User Tag List

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 234567815 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 233

Thread: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

  1. #61
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    It is you who is going beyond the text because the Scriptures will be searched in vain for any evidence that Paul preached differently to the Gentiles at one place than he did at another place.
    1 Corinthians 2:1-6. Acts 17

    Also, the idea that Paul would "command" others to eternal life is ridiculous. What did Paul say when he preached that way?: "I command you to eternal life and then after you receive eternal life then you will believe"?

    Nothing could be further from the truth!
    Good question. The text doesn't tell us. However, from an exegetical standpoint, Paul's preaching is the active agent in this part of Acts 13, which, by the rules of hermeneutics, is the actor in the passive verb.

    Yes, I know you depend on this verse to hold your systematic theology together, but you cannot change what the text says.


    Perhaps you could explain to us how a being that doesn't experience before and after can create "ex nihilo." Seems to me that there needs to be a state of "nihilo" before creation can come from (ex) it.
    Last edited by themuzicman; January 11th, 2017 at 12:25 PM.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  2. #62
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    While the foregoing tells me that Boettner's concept of time and timelessness is incorrect, I'm not real confident that I have a replacement concept to offer. I mentioned the idea that time is sometimes equated to increasing entropy. In that sense, I agree that God is "timeless"--that He doesn't experience any entropy (lack of order is a reasonable definition of entropy), and definitely not increasing entropy.
    It's interesting that you should say that, especially considering what is said here:

    "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jas.1:17).

    When I was looking for an explanation of what is said in "bold" I came across this:

    "The word 'turning' is from the Greek 'trope.' When combined with the Greek for 'in' (that is, en), it becomes 'entrope,' which means in the Greek 'confusion' or 'shame.' We get our English word 'entropy' from this source, which thus literally means 'in-turning.' In science, any system which 'turns in' on itself, without drawing on external sources of energy or information (in other words, a 'closed system') will experience an increase of entropy, or disorganization. This is, so far as all evidence goes, a universal principle of science, and seems to reflect Godís primeval curse on 'the whole creation' (Romans 8:22). That is, even though all things are being conserved in quantity by God, they are deteriorating in quality, running down toward physical chaos and biological death. But God Himself, who imposed these laws on His creation, is not bound by them. There is not even a 'shadow of turning' with Him!"

    Any comments?

    Thanks!

  3. #63
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Yes, I know you depend on this verse to hold your systematic theology together, but you cannot change what the text says.
    It is you who changed the meaning of the verse when you insist that Paul could "command" men to eternal life. For now, let us look at this verse:

    "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1Pet.1:2).

    In this verse the Greek word translated "through" means "of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished...by means of, by (through)" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

    So we can see that being "elected" is through the instrumentality of the sanctification of the Spirit. One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "separation to God...1 Pet.1:2" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

    Therefore, we can understand that being chosen or elected is through the instrumentality of the Spirit when He separates a person to God. That happens when a person is baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit:

    "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit"
    (1 Cor.12:13).

    It is "indivduals" who are baptized into the Body of Christ. So these words must be in regard to the LORD foreknowing "individuals."
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 15th, 2017 at 10:24 AM.

  4. #64
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    ...
    Given that I've demonstrated your claim about Acts 13 to be wrong, is the fact that you are moving on an indicator that you are abandoning your case, there?

    As for 1 Peter 1, you don't even let Paul speak an entire sentence:

    Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

    To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 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.
    Notice that we're talking about groups and not individuals.

    The fact that we are individually baptized has nothing to do with whether we are individually elected. I can select a group by rule (everyone in room 101 at 6pm), and still give every individual there a lollipop. So your logic simply doesn't follow.

    Perhaps you could explain, now, how a being who doesn't experience before and after can create "ex nihilo" without the state of "nihilo" existing BEFORE creation.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  5. #65
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Notice that we're talking about groups and not individuals.
    That is ridiculous!

    We can understand that when Peter uses the pronouns "you" and "your" in this passage He is speaking of "individual" salvation":

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied...Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).

    Of course it is "individuals" who are saved because it is individuals who do the thing which results in salvation. Here we see Paul and those with him telling an "individual" how he can be saved:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).

