entire (in practical terms) value of the gift is in accepting it? Would it be different if the gift were not commanded to be taken but just offered?


Originally posted by Hilston:
For you, what Christ did had no intrinsic value. Only potential value (even though you say it had infinite value]. For you, what Christ did was not sufficient to accomplish anything in and of itself, something, namely the faith of men, must be added for it to actually become kinetic.
If you give a gift to someone, and they don't accept it, you are saying it has no value? I'll agree that it has no value to the recipient, but no value at all?

I realize you don't regard the gift of salvation as a gift, and your theology requires that, but if salvation is a gift, then the gift would only be valueless to the person who rejected it, not to the giver, correct?

Hilston
October 22nd, 2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have seen you say this a hundred times and have yet to see you post a single thing that substantiates it.When you quoted Sproul, your modern authority on Calvinism (remember: I don't get to define Calvinism, you and R.C. do) about immutablity and impassibility, I gave you further quotes from Sproul that demonstrated that you didn't understand Sproul. Either you have a selective memory, or you're a liar, in which case that would make two of us.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
To my knowledge you have never given any reason for any of us to believe that Calvin believed anything different that what the above quotations clearly depicts.Sure I did. There's the Sproul quote. And there are the excerpts I offered, to which Knight exclaimed: "So Calvin does believe God can change!"


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You make claims all the time that we do not understand his (Calvin's) teachings but never even try to prove that claim.I have tried. I've led about a dozen horses to the same watering hole. You all just stand there and look at each other, hooves firmly embedded in the mud, refusing to drink, telling each other what the water tastes like, refusing to bend your neck to taste it for yourself. Soon, here comes Hilston, with yet another Open Theist horse in tow. The horse takes his place amid the other horses, but before he can drink, the other horses start telling him what the water tastes like. Before long, his hooves are stuck in the mud as well.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I'm sure you don't care what I think but be that as it may, it is my firm conviction that you are blowing smoke.What is that conviction based on? Your own investigation of the doctrines of immutability and impassibility, or my refusal to waste my time culling and typing in the excerpts and explanations? You used to be a Calvinist, Betty. 20+ years, right? And you've been debating Calvinists ever since you converted, right? You probably have a better library of Calvinist writings than I do. That is what shames you. You have no excuse. That is sufficient evidence to tell me that you. Don't. Care.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You make lofty claims and pretend to be smarter than everyone else on the planet but I'm not buying it!You've got a real inferiority complex, Betty. I've never been called smart or accused of pretending to be smart so much until you and I began debating. I'm only a part-time genius.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I have personally asked you dozens of times to make the argument and all you do is tell me to find it myself. That is a load of crap!Ask yourself this question: "Have I, Betty, sought to understand what Sproul means by the word 'immutable' given the fact that Hilston quoted Sproul as saying that God does change?" If your answer is "no," then I'm not the one with the load of crap.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer You are a liar Jim.I know you are, but what am I?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You had me fooled for a long time and even when I had doubts about your intellectual honesty, I persistently gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to pursue discussions with you because, well I don't really now why, I guess I just wanted to believe that I was missing something important. But no longer; I am convinced that you are a deceiver, you prefer playing intellectual games to telling the plain truth. You're a liar of the highest order and I no longer trust you any further than I could throw you.That's precisely the advice I would have given you myself. You shouldn't trust me. I do lie. I do deceive. I do manipulate. And that means, if you really want to have an accurate knowledge and understanding of immutability and impassibility (and you should probably throw in total depravity -- you don't seem to get that one either), you'll have to get serious and find out for yourself.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
We aren't reading modern theologians we are reading Augustine's own words.Of course, and in isolation, you can get Augustine's words to say anything you want. We journalists do this all the time.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And as I said, you've never bother to show me anything that would suggest that Augustine didn't believe in the absolute immutability of God. It is interesting however that your having said such a thing demonstrates your acknowledgment that God cannot be immutable and remain logically coherent.If you're serious about that sentence, and if no one else sees the silliness of it, maybe I am really smart. Try to follow this. I'll go slow: I acknowledge that God cannot remain immutable by your twisted distortion of the meaning of the word and remain logically coherent. By my definition of the word, there is no incoherence.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
An outright, intentional lie!Betty, please try to keep up: You do not get to decide what my intentions are. Only God and my psychic friends get to do this.

Hilston wrote: Here's the bottom line: Open Theists don't care.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I know for a fact, that you must know that this is not true.If you cared, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You'd already know and you'd be writing Bob Hill to inform him that he has distorted the teachings of Calvin and Augustine. Actions speak louder than words, Betty. You have a record.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You wouldn't even be on this site if it were not for an Open Theist you goof!Um ... what?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Yet another intentional lie! Can you not understand that everyone here can still see the Dr.'s post and that we can all read?

Bob Hill QUOTED CALVIN'S OWN
WORDS!!!!

WAKE UP!You're still not keeping up. I'm not denying Calvin has been quoted. I'm telling you that you don't understand the quotes. And by excising the quotes from their context and his overall teaching, you only further distort the issue and thereby sacrifice accuracy for debate points.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
This is laughable to anyone who knows anything about Pastor Hill. To suggest that he, of all people, hasn't bother to do his research would be funny in any other context. In this context, it just makes you look silly, which is as could a refutation of what you've said that could be done.That's exactly the kind of response I expect from theological inbreds: Uncritical acceptance of your leaders' teachings, and swift defense of those leaders teachings based on personality traits. There are lots of thorough researchers who are thoroughly wrong.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 10:51 AM
Then help me out here Hilston.

Is this the correct definition of immutable:

Not subject or susceptible to change?

immutable

\Im*mu"ta*ble\, a. [L. immutabilis; pref. im- not + mutabilis mutable. See Mutable.] Not mutable; not capable or susceptible of change; unchangeable; unalterable.

Agree or disagree with above definitions?

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 11:07 AM
How about 2 entries found for impassibility.
im·pas·si·ble
adj.

1. Not subject to suffering, pain, or harm.
2. Unfeeling; impassive.

Is this also correct in your view?

Christine
October 22nd, 2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
From the context, I see that this is addressing believers. Isaiah 53:4-5 is clearly addressing believers, " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him sticken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." You may try to say that the "our" pharases in these verese are referring to unbelievers or "all men," but that doesn't line up with the last "our" phrase-- "our peace." Unbelievers don't have peace.


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

"The whole world" here is referring to to the fact that Christ's death was not just for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles. The ancient rabbinic writings used the term "world" to refer to the rest of the non-Jewish world. This makes sense seeing 1 John was written to the Jews.


1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time
From the context, it should be "all kinds" of men, as that fits better. Paul used this same word in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, just a few verses prior. "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." Here, we see that not referring to "all men" as you would like to interpet "all," but instead to "all kinds of men" including kings and those in authority over us.




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.?

This passage says that Christ is "the Savior of the world." That doesn't mean he died for every individual in the world. Instead, the part in question means, that He's come to save people from every nation and not just Israel as He had predominately done in the past. This can be proven from the context since Jesus had been talking to the Samaritan woman.


Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

That whole passage is talking about God's elect and predestination. Romans 8:30-33, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He tht spared not his own Son, but delievered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who say lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Again, from the context, I see that the "us all" is referring to God's elect, the saved.


John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.?
Yes, and only the elect are going to beleieve.





Christ died for all the sins of all men. But only those that reckon themselves (associate themselves with) Christ will avail themselves to the payment of their sin.
That's not what the verses you posted prove.


Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It appears that whole chapter, includign these two verses, is addressing believers. I can tell this because earlier in the chapter it is discussing spiritual baptism. Romans 6:3, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Unbelievers do not experience spiritual baptism, so this is not applicable to them.
Since it's addressed to believers, "all" would be "all saved" or "all elect."

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 03:13 PM
“While claiming to offer meaningfulness to Christian living, open theism strips the believer of the one thing needed most for a meaningful and vibrant life of faith: absolute confidence in God’s character, wisdom, word, promise, and the sure fulfillment of his will.?

:down:

If this is what you think, all I can say is WOW!!! Mr. Ware who the quote is attributed to, either has weak faith or is clueless willingly.

Man, I've heard everything now.

Christine
October 22nd, 2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

No, it wouldn't. Take the verses Knight quoted for instance.

I responded in my previous post to all of Knight's verses. I'd like to respond to your verse John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The Greek word that was translated draw (helkuo), never means simply "drawing." Every other time helkuo is translated it means to "drag someone against their will." Helkuo is used in Acts 21:30, "And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut." In Acts 21, a light drawing or even wooing doesn't make sense. So, properly translated, John 12:32 seems to be in support of God dragging men to him, even against our will. :)

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 09:57 PM
Ware is weak.

C. Gordon Olson answered Owen's dilemma in his 'mediate theology'. I think I posted this somewhere.

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Christine

I responded in my previous post to all of Knight's verses. I'd like to respond to your verse John 12:32, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." The Greek word that was translated draw (helkuo), never means simply "drawing." Every other time helkuo is translated it means to "drag someone against their will." Helkuo is used in Acts 21:30, "And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut." In Acts 21, a light drawing or even wooing doesn't make sense. So, properly translated, John 12:32 seems to be in support of God dragging men to him, even against our will. :)

Christine...

The word "men" was added to the text, and does not belong. Jesus was speaking of drawing all judgment to himself, not men.

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die."

A word for word translation reads:

Now judgment is of this world; now the prince of this world shall be cast out: and I if I be lifted up from the earth all will draw to myself. But this He said, signifying by what death he was about to die.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 10:27 PM
I've always been curious Sozo, why to they add words to the text? I haven't really studied that subject, so if you can make a quick comment , I'd be grateful.

It has been under my presumption, they did it to make sense of the sentence.

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

I've always been curious Sozo, why to they add words to the text? I haven't really studied that subject, so if you can make a quick comment , I'd be grateful.

It has been under my presumption, they did it to make sense of the sentence. I suppose so, and in this particular text they did a great disservice to it's meaning, and added fuel to alot of false doctrine *cough* calvinism.

You only have to read the context to see that he was speaking of receiving the judgment, that we deserve.

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Christine...

The word "men" was added to the text, and does not belong. Jesus was speaking of drawing all judgment to himself, not men.

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die."

A word for word translation reads:

Now judgment is of this world; now the prince of this world shall be cast out: and I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw to myself. But this He said, signifying by what death he was about to die.


'pantas'= commonly translated 'all men' ....this is basic Greek grammar (see other obvious uses of word as 'all men'). Greek grammar is not identical to English. Words and phases do not always have a one to one relationship in any translation from any language (the word 'man' is not there, but it is implicit in the word/structure). It can also mean 'all things', so context will aid translation.

Drawing all 'judgment' to himself is a unique, but incorrect interpretation.

Blum: Jesus said that at the cross He would draw all men to Himself. He did not mean everybody will be saved for He made it clear that some will be lost (Jn. 5:28,29). If the drawing by the Son is the same as that of the Father (6:44), it means He will draw indisciminately. Those saved will include not only Jews, but also those from every tribe, language, people, and nation (Rev. 5:9; cf. Jn. 10:16; 11:52).

F.F. Bruce agrees with the above interpretation. It refers to Jew and Gentile forming the Body of Christ, not just the Jews. It does not support limited atonement of the 'elect' only. Other verses support unlimited atonement with the possibility of receiving or rejecting the finished work of Christ.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 10:36 PM
Godrulz,

Why do you always put up someones opinion on a topic? I said this, and here is proof and bingo, up comes a quote from a book.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 10:40 PM
And are you playing football? I havent checked lately, but you havent as much made a roster move as of yet.

Ok, back to topic

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

'pantas'= commonly translated 'all men' ....this is basic Greek grammar. Is that right? Well perhaps you would like to provide some evidence of the word 'pantas' appearing in the New Testament?

The greek word in John 12:32 is pas
F.F. Bruce agrees with the above interpretation. I don't give a Flying Flip what F. F. Bruce thinks! He has an agenda, just like most so-called theologians.

You really should try worshipping Jesus and stop worshipping these men.

Idiot!

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Godrulz,

Why do you always put up someones opinion on a topic? I said this, and here is proof and bingo, up comes a quote from a book. He cannot think for himself, he is a worshipper of men, and not Jesus.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 10:53 PM
Godrulz,

By reading the verses in question, the context is definitely judgement. Not men. Can you see what Jesus said, he is talking about judgement.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 11:15 PM
Hilston,

Now is your chance, what is the correct definition of immutable?

Also impassible?

You said your not allowed to define them. I'm giving you the chance so I can better understand what it is your trying to convey.

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Godrulz,

Why do you always put up someones opinion on a topic? I said this, and here is proof and bingo, up comes a quote from a book.

I formulated my own opinion first. I have never heard of judgment as an option, so I thought I would look for support of your view. Instead, respected scholars who know the original languages supported the plain view I espoused.

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

respected scholars

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 11:28 PM
Godrulz,

That's cool. I can understand why. Just that the context of Jesus' words do not allow men to be inserted. I really hope you can see that. Something to ask God about you think? Cause if true, that changes the complexion of that verse drastically.

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

respected scholars

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality).

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 11:30 PM
Amen

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Is that right? Well perhaps you would like to provide some evidence of the word 'pantas' appearing in the New Testament?

The greek word in John 12:32 is pas I don't give a Flying Flip what F. F. Bruce thinks! He has an agenda, just like most so-called theologians.

You really should try worshipping Jesus and stop worshipping these men.

Idiot!

You call me 'idiot' while displaying a gross ignorance of first year Greek studies?!

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


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

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

One cannot understand the nuances of word usage and grammar based only on the root word 'pas', which you wrongly state is in the Greek text. You deny 'pantas' is in the NT...wrong again...easily refuted...

Is it easier to name call 'idiot' than to take a course to dispel ignorance?:rolleyes:

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

You call me 'idiot' while displaying a gross ignorance of first year Greek studies?!

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


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

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

One cannot understand the nuances of word usage and grammar based only on the root word 'pas', which you wrongly state is in the Greek text. You deny 'pantas' is in the NT...wrong again...easily refuted...

Is it easier to name call 'idiot' than to take a course to dispel ignorance?:rolleyes:

Wescott and Hort? Your kidding me right? These guys dont have a clue. And if your basing your eternal life on what they say the bible says, boy, I'm sorry for you.

