ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Funny...'us' sounds plural/corporate to me.
You just need to think about the grammar for a minute and be willing to admit that you might be wrong. Consider for an example, we have an audience of people. We could also say we have an audience of persons. In the first sentence, the words "audience" and "people" are singular collective (corporate) nouns. In the second sentence, "persons," although referring to the same singular collective audience, denotes the fact that there is a plurality of individuals in that collective.

godrulz said:
It is made up of individuals, but they become part of the elect as they believe.
But the scripture doesn't say that. It says that individuals are elected. I gave plenty of examples.

godrulz said:
... Israel and the Church, the people of God, have promises and privileges as a group.
Sure they do. They also have promises as individuals.

godrulz said:
... All those who believe become part of the group in real space-time, not from a decree trillions of years ago when the individuals only existed as a possibility vs certainty.
Your deductive theology is showing again, GR. The decrees were before or from the foundation of the world, depending on the subject. And the existence of individuals was not a mere possibility, but an inexorable certainty.

godrulz said:
We would need to do a detailed study on this topic. I am not prepared to do so.
It's not that difficult, GR. Just look at the pronouns. The KJV is useful in this regard. "Thee" and "thou" and "thy" are singular pronouns. "Ye," "you," "your," "we," "us" and "our" are plural pronouns. It's right there in black and white, GR, staring you in the face. It doesn't take much expertise or detailed study to see this.

godrulz said:
... It is a non-issue for me and self-evident.
Using terms like "non-issue" and "self-evident" don't get you off the hook, GR, especially when you yourself are so fond of lobbing the unsupported accusation that the Settled View is "deductive theology" and based on preconceived notions. What you have just done is presented to everyone a prime example of the "deductive theology" and "preconceived notions" of Open Theism in action. Put your fingers in your ears and hum, because no matter what the text says, the Open Theist is going to believe that God does not elect individuals. Why? Because it would contradict their deductive theology and preconceived notions.

Godrulz says that God's promises are corporate. If that were so, Eph 2:7-10 would say:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward it [i.e. the corporate Body of Christ] through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace is it saved through faith; and that not of itself: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest it should boast. 10 For it is his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that it should walk in them.​
But it doesn't say that. These are God's promises to individuals [note again the plural pronouns]:


Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye [plural pronoun = you-all] saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

GR, will you now admit that there is individual election taught in scripture?
 

sentientsynth

New member
Well, Open Theists, if ever you've wondered exactly how the big bad Hilston nefariously charmed Sentientsynth into the Settled View, just read the above post and the others with it.

How can you deny the logic of such things?

I read it and my mind goes, "Ding Ding Ding. That is correct." I read the Open Theist (godrulz) response and my mind goes, "DDZZZZZT. Wrongo."

I mean, how Hilston explained the singular pronoun = corporate entity, plural pronoun = individuals is what we were taught in our basic grammar classes in middle school on up, in contexts totally unrelated to theology. It's basic grammar.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Election is corporate relating to God's purposes for national Israel and the Church.

Back to Jacob/Esau: Romans 9 quotes the OT in Gen. 25:23 (TWO NATIONS are in your womb...Calvinist F.F. Bruce and I agree with the Word of God...what is your problem?) and Malachi 1:2 ff. context= Jacob/ Esau representative of nations (corporate)...also, cannot be extrapolated to mean election/non-election of all invididuals from trillions of years in advance...who is being deductive?

His election can be individual, but it is unto service (Jeremiah, Paul) during their existence (even if from the womb...God's intentions/election are resistible). It is not about elect vs non-elect (TULIP) for salvation from trillions of years ago. Faith vs unbelief (Jn. 3) are conditions of becoming part of God's people or not. This is a self-determined response to God's influence (vs causative). Context is king.

So, election can be corporate or individual, but cannot be extrapolated to prove that God predestines some individuals to heaven and some to hell from eternity past. This is contrary to more explicit revelation that God's love is not partial, the atonement is not limited, and that man vs God is culpable for rejecting His grace.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi everyone,

godrulz said:
Jacob/Esau are identified in the Bible as synonyms for nations (explicit). The same is not true about Pharaoh. Pharaoh's issues were not about his personal salvation or supposed damnation from before he was born.
But I thought this passage was about corporate election. But this is only the case when the interpretation of corporate election fits? and then why does the subject suddenly change? Paul is making one overall argument here, is he not?

So then what would that be?

I hold that Paul is saying salvation (this passage is indeed about salvation) is by God’s decision.

He rejected God and God used this circumstance to demonstrate His power for His people.
So Paul saying “I raised you up for this very purpose” is Paul misleading us here? No, he is clearly saying God has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes, and that was true of Pharaoh, Isaac, Jacob, and also Esau.

F.F. Bruce, says this: The quotation is "from Malachi 1:2 f, where again the context indicates it is the NATIONS of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view."
It can’t be both? Surely the reference to individuals points to a fulfillment in their lives, and (I agree) also God’s choice among nations.

And if this passage is about salvation, how does this fit into the Open View at all? It doesn’t, corporate election or no, here God is choosing in issues of salvation, and illustrating it with choices he made before people were born, before they were in power, and choosing now about salvation as well.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

How could God know only a remnant would be saved, according to the Open View?