    Do you want to argue that this is speaking about the salvation of a "group"?
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 12th, 2017 at 05:37 PM.

  6. #66
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 448 Times in 314 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    152828
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    It's interesting that you should say that, especially considering what is said here:

    "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (Jas.1:17).

    When I was looking for an explanation of what is said in "bold" I came across this:

    "The word 'turning' is from the Greek 'trope.' When combined with the Greek for 'in' (that is, en), it becomes 'entrope,' which means in the Greek 'confusion' or 'shame.' We get our English word 'entropy' from this source, which thus literally means 'in-turning.' In science, any system which 'turns in' on itself, without drawing on external sources of energy or information (in other words, a 'closed system') will experience an increase of entropy, or disorganization. This is, so far as all evidence goes, a universal principle of science, and seems to reflect God’s primeval curse on 'the whole creation' (Romans 8:22). That is, even though all things are being conserved in quantity by God, they are deteriorating in quality, running down toward physical chaos and biological death. But God Himself, who imposed these laws on His creation, is not bound by them. There is not even a 'shadow of turning' with Him!"

    Any comments?

    Thanks!
    That is interesting! I can see both how "confusion" would be a concept far from describing God, and how it would also be a description of entropy, or disorderliness. I'm not so sure about the "in-turning" part, but I agree that in our universe, if there's no input from outside the system, the system goes downhill.

  7. #67
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    That is interesting! I can see both how "confusion" would be a concept far from describing God, and how it would also be a description of entropy, or disorderliness. I'm not so sure about the "in-turning" part, but I agree that in our universe, if there's no input from outside the system, the system goes downhill.
    Could you please clear up what you said earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I mentioned the idea that time is sometimes equated to increasing entropy. In that sense, I agree that God is "timeless"--that He doesn't experience any entropy (lack of order is a reasonable definition of entropy), and definitely not increasing entropy.
    How could God be timeless in that sense but not be timeless in every sense?

    Thanks!

  8. #68
    Over 1000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks
    270
    Thanked 448 Times in 314 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    152828
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Could you please clear up what you said earlier:



    How could God be timeless in that sense but not be timeless in every sense?

    Thanks!
    Your version of timelessness doesn't just affect our existence/our world. It affects God and how He operates. If there is no "before" or "after" with God, then He has never done anything, nor will He ever do anything. He just "is". He can't create something like our universe, because that would suggest there was a point where the universe didn't exist, and then it did, showing progression, which we equate to "time". I think this is what @themuzicman was getting at with his "ex nihilo" comment. If there was nothing, then something, you have two states. If they exist at the same time, you have contradiction. God is not contradictory, is He? If so, then He could exist and not exist, thus proving that we indeed live in a post-modern universe, where both believers and unbelievers are correct. He could elect believers from before "time" began and also not elect those same believers before "time" began. All arguments on this forum would become completely baseless, since all positions could be true at the same time.

    It all depends on how you define "time". If "time" is required for a progression of events, then God being timeless means that He has nothing at any point that is not already decided. He can't have done anything "before" the foundation of the world that He isn't still doing and will always be doing. Jesus can't have taken on human form, because that would suggest that He didn't have human form before that point, but if all things are to Him coincident (at the same time, since there is no time) then He never was NOT in human form. The bible speaks volumes about things that are different now than they were before "the Beginning".

    So a definition of time that specifically talks about increasing disorder (entropy) allows for timelessness as well as non-coincident behavior and events.

    There may be other definitions of time that work, but I haven't heard them yet.

    Btw, this suggests, according to the laws of thermodynamics, that there really is a distinction between past and future. Future always means greater entropy (in the universe as a whole).

    I don't have much scripture to back this up, except some verses that talk about "corruption" (which is a reasonable translation of "entropy"):
    For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. [Psa 16:10 KJV]
    That he should still live for ever, [and] not see corruption. [Psa 49:9 KJV]
    Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul [delivered it] from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. [Isa 38:17 KJV]
    I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars [was] about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God. [Jon 2:6 KJV]
    He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. [Act 2:31 KJV]
    And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. [Act 13:34 KJV]
    Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. [Rom 8:21 KJV]
    So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [1Co 15:42 KJV]
    For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. [Gal 6:8 KJV]

    Corruption seems to be closely associated with death and hell. If death is the last enemy, then corruption (entropy?) is his bedfellow and will be cast into hell.