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

He cannot think for himself, he is a worshipper of men, and not Jesus.

I thought for myself first (took 4 years theological study also to equip to handle the Word). How dare you say I worship men and not Jesus. To seek confirmation from an expert is wisdom, not worship. You made an elementary error in your pseudo-understanding of Greek. Will you retract this or continue in your ignorance and arrogance?

This is like you saying 2+2= 5. When I quote a math text or expert saying 2+2=4, you accuse me of worshipping the math expert or not thinking for myself? Grow up, jerk!

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons"

Great exegetical distortion:doh:

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Godrulz,

That's cool. I can understand why. Just that the context of Jesus' words do not allow men to be inserted. I really hope you can see that. Something to ask God about you think? Cause if true, that changes the complexion of that verse drastically.

A grammatical word study of 'pantas' is more fundamental than the context. The context does not fit your view, and supports the majority view.

godrulz
October 22nd, 2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Wescott and Hort? Your kidding me right? These guys dont have a clue. And if your basing your eternal life on what they say the bible says, boy, I'm sorry for you.

Their text is reliable and respected. It does not mean I agree with their personal views on every point. Chances are your Bible was influenced by their translation.

What evidence do you have to outright dismiss their textual criticism and scholarship? I suspect you are speaking out of ignorance and arrogance...did you translate from the Greek into a recognized version?

Sozo
October 22nd, 2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

You call me 'idiot' while displaying a gross ignorance of first year Greek studies?!

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


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

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

One cannot understand the nuances of word usage and grammar based only on the root word 'pas', which you wrongly state is in the Greek text. You deny 'pantas' is in the NT...wrong again...easily refuted...



You are an ignorant man.

The word 'pantas' does not appear in the NT. 'pantos' does, but it is not the word used in John 12:32.

The word 'pas' appears 60 times in the book of John alone!

pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything


You are wrong, and frankly, I am weary of you.

drbrumley
October 22nd, 2004, 11:52 PM
Wrong Godrulz!

Context is what dictates the subject. It makes no difference what the majority says. Esp, when we are talking about words not even in the text. It was inserted.

30Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself." 33This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

It is as plain as day.

drbrumley
October 23rd, 2004, 12:01 AM
Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

If he doesnt know how much to beleive , well proof is in the pudding.

Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

That's just a couple, Need I document more?

drbrumley
October 23rd, 2004, 12:12 AM
In effect the plan is stated as follows, “We have succeeded in completely depersonalizing the bible, having shattered into scores of fragments, and have recomposed it in a rational manner.? THE FOUNDATION IS LAID IN OUR DAY Many of us now living have seen the supernatural upsurge of new Bible versions. Each one contradicts the best English version ever produced, (THE KING JAMES VERSION - KJV) and every one contradicts the other in a mad scramble to reach the minds and the money of the people of God.

Thats Wescott and Hort. Money talks, you know the rest.

drbrumley
October 23rd, 2004, 12:19 AM
Suffice to say Godrulz,

Dont even talk to me about Greek texts and words. Go ahead and put your faith in Wescott and Hort. You will rule the day you did that.

If context doesnt matter, we have nothing to discuss.

godrulz
October 23rd, 2004, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

You are an ignorant man.

The word 'pantas' does not appear in the NT. 'pantos' does, but it is not the word used in John 12:32.

The word 'pas' appears 60 times in the book of John alone!

pas: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything


You are wrong, and frankly, I am weary of you.

Grab an interlinear...'pantAs' is in Jn. 12:32. I do not dispute the other uses of 'pas'.

'pantOs' is another declension of the adjective 'pas'= singular, neuter or masculine, genitive

YOU ARE WRONG...and though I am weary of your pretenses...I will be happy to be patient as you get up to speed...my goal is to shed light for understanding, not create heat for division.

Here is the declension of 'pas, pasa, pan...stem= pant-): adjective= 'all'...


Masculine/feminine/neuter, singular/plural: nominative, genitive/ablative, dative, locative, instrumental, accusative, vocative...

pas, pantos, panti, panta, pantes, panton, pasi(n), pantas

pasa, pases, pasei, pasan, pasai, pason, pasais, pasas

pan, pantos, panti, pan, panta, panton, pasi(n), panta

Not every form is necessarily used in the NT. Since you are calling me idiot, and making inaccurate statements about what words are in the NT Greek text...please explain the above declensions and the significance of the cases including verses and historical usages. If you cannot put up, then shut up. Your credibility is on the line. What else are you wrong about? Be teachable if you are to teach.

I doubt you have studied other languages (French, German, etc.). If you did, you would have understood these elementary concepts and not made statements contrary to the Greek text or grammar.

godrulz
October 23rd, 2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Suffice to say Godrulz,

Dont even talk to me about Greek texts and words. Go ahead and put your faith in Wescott and Hort. You will rule the day you did that.

If context doesnt matter, we have nothing to discuss.

I have been one of the strongest proponents of context on these boards. Remember my rallying cry: "Context is King!". Who said context does not matter. Read me in context, pulease! I am suggesting that you need an accurate translation and interpretation of each word, sentence, and paragraph to even elicit what the context is. If you are wrong about the meaning of a word, it will jade the correct understanding of the context. Exegesis, not eisegesis. Inductive, not deductive.

I am not trusting Westcott and Hort. I actually do not know much about their issues other than one was Anglican and their work is a respected, credible source. They are merely one of several legit. translations to use. I suspect they have influenced many or most English versions. They do not differ significantly from whatever translation you use. What is the text used by NKJV (I suspect you use Enyart's favorite)?

Whatever interlinear or text you use, it should confirm my view on the word 'all' in Jn. 12:32. This is not a disputed text with many variations (to the best of my knowledge). Sozo does not know what he is talking about in relation to the Greek word in the text. Your interpretation is another matter. The word is not in dispute, just your understanding of the passage.

godrulz
October 23rd, 2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Wrong Godrulz!

Context is what dictates the subject. It makes no difference what the majority says. Esp, when we are talking about words not even in the text. It was inserted.

30Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself." 33This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

It is as plain as day.

I do not dispute the judgment aspect. His lifting up was related to the type of death on the cross. It is an allusion to the lifting up of the serpent on the pole in the OT, where everyone who looked to it (believed) were healed/saved. You are reading judgment from v. 30 into v. 32...the grammar supports 'all men/everyone'. The modifier is not back to judgment.

godrulz
October 23rd, 2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

If he doesnt know how much to beleive , well proof is in the pudding.

Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

That's just a couple, Need I document more?

Isolated quotes out of context do not mean much. I stated it does not matter if we agree with everything these men believed. We must deal with the accuracy of their translation/grammar. A secular expert on Greek must also follow the same grammatical rules regardless of their belief system.

'pas, pantos, pantas' etc. are mathematical and fixed, regardless who translates.

cf. Thayer's lexicon is very good despite the fact he was a Unitarian (we disagree with his theology). At times (Col. 2:9, etc.), he affirmed accurate grammar even though it contradicted his false religion. This is commendable.

godrulz
October 23rd, 2004, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by drbrumley

In effect the plan is stated as follows, “We have succeeded in completely depersonalizing the bible, having shattered into scores of fragments, and have recomposed it in a rational manner.? THE FOUNDATION IS LAID IN OUR DAY Many of us now living have seen the supernatural upsurge of new Bible versions. Each one contradicts the best English version ever produced, (THE KING JAMES VERSION - KJV) and every one contradicts the other in a mad scramble to reach the minds and the money of the people of God.

Thats Wescott and Hort. Money talks, you know the rest.

Source? Deal with their text vs ad hominem arguments. Are you sure you are not mixing up B.F. Westcott (good) and W.W. Westcott (bad ? occult)? Are you KJV only?

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

You are an ignorant man.

The word 'pantas' does not appear in the NT. 'pantos' does, but it is not the word used in John 12:32.I'm so tempted to make this the POTD, but I don't want to waste it so early.

It would surprise me if you were not an Open Theist, Sozo. I expect Open Theists to accuse others of the very thing of which they themselves are guilty. And are you a politician as well? The way you so baldly stated a blatant untruth would make either Kerry or Bush proud.

Here are the nearly 90 occurrences of pantas in the textus receptus (Stephens 1550). Note that Jn 12:32 is among them. And by the way, pantos only occurs about 30 times in the Greek NT. Isn't that embarrassing?

Mt 2:4,16 4:24 8:16 12:15 14:35 21:12 22:10 26:1
Mr 1:32 2:12 5:40 6:39
Lu 1:65 4:36 5:9 6:10,19 7:16 8:54 9:23 12:41 13:2,4,28 17:27 17:29 21:35
Joh 2:15,24 12:32 Ac 4:33 5:5,11 9:14,40 10:38,44
Ac 11:23 17:30 18:2,23 19:10,17 21:21,28 22:15 26:29 27:24,44 28:2 28:30
Ro 3:9,22 5:12,18 10:12 11:32 16:15,19
1Co 7:7 14:5 15:25
2Co 2:3,5 5:10 9:13
Ga 6:10
Eph 1:15 3:9
Php 1:7,8 2:26
Col 1:4
1Th 3:12 4:10 5:14,15,26
1Ti 2:4
2Ti 2:24
Tit 3:2
Phm 1:5
Heb 13:24 1Pe 2:17
2Pe 3:9
Jude 1:15,25
Re 13:16

I could see making your statement if there were only 2 or 3 occurrences and you just happened to miss them. But how do you miss 89 verses, Sozo? It didn't take very long to run those down, and I didn't even go to cemetery, Sozo. Did you use the word "ignorant"? If I recall correctly, you also used the word "idiot." I wonder: Do you have the clarity of mind to be ashamed of yourself, or at least embarrassed?


Originally posted by Sozo
You are wrong, and frankly, I am weary of you. :darwinsm:

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 02:06 AM
Hilston,

Thank you for making that correction....you tell me if you see the word "pantAs" in these Greek texts:

Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine GNT:

Joh 12:32 καγω εαν υψωθω εκ της γης παντας ελκυσω π?ος εμαυτον

Textus Receptus GNT:

Joh 12:32 καγω εαν υψωθω εκ της γης παντας ελκυσω π?ος εμαυτον

Westcott/Hort GNT:

Joh 12:32 καγω εαν υψωθω εκ της γης παντας ελκυσω π?ος εμαυτον

I am pretty sure ALL three say "pantas." However, that word isn't even in the NT...kind of strange, don't you think?

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 07:32 AM
Hilston:

Which word is used παντα or παντας?

Are you sure you are not referring to pantav?

No matter how you slice it, the word "men" does not belong in the text.

The original word is pav (all); pantav was used out of interpretation, but does not appear in the text. An assumption was made that it refers to men, but that is pav it is, an assumption.

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 09:07 AM
Combined reply to natewood3 and Sozo:

natewood3,

Thanks for keeping this discussion in line with its title. Your comparison of the three text families demonstrates even further how Open Theists will stop at nothing and never pass up an opportunity to rip on those who oppose their view. drbrumley wants to jump all over godrulz for making reference to the Critical Text, when there isn't even a textual dispute about Jn 12:32. The Byzantine, USB and the TR all agree. This is simply and sadly political posturing by theological inbreds. Just like Bush, you'll never get an Open Theist to admit he was wrong. Just like Kerry, we should never expect logic to have anything to do with the positions Open Theists espouse. And just like politicians in general, on the one hand they defend each other and use double-standard nepotism toward one another. But on the other hand, they don't care to publicly correct one another when one of them makes an embarrassing fatuous claim about something so basic as the 89 parsings of one of the most common words in the Greek scriptures (1,070+ occurrences in its lexical form!!!). Their double-standard nepotism and theological inbreeding just encourages the proliferation of more and more foolishness and error.

Sozo,

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

Instead, what do you do? You try to deflect your guilt with your "any way you slice it" tripe. Oh, I see. Now the details don't matter, cuz "any way you slice it," Sozo is still right. Sometimes I wonder why I like hanging around here, but then someone like Sozo comes along and reminds me: It's just so hilariously entertaining. If I could, I'd change the thread title to: "Bwah ha ha ha! Open Theism makes me pee myself with laughter!!!"

:darwinsm:

Flame on flame-out.

Christine
October 23rd, 2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

Christine...

The word "men" was added to the text, and does not belong. Jesus was speaking of drawing all judgment to himself, not men.

"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die."

A word for word translation reads:

Now judgment is of this world; now the prince of this world shall be cast out: and I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw to myself. But this He said, signifying by what death he was about to die.

Sozo:

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

Jerry Shugart
October 23rd, 2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Christine
I don't think God would draw unbelievers to himself, he'd only draw the called or elect.
Christine,

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

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

I agree with what godrulz said earlier:

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


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

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

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry Shugart
October 23rd, 2004, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Hilston
Just like Bush, you'll never get an Open Theist to admit he was wrong. Just like Kerry, we should never expect logic to have anything to do with the positions Open Theists espouse.
I find it amusing that those who deny an open view would dare to speak about "logic".

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

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

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

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

In His grace,--Jerry

Turbo
October 23rd, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Here is an example of their logic.The Apostle Paul says that the Lord "will have all men to be saved,and to come to the knowledge of the truth"(1Tim.2:4). The KJV is quoted here, where "will" means "desires to" rather than "is going to," though we rarely use "will" in that way today. I know you alluded to this Jerry, but I just wanted to clarify for those watching at home. :)

Turbo
October 23rd, 2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

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

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

Despite the fact that the Lord would wish that all men would come to the knowledge of the truth,those who deny an "open view" say that the Lord only gives some the gift of faith. It's easy! Just change "all men" to "all the elect" or "all called men" in this verse, too!

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

It's easy! Just change "all men" to "all the elect" or "all called men" in this verse, too! Close. Just exegete "all" to "all kinds of" and that'll put you in the ballpark. Refuse to exegete consistently and you're left standing in the parking lot.

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 12:08 PM
Hilston,


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

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

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

Poly
October 23rd, 2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Hilston


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

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 12:20 PM
Since when has any Open Theist around here ever said that "He just can't do anything about it" in the sense that He doesn't have the ability? You've been shown this before and conveniently overlook it. Why do you think that just because He is capable of making man love Him (I use the word "love" loosely here) that He wants to? There is no other way to get around God not giving us a free will other than He had the ability but chose not to or He simply wasn't capable.

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

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

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

Jerry Shugart
October 23rd, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
Notice how the Open View makes God out to be a Big Loser. He wants this, He needs that, He longs for people to just love Him, He wants so badly to save more and more, but He just can't do anything about it.
Jim,

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

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

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

He has done all He can, say the Open Theists, yet they still pray for Him to do more stuff. They say "Praise the Lord" when things go their way. Why? He doesn't really do anything.
I do not know why you say that the open theists say that He really does not do anything.He does in fact send out His stewards to preach the gospel of salvation.

But the other hand, Open Theists claim He is doing everything He can to save as many people as possible, yet the Open Theists still pray for Him to do stuff, as if He forgot about some things and He needs to be reminded by their prayers.
You know that Paul tells Christians to make our requests made known unto the Lord:

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

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

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

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

How is it that God's pinnacle creation, man, is so poorly designed that the vast majority don't want anything to do with Him? The Open View probably should be reslugged "The Big Loser View."
The Lord made man with a "free will" and therefore man is prone to go his own way instead of God's way.

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

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

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

In His grace,--Jerry

Poly
October 23rd, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by natewood3


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

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


Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 02:08 PM
Poly,


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

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

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

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 02:11 PM
Knight,

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

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Poly

Since when has any Open Theist around here ever said that "He just can't do anything about it" in the sense that you're implying, as if He doesn't have the ability?What can He do? Give me an example of something God can do to get more people saved.


Originally posted by Poly
You've been shown this before and conveniently overlook it. Why do you think that just because He is capable of making man love Him (I use the word "love" loosely here) that He wants to?I'm curious. Since you mention a "loose" definition of "love," what would be the tight definition? How do you Open Theists define "love"?


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


Originally posted by Poly
As far as your concerned His hands are tied and He had to be the director of man's will.God cannot choose not to be God. He cannot choose not to be sovereign. He cannot choose not to be in control of every electron's position in the valence of their respective atoms.


Originally posted by Poly
There is no other way to get around God not giving us a free will other than He had the ability but chose not to or He simply wasn't capable.I don't deny free will. I just don't think Open Theists know what it means.


Originally posted by Poly
I think you need to ask yourself just who it is that's making God out to be "a Big Loser" here. My God doesn't lose a single soul He has chosen to save. He victoriously saves each and every one for whom Christ died. Zero losses. Zero casualties. Complete and total victory. Your view makes God out to be not only a Big Loser, but a really bad statistician, somehow not realizing that each passing day results in the exponential growth of the population of Hell.

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

Poly
October 23rd, 2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Poly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 03:53 PM
Poly,

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

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 03:55 PM
Poly,

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

Turbo
October 23rd, 2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

natewood3
October 23rd, 2004, 04:18 PM
Turbo,

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

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

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Sozo,

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

Instead, what do you do? You try to deflect your guilt with your "any way you slice it" tripe. Oh, I see. Now the details don't matter, cuz "any way you slice it," Sozo is still right. Am I missing something, or did you forget to show me where the word "men" appears in the original text?

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

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Sozo:

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

Thanks for you response, Christine.

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

Poly
October 23rd, 2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Poly,

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

Where did I criticize you on your intellect? I must have missed that one. :confused:

Look, I didn't mean to upset you. This is a real sore spot for me. I believed the way you do for the better part of my life and now that I see the absurdity of it, I can't stand seeing others sucked into this warped and all too common view of God. I think you're a very intelligent person and that's why it's all the more a shame that you view God as you do. And I should say in all fairness that although you do misrepresent the OV, you seem to do it more out of ignorance rather than purposely as some on here make a habit of doing.

Oh and for the record, after careful consideration, I must be honest and say that you're not THE master of double talk around here..... Hilston is. :eek:

(I should have put him as "Man 1" and Clete as "Man 2" in my "Pickle" skit.)

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Knight,

Were you planning on responding to my post? #327... Was there something specific you wanted me to respond to? :sigh:

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Sozo
btw... I am not an Open-Theist. Ahhh... now your going to take all the fun out of it for Jim.

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 06:09 PM
Sozo writes:
Am I missing something, ...?Absolutely. Several things. You're apparently missing several things. Among them:

(1) An adequate knowledge of Greek to understand that a single adjective can convey case, number and gender;
(2) A clue about what a pathetic and abject fool you've made yourself out to be;
(3) The wherewithal to admit when you've made a false accusation;
(4) The humility to repent and apologize;
(5) The clarity of perception that would allow to actually feel embarrassment;
(6) The desire to learn

I may have missed some. But it shouldn't matter. I doubt anything I listed above will register with you.


Sozo writes:
... or did you forget to show me where the word "men" appears in the original text?Even if I were to show you where "men" appears in the original, I'm guessing you'd just respond with just another "anyway you slice it" assertion. It's obvious that you don't have the vidalias to admit that you were wrong and to apologize for your false accusation. It's also fairly plain that you're utterly incorrigible. That said, why should I think that showing you where "men" appears in the original would make a dent in your igneous skull?


Sozo writes:
btw... I am not an Open-Theist.Then it's worse than I thought. At least, with Open Theists, I can blame their myopia on their false doctrine. In your case it must be sheer intellectual hebetude.

Sozo, just for fun, consider the following verses. Each of them has the phrase "all men" in the English, but only has the word pantas in the Greek [which you had the asinine temerity to claim did not occur anywhere in the Greek New Testament -- we're still cracking up over that one]. Ask yourself if the word "men" should be dropped from these verses, since neither aner nor anthropos occur in them. Then ask yourself where the KJV translators might've gotten the idea to add the word "men" in their translation, even though neither aner nor anthropos occurs in them.

Mt 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
Mt 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mt 26:33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
Mr 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
Mr 5:20 And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
Mr 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Lu 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
Lu 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
Ac 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Ac 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Ac 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
Ac 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Ac 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
Ac 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Ac 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Ro 16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
2Co 9:13 Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men;
Ga 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
1Th 3:12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:
1Th 5:14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
1Th 5:15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
2Ti 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
1Pe 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
3Jo 1:12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
Re 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

By the way, I don't really expect you to do this. That would require something the existence to which you've not given a skoche of evidence: Rational faculties.

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
By the way, I don't really expect you to do this. That would require something the existence to which you've not given a skoche of evidence: Rational faculties. Jim... was that comment really necessary?

Why do you flame out like this?

It's kind of sad really and it does little for your case. It blows my mind that you actually refer to yourself as a pastor. :nono:

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 06:18 PM
Hilston...

I have access to several Greek Lexicons, and the word pantas does not appear in any of them. I also have a Greek dictionary on the KJV bible, and the word pantas does not appear in it.

Once again, I am telling you that, whatever source you are using to claim that the word "men" appears in the text, is the result of someone adding it to try and bring their understanding into the text. The word is "all", and it refers to judgment, not men. You are tainted by your own agenda, and I should have directed "pas" of my insults at you.

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Jim... was that comment really necessary?Necessary and appropriate. You have the gall to talk to me about what comments are necessary? Look at his words, Knight. Look at his arguments. Look at his bald refusal to admit a false accusation. I don't give a rip about name-calling or insults, but when people disrespect the debate and make inane claims with impunity, that disgusts me. And look at where your focus is. You don't call people to the carpet for making false accusations or telling lies, but for telling the truth!

:darwinsm:


Originally posted by Knight Why do you flame out like this?flame-out n. : the unintentional cessation of operation of a jet airplane engine. [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] My flames are intentional, Knight, so the word doesn't really seem to apply.


Originally posted by Knight
It's kind of sad really and it does little for your case.Read the thread title, Knight. My "case" is consistent with the subject. By the way, if Sozo believes the future is open, doesn't that make him an Open Theist by your definition?


Originally posted by Knight
It blows my mind that you actually refer to yourself as a pastor. :nono: I don't. That's your first false assumption. Your second false assumption is that pastors somehow have more restrictions on their behavior. That's unbiblical.

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Hilston


I don't. That's your first false assumption. Your second false assumption is that pastors somehow have more restrictions on their behavior. That's unbiblical. Gee.... I wonder where I would get a false assumption such as this. :think:

Your profile states....
Occupation: Journalist, Artist, Pastor, Web Designer

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 06:35 PM
Jim's Profile. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=177)

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Your profile states....
Occupation: Journalist, Artist, Pastor, Web Designer Web Designer?

:think:

"Oh what a tangled Web..."

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Web Designer?

:think:

"Oh what a tangled Web..." LOL... so that's what "Web Designer" means! :D

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

By the way, if Sozo believes the future is open, doesn't that make him an Open Theist by your definition?

Do you believe that Open Theism is solely defined by teaching that the future is open?

Do you believe it is closed? If so, then why do you request that I repent?

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Hilston...

I have access to several Greek Lexicons, and the word pantas does not appear in any of them. I also have a Greek dictionary on the KJV bible, and the word pantas does not appear in it.OK, putting laughter and ridicule aside for the moment. Please let me help you so you can understand why the Lexicons appear to be letting you down. Which ones do you have? List their titles, and I will pull mine down and give you the specific reason, page number and everything, as to why you're not finding "pantas" listed as an entry.


Originally posted by Sozo
Once again, I am telling you that, whatever source you are using to claim that the word "men" appears in the text, is the result of someone adding it to try and bring their understanding into the text.Is that your claim regarding every verse I listed in my previous post?


Originally posted by Sozo
The word is "all", and it refers to judgment, not men. You are tainted by your own agenda, and I should have directed "pas" of my insults at you. Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar? In Jn 12:31, the word "judgment" (krisis in the Greek) is a singular, feminine noun. The word "all" in verse 32 (pantas in the Greek) is the plural, masculine form of the adjective pas. For "all" to refer to "judgment," as you are claiming, the Greek would have used pasan, the singular, feminine form of pas.

Here's an example:
Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

The Greek word for "all" is pasan, the feminine singular form of the adjective, pas. But what does it modify? Look for the nearest noun that is also singular in number and feminine in gender. That word is "righteousness," which is singular and feminine in the Greek.

If you followed this, it should be clear to you why "all" cannot refer to "judgment" and why the translators appropriately added "men" to the English. Note also that they also were kind and honest enough to put "men" in italics, thus informing the reader that the word is not in the original text, but was added by the translators to assist the reader in understanding it the way a Greek speaking reader would have understood it anyway.

I hope that helps. Please give me some indication that I didn't waste my time sharing this with you. By the way, I never went to seminary, so you don't have to be afraid that I've been brainwashed by one.

By the way, it's one thing to answer the question: Occupation? And to fill it in accordingly. It's quite another thing to go around referring to myself as a pastor. If you recall, there was a thread in which several people started calling me Pastor Hilston. I begged and pleaded for them to stop calling me that. It's just not biblical. Incidentally, I don't go around referring to myself as an artist either, but that is one of my occupations.

Notice most of all this: Nothing is said about the substantive part of my response, only the easiest thing to pick on is rejoined. Thanks, yet again, for contributing to the accuracy of this thread's title.

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Which ones do you have? List their titles, and I will pull mine down and give you the specific reason, page number and everything, as to why you're not finding "pantas" listed as an entry. The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament... The various readings of the editions of Elzeiver 1624, Griesbach, Lacmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth. Gerhard Kitttles Theological Dictionary. Thayer's and Smith's. Strongs NASB Exhaustive :noid:
Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar? Yes

Knight
October 23rd, 2004, 07:43 PM
So Jim... now you have me curious.

So.... you are not a Pastor but you play one on the internet?

Is that the deal? If you are not a Pastor why would you list that you are a Pastor in your biography?

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament... The various readings of the editions of Elzeiver 1624, Griesbach, Lacmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth. Gerhard Kitttles Theological Dictionary. Thayer's and Smith's. Strongs NASB Exhaustive :noid:Great. So if you look up "pas" in Thayer's, does it list Jn 12:32 as one of the occurrences? And when you look up Jn 12:32 in your 1624 TR, does it have "pantas" in the verse? It should. That's because "pas" is the lexical form of that adjective, and "pantas" is the plural, masculine inflection of that adjective.

Did you already know this, or is this new information to you?

Hilston asked: Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar?


Originally posted by Sozo
Yes Then do you understand why "all" in Jn 12:32 cannot refer to "judgment" in verse 31?

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

And when you look up Jn 12:32 in your 1624 TR, does it have "pantas" in the verse? It should. That's because "pas" is the lexical form of that adjective, and "pantas" is the plural, masculine inflection of that adjective.


It's not.

Did you already know this, or is this new information to you? Something different, anyway.
Then do you understand why "all" in Jn 12:32 cannot refer to "judgment" in verse 31? I understand why you would think that, but I don't buy it.

What do you think of this?

"Instead of παντας, the Codex Bezae, another, several versions, and many of the fathers, read παντα, all men, or all things: so the Anglo-Saxon, {A.S.}, I will draw all things to myself. But παντα may be here the accusative singular, and signify all men."

Overall, the context of the verse makes no sense to refer to "men". What is the implication of Jesus drawing ALL men to Himself? From your perspective, is this a reference to the reconciliation?

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Knight
So Jim... now you have me curious.

So.... you are not a Pastor but you play one on the internet?

Is that the deal? If you are not a Pastor ...I didn't say I wasn't a pastor. I just don't refer to myself as one. I'm also a Girard High School graduate. I don't refer to myself as that either. I'm only a pastor to my church; no one else. It isn't a title. It is a description of role I share with four other men as an occupation and a responsibility.


Originally posted by Knight
... why would you list that you are a Pastor in your biography? I didn't. Under "biography," I listed the following: "Former atheist, former Arminian, former Covenantalist."

I listed "pastor" under "occupation": "Journalist, Artist, Pastor, Web Designer"

So, Knight, you have me curious: Does it at all occur to you that this kind of obfuscation is actually on-topic, given the subject of this thread? With every irrelevant question and argument, with every inane claim, illogical proposition, and irrational distortion, you guys only further affirm the various things that have been said about Open Theists thus far in this thread.

drbrumley
October 23rd, 2004, 10:11 PM
Hilston,

Now is your chance, what is the correct definition of immutable?

Also impassible?

You said your not allowed to define them. I'm giving you the chance so I can better understand what it is your trying to convey.