  9. #69
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Your version of timelessness doesn't just affect our existence/our world. It affects God and how He operates. If there is no "before" or "after" with God, then He has never done anything, nor will He ever do anything.
    Since we cannot even begin to understand a state that is "timeless" then when the LORD reveals things to us He must put it in terms which we can understand. That is why He speaks of things being done in sequence.

    We can only understand things by our experiences in our four dimensional environment. But it is obvious that the eternal state is something entirely different from our present existence. For instance, Paul says this about things eternal:

    "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:18).

    We also know that flesh and blood bodies cannot enter into heaven and to do that we will be given bodies which are described as being "spiritual" bodies (1 Cor.15:44). These bodies are described as being heavenly bodies.

    So we do not really know anything except that in regard to the things of the eternal state. While our existence is made up of four dimensions the eternal state may exist in thousands of different dimensions as far as we know. Therefore, it makes no sense to base our arguments on the assumption that the environment in the eternal state is the same as the one in which we exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Jesus can't have taken on human form, because that would suggest that He didn't have human form before that point, but if all things are to Him coincident (at the same time, since there is no time) then He never was NOT in human form.
    The very nature of the Lord Jesus is that of being fully God and fully Man. And since He is the same yesterday, today and forever then that means that His nature has always been that of being both God and Man.

    According to what you said about this am I to conclude that you do not think that the nature of the Lord Jesus is that of "Man"?

    Thanks for your input, Derf!
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; January 16th, 2017 at 01:02 PM.

  10. #70
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Since we cannot even begin to understand a state that is "timeless" then when the LORD reveals things to us He must put it in terms which we can understand. That is why He speaks of things being done in sequence.
    If you can't understand it, then you cannot assert that it is, in fact, the case, either.

    And given that it is a logical contradiction when we consider Scripture, it would seem you don't have a leg to stand on.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  11. #71
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    That is ridiculous!

    We can understand that when Peter uses the pronouns "you" and "your" in this passage He is speaking of "individual" salvation":

    "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied...Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet.1:1-2,9).
    The nouns in verse 9 are plural.


    Of course it is "individuals" who are saved because it is individuals who do the thing which results in salvation. Here we see Paul and those with him telling an "individual" how he can be saved:

    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31).

    Do you want to argue that this is speaking about the salvation of a "group"?
    We weren't talking about how to become saved, but rather how one is defined to be elect. The elect are not spoken of as being chosen individually.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  12. #72
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    We weren't talking about how to become saved, but rather how one is defined to be elect. The elect are not spoken of as being chosen individually.
    You miss my point. Because the word "your" in verse nine can only be in regard to "individuals" then the word "you" in verse two can only be speaking of the same thing, the election of "individuals."

    Nothing could be more confusing to anyone than the idea that Peter would use the pronoun "you" in verse two to be referring to "corporate" election and then later to use the pronoun "your" to refer to "individual" salvation.

    And of course the "you" is plural because Peter is addressing more than one person.

  13. #73
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    9,887
    Thanks
    1,087
    Thanked 7,419 Times in 4,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    If you can't understand it, then you cannot assert that it is, in fact, the case, either.

    And given that it is a logical contradiction when we consider Scripture, it would seem you don't have a leg to stand on.
    Of course we cannot understand the concept of an absence of "space." But that does not mean that "space" does not exist.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 13th, 2017)

  15. #74
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    You miss my point. Because the word "your" in verse nine can only be in regard to "individuals" then the word "you" in verse two can only be speaking of the same thing, the election of "individuals."

    Nothing could be more confusing to anyone than the idea that Peter would use the pronoun "you" in verse two to be referring to "corporate" election and then later to use the pronoun "your" to refer to "individual" salvation.

    And of course the "you" is plural because Peter is addressing more than one person.
    So, "you" can also refer to the group, and not individuals.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  16. #75
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56723
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Of course we cannot understand the concept of an absence of "space." But that does not mean that "space" does not exist.
    But we still cannot make logically contradictory statements, and then justify them by saying "we don't know"
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to themuzicman For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 13th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us