Hilston
October 23rd, 2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

It's not.What's not? Pantas isn't there?

Do you understand the difference between the lexical entry in Thayer's and Kittel and the various inflections of any particular word?


Originally posted by Sozo Something different, anyway.Like what?


Originally posted by Sozo
I understand why you would think that, but I don't buy it.You have no problem with adjectives having a different gender and number than their referrents? Would it matter to you, Sozo, if someone described you as females?


Originally posted by Sozo
What do you think of this?

"Instead of πantas, the Codex Bezae, another, several versions, and many of the fathers, read πanta, all men, or all things: so the Anglo-Saxon, {A.S.}, I will draw all things to myself. But πanta may be here the accusative singular, and signify all men."That sounds like a load of rubbish. "Panta" as accusative singular? Where did you get that?

Even if you take the Bezae reading with "panta", you're still stuck with having a plural neuter, which cannot refer to judgment, which is singular feminine. So either way, you have no grammatical means of getting "all" to refer to "judgment." You don't have to buy it if you don't want, but don't complain if I start referring to you as "women."


Originally posted by Sozo
Overall, the context of the verse makes no sense to refer to "men". What is the implication of Jesus drawing ALL men to Himself? From your perspective, is this a reference to the reconciliation? Yes; as is often the case with the "all," it does not mean "all without exception," but rather "all kinds" or "all manner of."

Sozo
October 23rd, 2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Yes; as is often the case with the "all," it does not mean "all without exception," but rather "all kinds" or "all manner of." Are you making this up, as you go?

Is "kinds/manner of" male or female?

Turbo
October 23rd, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Are you making this up, as you go?

Is "kinds/manner of" male or female?
For the love of money is the root of all (pantwn) evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1Timothy 6:10, KJV

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10, NKJV

godrulz
October 23rd, 2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

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

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

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

They would not explicitly say this, but it is the logical conclusion if one accepts their logic. They want their cake and eat it to. If God knows and predestines individual destiny, there is not genuine free will. Determinism is antithetical to freedom/moral agency. There position is incoherent and an attempt to allow freedom while determining things?

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Turbo! :noway:

Yorzhik
October 24th, 2004, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Hilston
Are you familiar with case-, number-, gender-agreement in Greek grammar? In Jn 12:31, the word "judgment" (krisis in the Greek) is a singular, feminine noun. The word "all" in verse 32 (pantas in the Greek) is the plural, masculine form of the adjective pas. For "all" to refer to "judgment," as you are claiming, the Greek would have used pasan, the singular, feminine form of pas.

Here's an example:
Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.

The Greek word for "all" is pasan, the feminine singular form of the adjective, pas. But what does it modify? Look for the nearest noun that is also singular in number and feminine in gender. That word is "righteousness," which is singular and feminine in the Greek.

If you followed this, it should be clear to you why "all" cannot refer to "judgment" and why the translators appropriately added "men" to the English. Note also that they also were kind and honest enough to put "men" in italics, thus informing the reader that the word is not in the original text, but was added by the translators to assist the reader in understanding it the way a Greek speaking reader would have understood it anyway.

I hope that helps. Please give me some indication that I didn't waste my time sharing this with you. By the way, I never went to seminary, so you don't have to be afraid that I've been brainwashed by one.

By the way, it's one thing to answer the question: Occupation? And to fill it in accordingly. It's quite another thing to go around referring to myself as a pastor. If you recall, there was a thread in which several people started calling me Pastor Hilston. I begged and pleaded for them to stop calling me that. It's just not biblical. Incidentally, I don't go around referring to myself as an artist either, but that is one of my occupations.

Notice most of all this: Nothing is said about the substantive part of my response, only the easiest thing to pick on is rejoined. Thanks, yet again, for contributing to the accuracy of this thread's title.
Thanks for a well thought out, calm, explanatary post of your position. I looked up what I could in the Greek when this came up as a topic in this thread and you are correct with only one minor caveat.

Seeing as I know little about Greek, I asked a couple people that know a lot more. One who teaches Greek (although not a Greek scholar, is writing her doctoral disortation) and the other a Doctor of Theology from a real University. And if it matters, these people believe in not-the-open-view (because you don't like the term "closed view", I don't know what you call it).

Also, I didn't relate to this thread, I asked an open ended question on what PAS refers to in John 12:32. Simply put, after some study, the most popular translation would be "all men", but "all things" is also not outside of proper translation. "All judgement" is not a possible translation. I'll go further and ask a real scholar if I have to, but this would seem to be a strong passage for the clost view.

Please excuse the typos, I banged this post out rather quickly.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Knight

Jim... was that comment really necessary?

Why do you flame out like this?

It's kind of sad really and it does little for your case. It blows my mind that you actually refer to yourself as a pastor. :nono:

If you say this about Jim, you should say much more against sozo. He calls people idiots and ignorant when he is the one who does not have a clue about basic grammatical issues. He never gives public apologizes for his flaming when he is shown to be wrong in facts or attitude.

Jim at least backed his flaming up with facts and not false accusations.

If sozo dishes it out, he should take it (though I respect your mild rebuke of Jim's flame...we can get our points across more respectfully).

Sozo mocks those who look to experts in their field. If he would recognize his own limitations, he would have saved face in this 'all' debate. He thinks he knows more than Greek scholars and translators. It is clear he will retain a belief that is grammatically indefensible. He mocks those who do due diligence, while persisting in his own ignorance. This is simply arrogant and stubborn. It reminds me of JWs who defend Jn. 1:1 as 'a god' against all grammatical evidence. Sometimes we need to look to experts to get answers. We do this in science and medicine, why not in theology?

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

Hilston...

I have access to several Greek Lexicons, and the word pantas does not appear in any of them. I also have a Greek dictionary on the KJV bible, and the word pantas does not appear in it.

Once again, I am telling you that, whatever source you are using to claim that the word "men" appears in the text, is the result of someone adding it to try and bring their understanding into the text. The word is "all", and it refers to judgment, not men. You are tainted by your own agenda, and I should have directed "pas" of my insults at you.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You do not seem to have enough background to know which tools to use and how to use them. IF you would look at a Greek-English INTERLINEAR (the right tool), you would see the word ending there. You would not see the word 'men' because it is strongly implied in the word/context. Jim gave many examples to demonstrate similiar consistent uses of the word/phrase.

I will give money to all (men= implied, so could add it) who come to my house.

Jesus came to give life and hope to all (men could be safely added for understanding, but is not necessary; men being used to describe humanity, including women).

This is Grade 7 English grammar, let alone similar principles in Greek to English translation.

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Yorzhik
Thanks for a well thought out, calm, explanatary post of your position.I don't mean to jump all over you so early into your post, but I haven't really presented a "position" per se. I was just translating. Exegeting the passage was not my intent. If you're interested in my interpretation of it (i.e., my position), that may have to wait.


Originally posted by Yorzhik
I looked up what I could in the Greek when this came up as a topic in this thread and you are correct with only one minor caveat.After reading your caveat, I hasten to say that my explanation agrees with your friends', but I apparently wasn't clear enough for that to come through. See below.


Originally posted by Yorzhik
Seeing as I know little about Greek, I asked a couple people that know a lot more. One who teaches Greek (although not a Greek scholar, is writing her doctoral disortation) and the other a Doctor of Theology from a real University. And if it matters, these people believe in not-the-open-view (because you don't like the term "closed view", I don't know what you call it).I just call it the "determinist view."


Originally posted by Yorzhik
Also, I didn't relate to this thread, I asked an open ended question on what PAS refers to in John 12:32. Simply put, after some study, the most popular translation would be "all men", but "all things" is also not outside of proper translation.I agree, and this is what I tried to convey (perhaps not as clearly as I could/should have) when I conceded that "pantas" (accusative, plural, masculine adjective) could very well be "panta" (accusative, plural neuter adjective), the latter of which translates "all things," or "all manner of things," depending on context.


Originally posted by Yorzhik
"All judgement" is not a possible translation.I fully agree. While it is nice to get the confirmation from your friends, this one would be a no-brainer even in English. We would never say, "all dog barks," and expect it to make sense, but that's exactly the kind of thing Sozo is suggesting. And where he gets accusative singular for "panta" is a mystery to me.


Originally posted by Yorzhik
I'll go further and ask a real scholar if I have to, but this would seem to be a strong passage for the clost view.Scholar-schmoller! You're clearly one of the sharper and more honest thinkers on this site. Yorzhik, you and I can hammer this stuff out without the blessings of "scholars". Seriously though, I don't mind having the "experts" look over my shoulder. It keeps me sharp and makes me work harder.

Yorzhik, I hesitate to say the following, because the last time I did this, I later regretted it. But here goes: You've thus far shown yourself to be a exceptionally fair-minded person who seems to be truly open to rational discourse as opposed to the cheap-shot emotional arguments that seem to run rampant whenever I try to get straight answers around here (and I'm just as responsible for using them). I know you're not here to impress me, nor should that matter at all to our discussions, but I do want to commend you for being level-headed and actually willing to roll up your sleeves and dig into some of these issues on your own. From my experience among the OVers, that is quite exceptional and demonstrates a genuine desire to accurately know and understand your opponent's point of view. It is both encouraging, and humbling. I'm glad to know you. Keep up the good work.

elected4ever
October 24th, 2004, 01:24 AM
John 12:32 _And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.


If you read John you will see that men is an arbitrary addition by the translator to give an understanding to the verse. The word men is not in the Greek transcript.The verse should read, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me." We are left with the question, all of what?

Is there a nominative, singular noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the word all without adding the word men? Well yes there is and that word is judgment in verse 31, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out,_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (judgment) unto me.


This makes perfect sense when one reads John 5:22- 27

John 5:22 _For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 _That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
24 _Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 _Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 _For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 _And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Hilston


Yorzhik, I hesitate to say the following, because the last time I did this, I later regretted it. But here goes: You've thus far shown yourself to be a exceptionally fair-minded person who seems to be truly open to rational discourse as opposed to the cheap-shot emotional arguments that seem to run rampant whenever I try to get straight answers around here (and I'm just as responsible for using them). I know you're not here to impress me, nor should that matter at all to our discussions, but I do want to commend you for being level-headed and actually willing to roll up your sleeves and dig into some of these issues on your own. From my experience among the OVers, that is quite exceptional and demonstrates a genuine desire to accurately know and understand your opponent's point of view. It is both encouraging, and humbling. I'm glad to know you. Keep up the good work.

This is a good example of maturity, wisdom, and grace as we debate issues that we differ on. Dialogue and insight is not helped by name-calling.

"Idiot, Christ-hater, ignorant, etc." are simply unacceptable and unnecessary in our disagreements (especially when the name caller is in the wrong on the issue). Speak the truth in love. Edify rather than vilify. This does not preclude a timely rebuke of those who need it.

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by elected4ever

John 12:32 _And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.


If you read John you will see that men is an arbitrary addition by the translator to give an understanding to the verse. The word men is not in the Greek transcript.The verse should read, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me." We are left with the question, all of what?The Greek word for "all" is either "pantas" (accusative, plural, masculine) or "panta" (accusative, plural, neuter). The Greek word for judgment is singular and feminine. Neither "pantas" nor "panta" fits with "judgment" based on basic rules of grammar.


Originally posted by elected4ever
Is there a nominative, singular noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the word all without adding the word men?The problem, e4e, is that "all" is not singular! None of the manuscripts support any singular rendering of "pas."


Originally posted by elected4ever
Well yes there is and that word is judgment in verse 31, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out,_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (judgment) unto me.So you've asked and answered the wrong question to make a specious case for an untenable interpretation. The right question would be, "Is there a nominative plural noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the plural adjective without adding the word 'men' or 'things'?"

The answer is "no".


Originally posted by elected4ever
This makes perfect sense when one reads John 5:22- 27

John 5:22 _For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: ...In Jn 5:22, "all" and "judgment" are in agreement (gender, number). In Jn 12:32 they are not.

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

For the love of money is the root of all (pantwn) evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1Timothy 6:10, KJV

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10, NKJV That's right! A different word is used when it does not mean "every" single one or thing. John 12:32 means all, not all kinds, or all manner of.

Are you guys trying to say that the word all cannot refer to judgment in any situation?

I agree with e4e, and I am not convinced that It refers to men.

Not that I will accept this view, but according to your rules of grammer, can the all refer to "the world" in John 12:32? Why? Why not?

The context demands that the word all be related to the subject at hand.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Context is king, but any single sentence or verb must first be translated based on grammar. More than one thought or argument is found in Jn. 12. Do not tunnel on the idea of judgment when He also introduces ideas of mercy as a contrast (especially when the grammar does not support your view).

Hermeneutics= art and science of Bible interpretation. Exegesis....


literal, historical, cultural, contextual, theological, AND GRAMMATICAL method...all are relevant in translation and interpretation...a word is more fundamental than a paragraph...it is the building block for ideas.

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

Context is king, but any single sentence or verb must first be translated based on grammar. More than one thought or argument is found in Jn. 12. Hermeneutics= art and science of Bible interpretation. Exegesis....


literal, historical, cultural, contextual, theological, AND GRAMMATICAL method...all are relevant in translation and interpretation...a word is more fundamental than a paragraph...it is the building block for ideas.

I agree 100%


Do not tunnel on the idea of judgment when He also introduces ideas of mercy as a contrast (especially when the grammar does not support your view). I'm not convinced it doesn't. The entirety of the message of Christ must also be considered. Mercy, would not fit.

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

That's right! A different word is used when it does not mean "every" single one or thing. John 12:32 means all, not all kinds, or all manner of. No, it's the same word (pas), but a different form (to correctly correspond with "evil").

I don't know enough about Greek to know the specifics, but for instance this form (pantwn) could be singular, since "evil" is singular. The gender may be different also; I don't know. (Maybe Jim can fill us in on what gender/tense of pas this is).

All I was pointing is that pas can rightly be translated as "all kinds of."

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 07:48 AM
Sozo, the reason Jim is saying that "all" can't be referring to "judgment" in John 12:32 is because in greek, nouns have gender and adjectives have gender and are either singular or plural like nouns. And adjectives take the form (gender & number) of whatever noun they are modifying.

In John 12:32 "all" is plural, and is either masculine or neuter. But "judgement is singular and feminine. So if "all" were referring to judgment, it would be in the singular feminine form in this verse. But it isn't.

To say that this "all" (pantas) refers to judgment would be like saying that "he" to refer to a woman, or "they" refers to an apple.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

I agree 100%

I'm not convinced it doesn't. The entirety of the message of Christ must also be considered. Mercy, would not fit.

Regardless, each word and sentence stands on its own merit within a context. There are times that Paul and others weaved different issues and ideas in a paragraph. It is possible to talk about judgment, grace, and mercy sentence by sentence. Jn. 3...the argument progresses contrasting belief and unbelief, etc. Other passages may move from discussion about sin to righteousness, or unbelief to belief, or present reality to future eschatology, etc. It would be inaccurate to focus on one of the dualisms at the expense of the other in the context.

"All" is first of all a grammatical issue (antecedents, etc.) and then a contextual issue. The context can support your idea, perhaps, but the grammar will not allow it. Someone should come up with a parallel passage where the overall context contains a sentence that is another passing idea different than the main context. Specific arguments and ideas can flow and build within a broad context.


e.g. I can write about punishments and discipline of children or criminals. Within that discussion, I could put a sentence about rewarding good behavior or about individuals who do not need discipline. I could not argue that the sentence means judgment instead of mercy because of the overall context and emphasis on jugdment. Judgment and mercy are relevant contrasts. Some contexts may emphasize mercy and throw an isolated sentence about judgment in. Other contexts may be primarily about judgment, but this does not preclude the possibility of a sentence standing by itself in that context reminding us of mercy.

The Gospel of John has several dualisms and contrasts that are found within a single context (light/darkness, belief/unbelief, life/death, God/man, etc.).

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 07:53 AM
In John 5:22, where pas does refer to judgment, the form is "pasan." If pas were referring to judgment in John 12:32, it would be "pasan" there as well.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

Sozo, the reason Jim is saying that "all" can't be referring to "judgment" in John 12:32 is because in greek, nouns have gender and adjectives have gender and are either singular or plural like nouns. And adjectives take the form (gender & number) of whatever noun they are modifying.

In John 12:32 "all" is plural, and is either masculine or neuter. But "judgement is singular and feminine. So if "all" were referring to judgment, it would be in the singular feminine form in this verse. But it isn't.

To say that this "all" (pantas) refers to judgment would be like saying that "he" to refer to a woman, or "they" refers to an apple.

This is equally true in Greek, English, French, or German. This is a grammatical, not theological issue at the moment. Exegesis demands that all does not refer to judgment without negating the context. Eisegesis would be saying it must refer to judgment despite the standard practice of including the implied word 'man' to reflect the case, gender, and number of the adjective. There are many Greek idioms that are correctly translated despite not seeming literal to the layman. Robertson's grammar is 5 inches thick. There are many issues in word studies and translation that are simply outside our knowledge base. Amateur Greek students should not presume to know all the intricacies of grammar and translation based on having a language tool or two. These resources are of limited benefit if one does not have a strong background in language studies (this would be my situation...I am an introductory student, not an advanced scholar). In this 'all' case, we are talking about basic, introductory grammar.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

In John 5:22, where pas does refer to judgment, the form is "pathr." If pas were referring to judgment in John 12:32, it would be "pathr" there as well.

pathr= check your 'r' ending... I do not think this is in the declension...

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

pathr= check your 'r' ending... I do not think this is in the declension... I guess it got lost in the transliteration. :o

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

This is equally true in Greek, English, French, or German. I know, though I think it's a little less equally true for English. ;) English is kind of the odd-man-out in that our adjectives don't change to match the noun, and our nouns are generally gender neutral. And our plural pronouns are always gender-neutral.

And Our second person pronouns (you) and their verbs are the same whether singular or plural. At least that much used to be different, which is a strength of the King James. "You" and "ye" were plural, and "thou" and "thee" were singular. And the corresponding verbs are singular or plural. (e.g. You have vs. Thou hast.) There are some cases where this adds a lot of clarity.

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 09:18 AM
I can't believe I started this whole thing just to slap another insult on godrulz :doh:

Oh well, it looks as though the gnat strainers might win this one.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

I can't believe I started this whole thing just to slap another insult on godrulz :doh:

Oh well, it looks as though the gnat strainers might win this one.

Wake up....if you believe in the inspiration of the Word of God by the Holy Spirit (+inerrancy), it extends right down to one letter at the end of a Greek word.

e.g. Jn. 1:1 The Word was God, not 'a god' (JW's NWT). The grammatical intricacies of this verse/translation mean the salvation of millions of cultists.

We are not gnat strainers. You have been caught in your own trap. Your motive was wrong and the Spirit exposed you as an unteachable wanna-be teacher. We value the Word of God to the last jot and tittle as Jesus did. Rather than humble yourself or change your view to a more biblical stance (minor issue here, but what else do you have wrong due to poor exegesis?), you simply dismiss us or name call. Your credibility is slipping again. If I was wrong on a grammatical point, I would want to change my indefensible position to honor God's Word and His people. Rightly handle the Word is the details and you will not go off track in the broad issues.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Turbo

I guess it got lost in the transliteration. :o

Jn. 5:22

kriso pasa (not r)= judgment all


Good example of proper agreement...in this context, 'all' does modify judgment...

In Jn. 12, it does not modify judgment (refuting sozo)...

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Jn. 5:22

kriso pasa (not r)= judgment all:doh: I accidentally copied the word for Father before. Sorry. I'll edit that post.

:confused: But It sure looks like pasan (pasan), not pasa (pasa), to me.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=joh+5%3A22&section=0&it=kjv&oq=joh%25205%3A22&ot=bhs&nt=tr&new=1&nb=joh&ng=5&ncc=5



In Jn. 12, it does not modify judgment (refuting sozo)... Right.

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

If I was wrong on a grammatical point, I would want to change my indefensible position to honor God's Word and His people. That is pure BS! You are so full of crap, godrulz! You have done nothing but insult the blood of Jesus, and malign the gospel since you've been here. You MIGHT be right about one jot, but you are in egregious error on nearly everything else you spew out of your Christ-hating mouth!

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Combined reply to Turbo and Sozo:


Originally posted by Turbo

No, it's the same word (pas), but a different form (to correctly correspond with "evil").

I don't know enough about Greek to know the specifics, but for instance this form (pantwn) could be singular, since "evil" is singular.I'm not sure what verse you're referring to, but "panton" (the "w" is usually a keyboard equivalent of "omega" -- the long "o" in Greek) is plural masculine or plural neuter.

If you're referring to Mt. 5:11, (Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake), "all " is singular neutuer ("pan") and "evil" is (of course) singular neuter.

Evil can also be plural ("evil [things]" or "evil [ones]").


Originally posted by Turbo
All I was pointing is that pas can rightly be translated as "all kinds of." You're absolutely right to point that out.

It so sad that someone like Sozo, who had an opportunity to grow in his understanding of the Greek, but instead, he squandered it, because he would rather impose his own interpretation upon the text, despite the grammatical constraints that no rational person would ignore. Sozo is basically telling God that He was sloppy and made a mistake by using the plural masculine (or neuter) adjective to modify a singular feminine noun. What Sozo calls pure BS is actually basic first year Greek grammar. It's embarrassing.

Sozo, you accused godrulz of "insult[-ing] the blood of Jesus." I am curious: What do you believe Jesus' blood actually accomplished? Do you believe He died for everyone without exception?

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

What Sozo calls pure BS is actually basic first year Greek grammar. It's embarrassing.

I'm was speaking of godrulz, being full of BS, not whether or not the Greek is, as he stated.
am curious: What do you believe Jesus' blood actually accomplished? Propitiation
Do you believe He died for everyone without exception? Yes.

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 04:40 PM
Sozo,

You said that Christ's blood accomplished propitiation and that He died for everyone without exception. Do you then believe everyone without exception has been propitiated for?

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Sozo,

You said that Christ's blood accomplished propitiation and that He died for everyone without exception. Do you then believe everyone without exception has been propitiated for? Nope. Jesus, without exception, paid for the sins of the entire world, and God was satisfied. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Forgiveness is in Him (Jesus). To be "propitiated for", you must be in Him. We are saved by His life, not by His death.

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Nope. Jesus, without exception, paid for the sins of the entire world, and God was satisfied.He paid for the sins of the entire world? So then the whole world will be saved, right?


Originally posted by Sozo
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Forgiveness is in Him (Jesus). To be "propitiated for", you must be in Him. We are saved by His life, not by His death. Then why did Jesus die? Doesn't His blood have any value?

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

He paid for the sins of the entire world?
Yep
So then the whole world will be saved, right? Nope
Then why did Jesus die? Propitiation.



Doesn't His blood have any value? Yep... it paid the penalty for sin.

Are you getting any of this?

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

I'm not sure what verse you're referring to...We were still talking about 1 Tim 6:10 (see post 422 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=614545#post614545))
For the love of money is the root of all (kinds of) evil...


...but "panton" (the "w" is usually a keyboard equivalent of "omega" -- the long "o" in Greek)Yeah, that w was meant to be an omega.


... is plural masculine or plural neuter. Thanks. :thumb:

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

We are saved by His life, not by His death. Do you mean because He gave His life for us?

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Turbo,

Thanks for the reminder. Regarding 1Tim 6:10, "all" is "pantOn" and is plural neuter. "Evil" is "kakOn," also plural neuter (I used a cap "O" to represent "omega").

A more literal way to render the verse would be: "For [the] root of all the evils is money-love ..."

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Hilston wrote: He paid for the sins of the entire world?


Sozo writes:
YepHilston wrote: So then the whole world will be saved, right?


Sozo writes:NopeThat doesn't make sense. If the debt is paid for the whole world, then everyone should be debt-free before God, right? If not, please explain.

Hilston wrote: Then why did Jesus die?


Sozo writes:Propitiation.If Jesus died to propitiate God's wrath for the entire world, then the entire world is no longer under God's wrath, right? If not, please explain.

Hilston wrote: Doesn't His blood have any value?


Sozo writes:Yep... it paid the penalty for sin.If it paid the penalty for all men's sins, then there should be no one suffering in hell for their sins, right? If not, please explain.

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Do you mean because He gave his life for us?

Nope. Because we have His life in us.

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston wrote: He paid for the sins of the entire world?

Hilston wrote: So then the whole world will be saved, right?

That doesn't make sense. If the debt is paid for the whole world, then everyone should be debt-free before God, right? If not, please explain.

Thank you, for your inquires, and for the lesson in Greek. (Although, I am still chewing on it).

Jim, you are an intelligent person. Read, all that I said about this in the posts that answer your questions.

Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you. Salvation is life.

All men are reconciled to God, through the death of Jesus. But, we are saved by His life, not by His death. The life of Jesus is eternal life, it is the very life of God.

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (Those who are in Christ have the very life of God dwelling in them) Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God[/b]

Reconciliation is an exchange. We give Him our life, and He gives us His. The death Of Christ paid the debt that separated us from God, and now we give Him our life, in exchange for His. Salvation is found in Him; in His life!
If Jesus died to propitiate God's wrath for the entire world, then the entire world is no longer under God's wrath, right? If not, please explain The sin issue has been dealt with at the cross ("It is finished"). Man's problem is no longer a sin issue, but a life and death issue. Those who have not come to Christ to receive His life are still dead. Forgiveness of sin is found "in Him".

"For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

*Please remember I abhor Calvinism*

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory."

Ask yourself this...

I buy everyone in the world a new car! The purchase has been completed. The keys and titles are at a specific redemption center. Simply go to the redemption center, identify yourself, turn in the keys to your old car, and receive the new one.

Does everyone have a new car?

Lovejoy
October 24th, 2004, 07:37 PM
So salvation is not a negating action, but an affirming action. The Blood that covers is not the same thing as the Water that grants life?

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Lovejoy

So salvation is not a negating action, but an affirming action. The Blood that covers is not the same thing as the Water that grants life? I have given this illustration in the past...

Think of canning:

You sterilize the jars (cleansed by the blood)
You fill them with fruit (the indwelling Holy Spirit)
You seal them (for the day of redemption of our bodies.

The blood of Jesus does not "cover" our sin, it takes it away, so that we can receive what God came to give us... His Life!

Lovejoy
October 24th, 2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

I have given this illustration in the past...

Think of canning:

You sterilize the jars (cleansed by the blood)
You fill them with fruit (the indwelling Holy Spirit)
You seal them (for the day of redemption of our bodies.

The blood of Jesus does not "cover" our sin, it takes it away, so that we can receive what God came to give us... His Life!

Cover is "christianese", if you know what I mean, so it just comes naturally. Since I understand the process as a "negation", I guess I also understand that it is a cleansing, not a covering. I do not know why I use the word. Quite a good illustration though, and I fully plan on stealing it for my own use! :p

I am still working on a few aspects of this, but frankly, I do not plan on understanding it all today. I just want to make sure I do not get caught up in the same sort of idiocy that led to "governmental" atonement, or some such. Maybe I will PM you after I work this through for awhile. God bless.

Hilston
October 24th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Sozo
Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you. Salvation is life.So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?


Originally posted by Sozo
All men are reconciled to God, through the death of Jesus. But, we are saved by His life, not by His death. The life of Jesus is eternal life, it is the very life of God.What are we saved from?


Originally posted by Sozo
Reconciliation is an exchange. We give Him our life, and He gives us His. The death Of Christ paid the debt that separated us from God, and now we give Him our life, in exchange for His.So would you say that men must save themselves by agreeing to a transaction?


Originally posted by Sozo
Salvation is found in Him; in His life!Again, salvation from what?


Originally posted by Sozo
The sin issue has been dealt with at the cross ("It is finished"). Man's problem is no longer a sin issue, but a life and death issue.I see, so we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell, correct?


Originally posted by Sozo
Those who have not come to Christ to receive His life are still dead. Forgiveness of sin is found "in Him"."Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought it was a done deal.


Originally posted by Sozo
"For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

*Please remember I abhor Calvinism*Since I'm not a Calvinist, you don't have to worry about me quoting R.C. Sproul or John Piper to you. So lighten up.


Originally posted by Sozo
Ask yourself this...

I buy everyone in the world a new car! The purchase has been completed. The keys and titles are at a specific redemption center. Simply go to the redemption center, identify yourself, turn in the keys to your old car, and receive the new one.

Does everyone have a new car? Wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

:doh: I accidentally copied the word for Father before. Sorry. I'll edit that post.

:confused: But It sure looks like pasan (pasan), not pasa (pasa), to me.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=joh+5%3A22&section=0&it=kjv&oq=joh%25205%3A22&ot=bhs&nt=tr&new=1&nb=joh&ng=5&ncc=5


Right.

The transliteration in my interlinear was 'pasa'...your link is a phonetic (pronunciation in English) vs literal spelling in Greek.

Moot point... (e.g. patr is pronunciation for Gk. word 'pater')

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

That is pure BS! You are so full of crap, godrulz! You have done nothing but insult the blood of Jesus, and malign the gospel since you've been here. You MIGHT be right about one jot, but you are in egregious error on nearly everything else you spew out of your Christ-hating mouth!

Nice twist...hit a sore spot did I?:cry:

Why would a Christ-hatrer defend His Deity and affirm a love relationship with Him and give of my time, energy, and money to serve Him? I must be the biggest fool around. Amazing how God uses this "Christ-hater" for 25 years to serve His people and reach the lost here and abroad.

If others share sozo's rabid assessments, please point out core truth that makes me an unregenerate reprobate. Differing views on sanctification (Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Calvinistic, Holiness, etc.) are simply not salvific dividing lines for heaven and hell.

I strongly affirm the biblical, historical, orthodox doctrines of the faith. I just do not blindly cower to sozo's articulations.

What's with the rivalry. I am a brother in Christ, not the devil incarnate.

Turbo
October 24th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

your link is a phonetic (pronunciation in English) vs literal spelling in Greek. Actually, there is a font you can download on the page so that the Greek text is displayed properly.

natewood3
October 24th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Poly,


Look, I didn't mean to upset you. This is a real sore spot for me. I believed the way you do for the better part of my life and now that I see the absurdity of it, I can't stand seeing others sucked into this warped and all too common view of God. I think you're a very intelligent person and that's why it's all the more a shame that you view God as you do. And I should say in all fairness that although you do misrepresent the OV, you seem to do it more out of ignorance rather than purposely as some on here make a habit of doing.

Just because it is a sore spot does not mean that you should criticize in the way you did. That gets nowhere. I am a forgiving and tolerant person who does not really care about people getting mad or criticizing me. However, I did not find anything I said "double talk" and I did not see where you proceeded to show me why it was double talk. I also did not see where you showed me why my "style" was childish. You came across arrogant, acting as if I was a dumb child with whom you had absolutely no time to discuss anything. THAT is what got to me, not necessarily the words...

You say I misrepresent the OV; PLEASE correct me when I do. I am here to learn and discuss. So, if I misrepresent, then correct me so I will know. BTW, HOW did I misrepresent the OV?

In that post, you said:


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

You bolded the word "need" in "He has no need to plan to 'happen to reveal His Son..." I did not say He NEEDED to do that either, so I am confused as to why you would say that. Also, as I said to Turbo, you believe your God's "power, authority and influence is so great that He can reveal Himself to the whole world and have no doubts that there will be people who will accept Him." His power, authority, and influence is obviously very weak, it seems to me at least, because most people will reject Him. In my view, which probably doesn't matter to you, I believe that when Christ reveals Himself so people see Him as He really is in all His glory in the death, burial, and resurrection, then they will respond, not because Christ forced them, but because they now are able to see Christ without the blinders and hear His words of invitation. You say that is not loving, because God does it against their "free will;" I say it is the most loving thing He could do for any human being. Why does He not do it to all? Christ came to redeem a special people, His Bride...

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Yep Nope Propitiation.


Yep... it paid the penalty for sin.

Are you getting any of this?

I actually agree with this, if we are talking the same language. His death was a substitute for the penalty. Jim is correct to note that if it is a literal payment for everyone (commerical transaction), then all should be saved. The problem is that it is not a literal payment. Payment is a metaphor describing an aspect to His death. All are not saved because they do not appropriate the universal provision (grounds vs conditions).

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston wrote: He paid for the sins of the entire world?

Hilston wrote: So then the whole world will be saved, right?

That doesn't make sense. If the debt is paid for the whole world, then everyone should be debt-free before God, right? If not, please explain.

Hilston wrote: Then why did Jesus die?

If Jesus died to propitiate God's wrath for the entire world, then the entire world is no longer under God's wrath, right? If not, please explain.

Hilston wrote: Doesn't His blood have any value?

If it paid the penalty for all men's sins, then there should be no one suffering in hell for their sins, right? If not, please explain.

The literal payment/commercial transaction theory of the atonement is one of five major theories. It logically leads to universalism. It is problematic as Jim is intuitively pointing out. We all agree universalism is false teaching.

godrulz
October 24th, 2004, 09:47 PM
How is it that Hilston is not an idiot and Christ-hater for not articulating redemption in the same way as sozo?

How is it that sozo can be defiantly wrong on Greek grammar, yet can accurately judge my heart, motives, and relationship with Christ based on posts about sanctification?

Time for more humility about basic knowledge and less dogmatism about things that God alone can judge (eternal destinies).

When I see sozo in heaven, do I have to hug him, or can I kick him in the head with my TKD first?:rolleyes:

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Sozo
Jim, you are an intelligent person. Ok, I stand corrected.

Pay close attention, Jim.


Originally posted by Hilston

So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?

No, I am claiming that all sin has been paid for through His blood, but some men want to pay their own way, and so thay do not accept God's provision, even though it has clearly been made. These men are still dead, and they need life. Death is separation from God. Hell is eternal separation from God (were you aware of that? :chuckle: ) Forgiveness of sin is in Him. It's IN HIM, Jim. ALL that God has prepared, is IN HIM ("HIM" being Jesus, of course).

Are you saying that God was NOT satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, and that it was not finished, and that the debt for all sin was not paid?
What are we saved from? Wrath, Sin, Law, & Death (Romans 5, 6, 7, & 8)
So would you say that men must save themselves by agreeing to a transaction? No, men receive life, by the grace of God, through faith. Salvation is a free gift.
Again, salvation from what? Are you any relation to a guy named Jay Bartlett?
I see, so we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell, correct? What sends people to hell is their unbelief in Jesus.

John 16: 8-9

"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me

Their sin is what brought death.

The wages of sin is death...

But, there is good news (gospel), Jim!!!

The free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus!


"Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought it was a done deal. Now, you are just being silly.
Since I'm not a Calvinist, you don't have to worry about me quoting R.C. Sproul or John Piper to you. So lighten up Jim...Jim...Jim... :nono: , you really missed my point there, didn't you.
Wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.

The good news, Jim, is that it is all about Jesus. He is the redemption center. When you come to Him, you receive ALL (is that pantas, or something else :D ), that God has prepared for those who love Him. God demands that we deny ourselves (turn in the old keys) obey Christ (get the new keys), and that salvation (the car) is found in no other.

natewood3
October 24th, 2004, 11:18 PM
Sozo,

Can I jump in and ask a simple question?

Is unbelief a sin? If so, was it not paid for on the cross?

Sozo
October 24th, 2004, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Sozo,

Can I jump in and ask a simple question?

Is unbelief a sin? If so, was it not paid for on the cross? Sin is lawlessness, and requires the shedding of blood for forgiveness. Unbelief requires repentance.

God_Is_Truth
October 24th, 2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Sozo,

Can I jump in and ask a simple question?

Is unbelief a sin? If so, was it not paid for on the cross?

should i start calling you piper now? :D

logos_x
October 25th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

The literal payment/commercial transaction theory of the atonement is one of five major theories. It logically leads to universalism. It is problematic as Jim is intuitively pointing out. We all agree universalism is false teaching.

Unless you understand what universalism really says, then it makes perfect sense of Hell in light of Christ's victory.
Universalism simply stands on the fact that God never expresses any of His attributes at the expense of another...that even His wrath and punishment for sin are intended to be correctional, leading to repentance and cleansing and rebirth. It doesn't negate the threat of Hell...only it's purpose is re-examined and it's duration dependent on how much Hell is deserved and how long it takes to complete it's work of reforming the soul that goes there.
It is a logical conclusion for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which, it acknowledges Christ's universal victory at the cross and His resurection, and removes many of the limits we place on God's ability to save to the uttermost.

godrulz
October 25th, 2004, 12:08 AM
This is another loop hole that attempts to show that Christ fully succeeded in saving everyone He died for. Calvinism suggests it is because he only died for the elect, so saves all those whom He died for (limited atonement). You seem to suggest that the atonement is unlimited, the debt is paid, so all will ultimately be saved (universalism). It also sounds like you have a twist of Catholic purgatory or Eastern reincarnation mixed in.

The biblical teaching is that our destinies are fixed at death either in heaven (presence of the Lord) or hell...>lake of fire= separation from God. There are no second chances/probation or purging in light of the finished work of Christ.

I still think the provision is fully efficacious and intended for all without discrimination or favoritism/arbitrariness. The reason it does not save all is not related to a deficiency in the sacrifice or a unilateral decision based on God's sovereign will. It is based on the rejection or lack of appropriation of the effective provision (Jn. 3= belief vs unbelief). We either respond to the truth of the Gospel (person/work of Christ) by receiving Him or continuing in our rebellion and rejection of His free gift of eternal life.

Hilston
October 25th, 2004, 12:19 AM
Hilston asked: So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?


Originally posted by Sozo
No, I am claiming that all sin has been paid for through His blood, but some men want to pay their own way, ...But you said, "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So are you saying Christ died for the forgiveness of all sins, but nonetheless, there are sins unforgiven? Please explain.


Originally posted by Sozo
... and so thay do not accept God's provision, even though it has clearly been made.But if the provision has been made, there is no guilt for sin. The price has been paid, regardless of whether or not they want to "pay their own way." If Jesus went ahead and paid their way in advance, there is no "paying their own way." Their payment would be refused. And if they have to accept the payment to make it count, then there really was never a true provision, only a potential provision, which is no provision at all.


Originally posted by Sozo
These men are still dead, and they need life.This is puzzling. You describe guiltless, sinless men (i.e. Jesus died for their sins) who are still dead and going to hell if they don't turn in their old car keys?


Originally posted by Sozo
... Death is separation from God.Right. So, those in hell are there for not making the trade, not because of any sins they committed, since Christ's death paid for all their sins, right?


Originally posted by Sozo
Hell is eternal separation from God (where you aware of that? :chuckle: ) Forgiveness of sin is in Him. It's IN HIM, Jim. ALL that God has prepared, is IN HIM ("HIM" being Jesus, of course).Maybe someone likes having their sin forgiven, but would still rather keep their own life. What have they done to deserve eternal separation from God and torment in hell? Especially considering that all their sins are paid for.


Originally posted by Sozo
Are you saying that God was NOT satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, and that it was not finished, and that the debt for all sin was not paid?I'm just asking questions to better understand your view of the atonement. On my view, there are zero losses. God saves each and every one He chose to love and sent His Son to die for. There will be no one in hell for whom Jesus died, and they go to hell for their sins, and are punished eternally for their sins.

Hilston asked: What are we saved from?


Originally posted by Sozo
Wrath, Sin, Law, & Death (Romans 5, 6, 7, & 8)But I thought you said "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So Christ's payment for our sin doesn't save us, yet, here you say we are saved from sin. That suggests there are a bunch of people in hell whose sins are forgiven, but still they will be tormented and punished for eternity -- for what, exactly?


Originally posted by Sozo
No, men receive life, by the grace of God, through faith. Salvation is a free gift. Are you any relation to a guy named Jay Bartlett? What sends people to hell is their unbelief in Jesus.Isn't unbelief a sin? Sin is disobedience to God's commands. Jesus commanded the people to belief in Him. He even called that doing the work of God. So not believing would be a sin. Why didn't Jesus die for that sin, too?


Originally posted by Sozo
John 16: 8-9
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in MeThat doesn't seem to make sense, if the Holy Spirit comes after the sacrifice of Christ, which means that all sins are forgiven. Why would the Holy Spirit convict the world concerning sin after Jesus' death paid for all sin?


Originally posted by Sozo
Their sin is what brought death.That shouldn't be true anymore, since Christ's death paid for all sins. Now, by your statements, death comes from not trading in the old car keys. Sin has nothing to do with it, right?


Originally posted by Sozo
The wages of sin is death...That can't be right. You said death, "separation" from God, is the result of not trading our life for His. It has nothing to do with sin, especially given the fact that all sin has been already paid for. Should I may scratch that verse out of my Bible, because you said all sins have already been paid for and "having sins paid for does not save you."


Originally posted by Sozo
But, there is good news (gospel), Jim!!!

The free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus!

The good news, Jim, is that it is all about Jesus. He is the redemption center. When you come to Him, you receive ALL (is that pantas, or something else :D ), that God has prepared for those who love Him. God demands that we deny ourselves (turn in the old keys) obey Christ (get the new keys), and that salvation (the car) is found in no other. Seems to me, by what you're saying, that salvation is not really in Christ, but in ourselves, our own decision to turn in the old keys. In other words, Christ's work is impotent until we agree to the terms, which means everything He did is insufficient. It hasn't really accomplished anything. We must first add our own works to the equation in order to catalyze the potentiality of salvation. Without the catalyst, Christ's work is just an impotent, insufficient token that doesn't really accomplish anything.

In your "new car" analogy, I pointed out that you had asked the wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.

Isn't it true then, on your view, since all sin has been paid for and "having your sins forgiven is not what saves you", that we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell?


Originally posted by Sozo
Those who have not come to Christ to receive His life are still dead. Forgiveness of sin is found "in Him". Did you say "Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought all sin was paid for already. How can "forgiveness of sin be found."

godrulz
October 25th, 2004, 12:35 AM
Jim, I think you are misunderstanding sozo's view (not that I can fully understand it either).


Two problems among many that create confusion:

i) The 'atonement' is not a literal payment/commercial transaction. Seeing it as such leads to some of the things you see as problematic. Sin is not a physical thing, but a wrong moral choice. Forgiveness is not a physical thing like a gift box with a bow. It is a relaxation of the claims of justice in favor of mercy due to a substituted penalty.

ii) Future sins are not literally forgiven centuries before they come to pass. You cannot forgive something that is not even there. Christ's death was a substitute for the penalty of sin (death) that hangs over the individual. If one comes in repentant faith (God's conditions), they will appropriate the efficacious provision. If they persist in unbelief (cuts them off from the life line of salvation), they will not experience the benefits of salvation (doing it their way vs God's way/terms).

Unbelief is a unique sin. There is not blanket forgiveness without moving from unbelief to faith. It is possible to be a believer and lust. It is not possible to be a believer while in a persistent state of unrepentant rejection and unbelief.

The TULIP solution of limited atonement does not solve the issue. It is academic to say God succeeded because He saved all the elect He wanted to. The reality is that countless millions still fall short of the glory of God and perish. In either view, this seems to be an abject failure of God's true intentions for His beloved race that He created to know and love Him.

God is grieved and heart-broken at those who perish (they, not God are culpable for being lost...in your view, God could have saved them, but chose not to...this is contrary to His love and impartiality/justice). He did everything possible (satisfied love and wrath) to ensure that all would be saved. All are not saved (both views) because some refuse the gift (your view, because God withheld grace/faith).

A doctor with the cure for cancer can freely offer it to all those with the death sentence of cancer. If some refuse to come to the loving, perfect doctor for the effective cure, it is not the doctor's fault nor is it a failure of the cure. It is the patient's fault alone. If they would have appropriated the provision, they would have been cured.

God is not the reason why multitudes perish. Man alone is responsible for his demise due to his unintelligent rebellion (Jn. 3).

Sozo
October 25th, 2004, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

A doctor with the cure for cancer can freely offer it to all those with the death sentence of cancer. If some refuse to come to the loving, perfect doctor for the effective cure, it is not the doctor's fault nor is it a failure of the cure. It is the patient's fault alone. If they would have appropriated the provision, they would have been cured.
:thumb:

logos_x
October 25th, 2004, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by godrulz


The biblical teaching is that our destinies are fixed at death either in heaven (presence of the Lord) or hell...>lake of fire= separation from God. There are no second chances/probation or purging in light of the finished work of Christ.

Is it really the biblical teaching? Tradition has been based on "biblical teaching" and has been wrong.
No...it is what you have been taught the bible teaches, not necessarily what the bible teaches. You have even been taught that universalism is false doctrine and deception to keep you from questioning what you have been taught the bible teaches.

1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

How does this fit in if our destinies are fixed at physical death?



I still think the provision is fully efficacious and intended for all without discrimination or favoritism/arbitrariness. The reason it does not save all is not related to a deficiency in the sacrifice or a unilateral decision based on God's sovereign will. It is based on the rejection or lack of appropriation of the effective provision (Jn. 3= belief vs unbelief). We either respond to the truth of the Gospel (person/work of Christ) by receiving Him or continuing in our rebellion and rejection of His free gift of eternal life.

In this view..Hell has no purpose. It only torments without end, and will never lead to anything good. Evil continues, no possibilty of redemption...even if they repent.
Amazing thing that God could be so unsuccessful just because people didn't understand or hear the gospel before they died.
Millions , pehaps billions, burn for all eternity because of stupidity...whether man's stupidity, or if the tradition is actually true...God's.
No...God is not so inept, and his ability to save to the uttermost is sure, in spite of the traditions of men.
And...the salvation of all is not a loophole...it is God doing the impossible.

Hilston
October 25th, 2004, 07:58 AM
Sozo,

Since you so enthusiastically agree with godrulz cancer-cure analogy, I have some questions.


Originally posted by godrulz and agreed by Sozo
A doctor with the cure for cancer can freely offer it to all those with the death sentence of cancer.Yes, but the cure actually can do nothing if the cancer patient has no means of acquiring it. It is an impotent, insufficient potential salvation, i.e. no salvation at all.


Originally posted by godrulz and agreed by Sozo
If some refuse to come to the loving, perfect doctor for the effective cure, it is not the doctor's fault nor is it a failure of the cure.First of all, to what does the "cancer" allude? It can't be sin, since all sin has been paid. So what exactly gets cured by the doctor?

Second, this analogy shifts the means of salvation from the actual "cure" to the hapless cancer patient, who is too sick and weak to have the wherewithal to acquire the cure from the doctor. The analogy belies the claim that the "cure" is sufficient to save. It's not. Men become their own savior's by relying on that which scripture denounces as a means of salvation: Work and effort. That leaves us with a cure that is no cure at all, that is, until the afflicted somehow takes up his own bed and goes to get the cure. Of course, this all contradicts the claim that there is no "cancer" anymore anyway, since Jesus died for all men's sins and there is no more any guilt.


Originally posted by godrulz and agreed by Sozo
It is the patient's fault alone."Fault" implies sinful culpability, and I thoght you said all men's sins had been redeemed by Christ's blood.


Originally posted by godrulz and agreed by Sozo
If they would have appropriated the provision, they would have been cured.The "if" contingency renders the "cure" insufficient to accomplish that for which it was intended. If the doctor makes enough "cure" to save the entire world's cancer, but the entire world has no means of acquiring it, the cure will not save a single life. It is intrinsically insufficient.

Earlier, Hilston asked: So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?


Originally posted by Sozo
No, I am claiming that all sin has been paid for through His blood, but some men want to pay their own way, ...But you said, "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So are you saying Christ died for the forgiveness of all sins, but nonetheless, there are sins unforgiven? Please explain.


Originally posted by Sozo
... and so thay do not accept God's provision, even though it has clearly been made.But if the provision has been made, there is no guilt for sin. The price has been paid, regardless of whether or not they want to "pay their own way." If Jesus went ahead and paid their way in advance, there is no "paying their own way." Their payment would be refused. And if they have to accept the payment to make it count, then there really was never a true provision, only a potential provision, which is no provision at all.


Originally posted by Sozo
These men are still dead, and they need life.This is puzzling. You describe guiltless, sinless men (i.e. Jesus died for their sins) who are still dead and going to hell if they don't turn in their old car keys?


Originally posted by Sozo
... Death is separation from God.Right. So, those in hell are there for not making the trade, not because of any sins they committed, since Christ's death paid for all their sins, right?


Originally posted by Sozo
Hell is eternal separation from God (where you aware of that? :chuckle: ) Forgiveness of sin is in Him. It's IN HIM, Jim. ALL that God has prepared, is IN HIM ("HIM" being Jesus, of course).Maybe someone likes having their sin forgiven, but would still rather keep their own life. What have they done to deserve eternal separation from God and torment in hell? Especially considering that all their sins are paid for.


Originally posted by Sozo
Are you saying that God was NOT satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, and that it was not finished, and that the debt for all sin was not paid?I'm just asking questions to better understand your view of the atonement. On my view, there are zero losses. God saves each and every one He chose to love and sent His Son to die for. There will be no one in hell for whom Jesus died, and they go to hell for their sins, and are punished eternally for their sins.

Hilston asked: What are we saved from?


Originally posted by Sozo
Wrath, Sin, Law, & Death (Romans 5, 6, 7, & 8)But I thought you said "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So Christ's payment for our sin doesn't save us, yet, here you say we are saved from sin. That suggests there are a bunch of people in hell whose sins are forgiven, but still they will be tormented and punished for eternity -- for what, exactly?


Originally posted by Sozo
No, men receive life, by the grace of God, through faith. Salvation is a free gift. Are you any relation to a guy named Jay Bartlett? What sends people to hell is their unbelief in Jesus.If sin is disobedience to God's commands and if Jesus commanded the people to believe in Him (He even called that doing the work of God), then not believing would be a sin, right? Why didn't Jesus die for that sin, too? Godrulz says it's a different kind of sin. But isn't that then an admission that Jesus' death is insufficient to redeem men from all their sins?


Originally posted by Sozo
John 16: 8-9
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in MeThat doesn't seem to make sense, if the Holy Spirit comes after the sacrifice of Christ, which means that all sins are forgiven. Why would the Holy Spirit convict the world concerning sin after Jesus' death paid for all sin?


Originally posted by Sozo
Their sin is what brought death.That shouldn't be true anymore, since Christ's death paid for all sins. Now, by your statements, death comes from not trading in the old car keys. Sin has nothing to do with it, right?


Originally posted by Sozo
The wages of sin is death...That can't be right. You said death, "separation" from God, is the result of not trading our life for His. It has nothing to do with sin, especially given the fact that all sin has been already paid for. Should I may scratch that verse out of my Bible, because you said all sins have already been paid for and "having sins paid for does not save you."


Originally posted by Sozo
But, there is good news (gospel), Jim!!!

The free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus!

The good news, Jim, is that it is all about Jesus. He is the redemption center. When you come to Him, you receive ALL (is that pantas, or something else :D ), that God has prepared for those who love Him. God demands that we deny ourselves (turn in the old keys) obey Christ (get the new keys), and that salvation (the car) is found in no other. Seems to me, by what you're saying, that salvation is not really in Christ, but in ourselves, our own decision to turn in the old keys. In other words, Christ's work is impotent until we agree to the terms, which means everything He did is insufficient. It hasn't really accomplished anything. We must first add our own works to the equation in order to catalyze the potentiality of salvation. Without the catalyst, Christ's work is just an impotent, insufficient token that doesn't really accomplish anything.

In your "new car" analogy, I pointed out that you had asked the wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.

Isn't it true then, on your view, since all sin has been paid for and "having your sins forgiven is not what saves you", that we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell?


Originally posted by Sozo
Those who have not come to Christ to receive His life are still dead. Forgiveness of sin is found "in Him". Did you say "Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought all sin was paid for already. How can "forgiveness of sin be found"?

Please help me understand your view of these things.

elected4ever
October 25th, 2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

The Greek word for "all" is either "pantas" (accusative, plural, masculine) or "panta" (accusative, plural, neuter). The Greek word for judgment is singular and feminine. Neither "pantas" nor "panta" fits with "judgment" based on basic rules of grammar.

The problem, e4e, is that "all" is not singular! None of the manuscripts support any singular rendering of "pas."

So you've asked and answered the wrong question to make a specious case for an untenable interpretation. The right question would be, "Is there a nominative plural noun in Jesus' statement that agrees with the plural adjective without adding the word 'men' or 'things'?"

The answer is "no".

In Jn 5:22, "all" and "judgment" are in agreement (gender, number). In Jn 12:32 they are not.


I must admit to an error. All in JOHN 12: 32 IS A PLURAL NOUN not an adjective in its usage as the direct object in the sentence. The normal feminine requirement of the spelling when used as an adjective is not required. It simply means all will be drawn without respect to a specific. When men was added to the text by the translator one automatically thought in terms of an adjective. I think we all failed to make this adjustment in our thinking. I apologize for my error.:o

Sozo
October 25th, 2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston asked: So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?

But you said, "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So are you saying Christ died for the forgiveness of all sins, but nonetheless, there are sins unforgiven? Please explain.

Jim... If you are in prison, and the warden gives an unconditional release to all prisoners, are all prisoners released?

If you choose to stay in your cell, where will you die?

Yes Jim, God does solicit a response from you.

As Paul stated: "...we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

Why would someone "beg" the elected?

Paul makes a distinction between Jesus reconcilling us to God, and our decision to be reconciled.


But if the provision has been made, there is no guilt for sin. There is if you do not believe it.
The price has been paid, regardless of whether or not they want to "pay their own way." If Jesus went ahead and paid their way in advance, there is no "paying their own way." Their payment would be refused. Yes, it would be refused, but some people are stubborn, and will not be reconciled without attempting to make their own provision, and they therefore refuse God's. God will not force people to receive His life.
And if they have to accept the payment to make it count, then there really was never a true provision, only a potential provision, which is no provision at all. That's silly, Jim. Are you telling me that you always eat everything on your plate?
This is puzzling. You describe guiltless, sinless men (i.e. Jesus died for their sins) who are still dead and going to hell if they don't turn in their old car keys? Yes, Jim, men are dead (separated from God), and in need of Life. Sin brought death to all men (I believe that the bible teaches that all men are born into this world dead, because of the sin of Adam, and we are all born in his likeness).

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

Although the sin issue was settled, men are still dead from the effect of that sin. Remember... the wages of sin is death, but the free gift is life?

"But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."

It's the same all, Jim!

(Why do I have the feeling that another Greek lesson is on the way) :noid:


So, those in hell are there for not making the trade, not because of any sins they committed, since Christ's death paid for all their sins, right? Jesus died for all sins. But, man has a condition that must be exchanged through faith in Christ. People go to hell, because of their condition (dead), which resulted from the sin of one man (Adam).

" For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."


Maybe someone likes having their sin forgiven, but would still rather keep their own life. What have they done to deserve eternal separation from God and torment in hell? Especially considering that all their sins are paid for. I think you just answered your own question. There is no life, apart from God.

"All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him."


So Christ's payment for our sin doesn't save us, yet, here you say we are saved from sin. Yes, those who are in Christ (have the life of God), are free from sin. The forgiveness is in Christ. Jesus is the provision. If you are hungry, and someone gives you an apple (let's say from the tree of life, for example), it's not in you until you eat it!


That suggests there are a bunch of people in hell whose sins are forgiven, but still they will be tormented and punished for eternity -- for what, exactly? For being dead, because they would not accept the forgiveness that is in Him.

Jim... The forgiveness has been provided for all men, but it is in Him. Again, look at the apple. If I offer eternal life, and place it in the apple, it is not in you until you accept and partake.

I'll try and get to your other questions soon, but it appears that we are both repeating ourselves.

Knight
October 25th, 2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

I didn't say I wasn't a pastor. I just don't refer to myself as one. I'm also a Girard High School graduate. I don't refer to myself as that either. I'm only a pastor to my church; no one else. It isn't a title. It is a description of role I share with four other men as an occupation and a responsibility. When I said....

"It's kind of sad really and it does little for your case. It blows my mind that you actually refer to yourself as a pastor."

You responded with....
I don't. That's your first false assumption.Yet you really DO refer to yourself as a Pastor, right here in your own profile!

Tell me again who is obfuscating?????? :kookoo:

godrulz
October 25th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Sozo

:thumb:

Thx for the thumb. I will try to not let it go to my head. It is a pleasure when we agree on things. We should always strive to take sides with 'truth' regardless of the person who holds it.

godrulz
October 25th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by logos_x


1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

How does this fit in if our destinies are fixed at physical death?



Faith or unbelief determines our destinies (heaven/hell).

Works determine our degree of rewards/responsibilities. (severity of sin determines degree of punishment)

I Cor. 3 is not a context about destinies (John 3 deals with this). It is in a context of divisions in the church. It is addressed to believers who were being immature. It is not about unbelievers who perish.
v.13 work
v. 14 reward

Your arguments against hell are sentimental. They minimize God's holiness and justice, and maximize man's goodness. Hell is a place of separation from God where God-haters live out their selfish lives. They do not want God in this life and lose Him in the next. It is not a medieval torture chamber. It was prepared for the devil and demons and never intended for man. If a man rejects the cure to death (cross/Christ), they will experience the wages of sin: physical, spiritual, eternal death/separation.

godrulz
October 25th, 2004, 12:06 PM
Hilston:

Parables have one central truth. The details are not meant to form doctrine on each point.

Our analogies are imperfect and limited and meant to illustrate the plausibility of a principle. They are not meant to be hyper-analyzed looking for every non-parallel idea or to convey deep spiritual/didactic truth.

It seems to me there are misunderstandings and logical fallacies floating around in our discussions. Some comments seem to reflect a lack of understanding of each other's views or jumping to conclusions with indefensible counter-responses.

Statements are made accusing other's of views that do not necessarily follow from their arguments. Wrong assumptions like taking the first century metaphor of a payment and reading our 20th century concepts back into it (vs redeemed/slavery contexts, etc.) leads to wrong conclusions and confusion. Do not press the payment analogy too far or you will have trouble not becoming a universalist (everyone saved) or a Calvinist (only the elect can be saved). There is an alternate, mediate view that is more cogent.

logos_x
October 25th, 2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by godrulz


Your arguments against hell are sentimental.

I haven't argued against Hell. I have argued against eternal conscious torment.
Sentemental? Okay...that's acceptable. Eternal conscious torment is monsterous cruelty masquerading as God's justice.



They minimize God's holiness and justice, and maximize man's goodness.

Where is God's justice in eternal conscious torment?
There is no justice, even by using an old testament standard of justice (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth).

Your saying that maximizing God's "justice" and minimizing man's goodness is the way to go?
Judging by history...that approch hasn't worked out to well.

Eternal conscious torment represents God acting immoraly and vindictively with cruelty and hatred. It negates God's love and mercy for millions.
And the message is corrupted with all this eternal conscious torment baggage we are expected to carry around.


Hell is a place of separation from God where God-haters live out their selfish lives.

Thought it was a place of death and destruction.
If they are separated from God...how are they alive under conditions of burning and torture?
Or...are you saying the flames are a metaphor for "other people"?


They do not want God in this life and lose Him in the next.

They don't? Do they even know what they want?
And they won't lose Him in the next if God has anything to say about it.
(oh, wait...He has!)


It is not a medieval torture chamber.

Whew! that's a relief!


It was prepared for the devil and demons and never intended for man.

Yeah...never intended for man.
Funny how God's intentions seem to get lost in the shuffle.


If a man rejects the cure to death (cross/Christ), they will experience the wages of sin: physical, spiritual, eternal death/separation.

This is true. Eternal life is in Christ only.
But, you are included before you can be excluded.
The key word is REJECTION.
Most people that die aren't rejecting God or Jesus. They are rejecting the picture we paint of God. Most people can't accept the traditional concept of Hell, and reject us and our message because of it...not because they reject Him.
People have no trouble with God's goodness and how He wants them to behave. Its the bad that's attributed to God in the tradition and it's contradiction with a loving and merciful God that doesn't add up.
There's no question..the traditional view of Hell as eternal conscious torment is a very big stick....biggest anyone can find. And its being used in a fashion of incredible arrogance and manipulation. Follow me...do as I say...or you will burn forever.
That is what is being rejected! And rightly so!

Poly
October 25th, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by natewood3

Poly,
Just because it is a sore spot does not mean that you should criticize in the way you did.

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


Originally posted by natewood3
However, I did not find anything I said "double talk" and I did not see where you proceeded to show me why it was double talk. I also did not see where you showed me why my "style" was childish. You came across arrogant, acting as if I was a dumb child with whom you had absolutely no time to discuss anything. THAT is what got to me, not necessarily the words...
It's simple, Natewood, no matter how much you try to complicate it, the plain and simple truth is that you as well as countless others believing in predestination, talk out of both sides of your mouth. Every time you say that God is not the author of sin, yet ordains each and everything to occur you contradict yourself. You say that man takes the full responsibility of his sin yet God predestined that sin to occur. You say that man is wrong for not choosing God yet God chose to 'reveal' His son to a certain few. Try as you may to get around it but a 1st grader could see that this is nothing more than double talk.


Originally posted by natewood3
You say I misrepresent the OV; PLEASE correct me when I do. I am here to learn and discuss. So, if I misrepresent, then correct me so I will know.
This is another thing that I get really sick of. You keep saying you are here to learn as if you're open to any reasoning that anybody would have to show you. Balony! At least be honest enough to admit why you're here. You want to state the so called case for predestination... period. So don't come across with this supposed "how can you attack me? I'm only here to learn" business. I don't buy it.

Originally posted by natewood3
BTW, HOW did I misrepresent the OV?
Why should I show you? So you can come back and say that you weren't misrepresenting it? Though I'm wasting my time, I'll post some anyway lest you come back and try to say that I was trying to avoid showing how you have done this.

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

Originally posted by natewood3
GIT, I thought you were smarter than that?! You judge the Bible by your experiences?! I agree that is what OVers do, but I have never seen them say it!


Originally posted by natewood3

The OV wants to make God personal and loving and caring, but yet when they throw away the fact that God loved specific people personally, WHILE THEY WERE YET SINNERS (how can God love sinners when they are not yet sinners???), God becomes depersonalized and not the God of the Bible, Who loved His Bride and gave Himself for HER.

Originally posted by natewood3
This seems to fit what the OVers have done. I am not saying they are willingly and trying to do this, but in their attempt to keep their idea of libertarian free will, they have made themselves the reference and standard by which God is judged. They take ideas from people who were deemed heretical in church history. I have a hard time believing something that was once heretical, but now in our Western culture and time it is considered "biblical."

Originally posted by natewood3
Your view (which I agree there is corporate election) makes God ordain entire nations to Hell, because obviously Israel was the only nation who received the promises of the covenant...but Paul makes it clear it was only the elect who really obtained, not just physical Israel...

Originally posted by natewood3
Again, what you are saying is that God comes to people, TRYING to convert them, but they just won't let Him have His will. As Bruce Ware would say, "Your God is too small."


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


Originally posted by natewood3
You bolded the word "need" in "He has no need to plan to 'happen to reveal His Son..." I did not say He NEEDED to do that either, so I am confused as to why you would say that. Also, as I said to Turbo, you believe your God's "power, authority and influence is so great that He can reveal Himself to the whole world and have no doubts that there will be people who will accept Him." His power, authority, and influence is obviously very weak, it seems to me at least, because most people will reject Him.
Why must it mean that God's power and authority is weak just because most will reject Him? It's the very fact that He is not weak that makes most reject Him. It's His righteousness that causes most men to deny Him. They prefer darkness no matter how bright the light shines.

Originally posted by natewood3
In my view, which probably doesn't matter to you, I believe that when Christ reveals Himself so people see Him as He really is in all His glory in the death, burial, and resurrection, then they will respond, not because Christ forced them, but because they now are able to see Christ without the blinders and hear His words of invitation.
Where have I ever disagreed with this? But be honest here and show where we differ on this. When you say that "Christ reveals Himself so people see Him....you're only speaking of certain individuals that He chose to reveal them to. You don't think that God 'revealed' His glory to all men and then let man make up his own mind, freely whether or not they wanted to accept Him.

Originally posted by natewood3
I say it is the most loving thing He could do for any human being. Why does He not do it to all? Christ came to redeem a special people, His Bride...

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

Hilston
October 25th, 2004, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Jim... If you are in prison, and the warden gives an unconditional release to all prisoners, are all prisoners released?Wrong question. If you have been granted unconditional absolution of all crimes, can you still a prisoner of the state? The answer is no, even if you choose to stay in your cell.


Originally posted by Sozo
If you choose to stay in your cell, where will you die?Wrong question: If you choose to stay in your cell, are you guilty of any of the crimes that put you there in the first place? The answer is no.


Originally posted by Sozo
Why would someone "beg" the elected?Same reason why God gives prescriptions to the eternally secure.

Hilston wrote: But if the provision has been made, there is no guilt for sin.


Originally posted by Sozo
There is if you do not believe it.Then there is no provision. If pardon is truly and effectually provided, it doesn't matter if the person accepts it or not. He is still pardoned. He is no longer a prisoner.

Hilston wrote: quote:
The price has been paid, regardless of whether or not they want to "pay their own way." If Jesus went ahead and paid their way in advance, there is no "paying their own way." Their payment would be refused.


Originally posted by Sozo
Yes, it would be refused, but some people are stubborn, and will not be reconciled without attempting to make their own provision, and they therefore refuse God's.It's a judicial matter. Has the demands of justice been satisfied by Christ's death or not? If so, then there is no guilt, and by your logic, it guiltless people suffer in hell simply for not having life.


Originally posted by Sozo
God will not force people to receive His life. That's silly, Jim.I'm not saying He does or needs to.


Originally posted by Sozo
Although the sin issue was settled, men are still dead from the effect of that sin.And they suffer in hell for eternity for being dead. Sin has nothing to do with it. Stalin and Ghandi suffer equally in hell forever. Is that correct?


Originally posted by Sozo
Jesus died for all sins. But, man has a condition that must be exchanged through faith in Christ. People go to hell, because of their condition (dead), which resulted from the sin of one man (Adam).What is the rationale behind God sending men to hell just because they don't have life? Is He somehow offended by the lack of life?


Originally posted by Sozo
Yes, those who are in Christ (have the life of God), are free from sin. The forgiveness is in Christ. Jesus is the provision. If you are hungry, and someone gives you an apple (let's say from the tree of life, for example), it's not in you until you eat it!But the fruit is impotent and insufficient until it's eaten. By your own analogy, you relegate Christ's work to impotence and insufficiency.

Hilston asked: That suggests there are a bunch of people in hell whose sins are forgiven, but still they will be tormented and punished for eternity -- for what, exactly?


Originally posted by Sozo
For being dead, because they would not accept the forgiveness that is in Him.I see. So is everyone in hell suffering equally, since there are no degrees of deadness?


Originally posted by Sozo
Jim... The forgiveness has been provided for all men, but it is in Him. Again, look at the apple. If I offer eternal life, and place it in the apple, it is not in you until you accept and partake.Again, that means the apple is not intrinsically effective. Something has to be added, namely, man's effort.

Sozo
October 25th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Jim... I guess you were so busy with your Greek classes, that you missed every opportunity to take logic.

Hilston
October 25th, 2004, 08:53 PM
I never had a formal Greek class. But I did have several questions in my previous post. Can you help me? Why the insult? If I'm guilty of violating logic, straighten me out. Show me the illogic of my reasoning.

Sozo
October 25th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

If you have been granted unconditional absolution of all crimes, can you still (be) a prisoner of the state? The answer is no, even if you choose to stay in your cell.

Jim... I'm beginning to think, you don't.

Let's try an illustration that you might understand...

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

You don't like the fact that God requires a response to His provision. That's just too damn bad, for you! It is the gospel! Calvinism (which you teach) is another gospel.

God has sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world. (Like it or not). All men have been offered the free gift, and it is not an effort, nor a co-redemtive work to accept a gift. Your comments are equal to foolish questions like: When a light is turned on, where does the darkness go? :dunce::duh:


If you choose to stay in your cell, are you guilty of any of the crimes that put you there in the first place? The answer is no. Does not matter, you are still in prison.
If pardon is truly and effectually provided, it doesn't matter if the person accepts it or not. He is still pardoned. He is no longer a prisoner. No, he is not a prisoner, but he is still in prison until he leaves.
Has the demands of justice been satisfied by Christ's death or not? If so, then there is no guilt, and by your logic, it guiltless people suffer in hell simply for not having life. Are you now rejecting the propitiation? Being free from guilt, forgiveness of sins, freedom from wrath, sin, law, and death are IN HIM.

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

Salvation is IN HIM. YOU must be IN HIM to receive all that God has done. You must come out of the cell. You must eat your meal. You must deny yourself. You must repent of unbelief. You must accept the free gift of life. It is God's plan, not Jim Hilston's.


But the fruit is impotent and insufficient until it's eaten. By your own analogy, you relegate Christ's work to impotence and insufficiency. On the contrary, it is YOU who makes Christ's sacrifice of no effect, by claiming that man does not have to do anything but be a part of your secret society of lottery winners.
What is the rationale behind God sending men to hell just because they don't have life? Is He somehow offended by the lack of life? Yes, God is offended by death. Jesus came that we might have life, but you seem to think that the ministry of Jesus served no purpose at all.

Clete
October 25th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Sozo!

:first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=615515#post615515)!

Excellent! :thumb:

STONE
October 25th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Neither the open view or the closed view is completely scriptural; however the closed view is much closer to ariving at the truth.

Where the closed view weakens is when it fails to establish the importance of man's will, while retaining the importance of God's influence.

God_Is_Truth
October 25th, 2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by STONE

Neither the open view or the closed view is completely scriptural; however the closed view is much closer to ariving at the truth.

Where the closed view weakens is when it fails to establish the importance of man's will, while retaining the importance of God's influence.

are you saying there's a third option besides the open and closed views? if so, what is it?

Clete
October 25th, 2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

are you saying there's a third option besides the open and closed views? if so, what is it?

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

The future is either open or it is not.

Sozo
October 25th, 2004, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

are you saying there's a third option besides the open and closed views? if so, what is it?

It's the Ajar View, GIT!

Are you telling me you've never heard of it?

STONE
October 25th, 2004, 10:46 PM
Humorous...but not even close.

STONE
October 25th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

are you saying there's a third option besides the open and closed views? if so, what is it?
Yes.
Both, in a sense.