Blessings,
Lee
 
Last edited:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
God sees and knows hearts. Knowing a remnant would be saved does not specify which individuals or an exact number. Even insurance companies predict probabilities and patterns based on available evidence very accurately, but not perfectly.

Each verse and context stands on its own. The overall context of Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of Israel for service. Paul is responding to the Roman Jewish Christians who wonder why the Gentiles are now being favored. Reading TULIP concepts back into the passage just because individuals are mentioned is hardly credible. The issues with Pharoah, Judas, etc. are not settled trillions of years in advance. Their choices in their life time determined how God incorporated their lives into His overall plan without dictating every mundane choice that they would make. If Pharaoh died at a young age or repented in response to God's judgments, then the historical narratives would read differently.

Scripture and reality does not depict an exhaustively settled or determined future. This is an assumption imported back into the text by a manmade theology.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Election is corporate relating to God's purposes for national Israel and the Church.
Sure it is, but election is not corporate relating to God's foreordained purposes for individuals.

godrulz said:
Back to Jacob/Esau: Romans 9 quotes the OT in Gen. 25:23 (TWO NATIONS are in your womb...Calvinist F.F. Bruce and I agree with the Word of God...what is your problem?) and Malachi 1:2 ff. context= Jacob/ Esau representative of nations (corporate)...also, cannot be extrapolated to mean election/non-election of all invididuals from trillions of years in advance...who is being deductive?
Why do you persist with the straw man, GR? Is it too difficult to engage the actual discussion that you have to contrive an imaginary one? There's no such thing as "trillions of years" except in the demitheology-addled mind of the Open Theist. I told you there is both corporate and individual election. I told you that there are non-redemptive and redemptive elections described in scripture. The choosing of Jacob is corporate and non-redemptive. The choosing of true Israel (the subset of Jews comprising elect individuals) is redemptive and individual.

godrulz said:
His election can be individual, but it is unto service (Jeremiah, Paul) during their existence (even if from the womb...God's intentions/election are resistible).
You blatantly ignore scripture. His election of individuals is redemptive, GR. Look:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us (plurality of individuals) in him before the foundation of the world, that we (plurality of individuals) should be holy and without blame before him ...​

godrulz said:
... So, election can be corporate or individual, ...
Wow. Is that a retraction? You got lots of posts to recant, GR. Here's a small sampling of your statements and links to their context:And those are just from the first page of hits. A search on the word "corporate" with your username reveals that you've used the word at least 268 times in TOL's searchable database. Note how you so dogmatically state, contrary to the context (which is "king" remember?) that Eph 1 is corporate and not individual. Having been shown your error, will you now agree with the text that says a plurality of individuals has been redemptively elected by God, or will your deductive theology and preconceived notions trump what Paul wrote?
 

lee_merrill

New member
Heave ho, me hearties! One more good push or two and I believe the good ship Open View ships water enough to clap eyes on Davy Jones and his locker.

Blessings,
Lee <- Calvinist lifeboats of course to be available...
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Ephesians 1 is about Christ's relationship to the Church. Colossians is generally about Christ's relation to individual Christians. When Paul was writting to the believers at Ephesus, they were already part of the elect through faith, not predestination. Those who were unbelievers and not in the Church would not identify with Paul's great promises to those who were identified with the Church in their present lives (not from before birth in the decrees of God). Paul addresses individuals who are elect and identifying with the Body of Christ. Reading election and non-election into the text from before their existence is indefensible.

I can identify with the verses and say I am part of the 'us' because I became a believer in response to His work in my life. If I would have persisted in unbelief or talking about my unsaved family and friends, they cannot identify with the 'us' and all the promises and privileges of being part of His church. God predestined that all those who believe would become part of the Church and would be conformed to the image of Christ and one day glorified with Him face to face. This does not necessitate that He chose some, but not others, before any of us existed to make the genuine choice to receive or reject Christ.

Would someone smarter than me get this through these guy's thick heads? :hammer:
 

swanca99

New member
godrulz said:
Re: Romans and Jacob/Esau:

The great Calvinist, F.F. Bruce, says this: The quotation is "from Malachi 1:2 f, where again the context indicates it is the NATIONS of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view." The Lord has loved the nation of Israel but hated the nation of Edom. Extrapolating this to mean the election and non-election of individuals for salvation is going to 'amazing' lengths to twist Scripture to support a specious, deductive, preconceived, deterministic theology (so-called).

No extrapolation is necessary or justified at this point in Paul's argument. He is not yet talking about the election of individuals. He is still drilling down from "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." He has yet to finish supporting his assertion that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Ephesians 1 is about Christ's relationship to the Church. Colossians is generally about Christ's relation to individual Christians.
Obfuscation. You can't rationally deny that Paul unambiguously states that individuals are predestinated and elected to redemption in Christ. So instead, you dodge by trying to deflect the discussion.

godrulz said:
... When Paul was writting to the believers at Ephesus, they were already part of the elect through faith, not predestination.
That's not what Paul says.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​
Do I need to point out the plural (non-corporate) pronouns?

Will you now agree with Paul that God predestinated individuals to redemption in Christ?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
sentientsynth said:


TULIP is deductive, not inductive from the text. It is a preconceived theology that does not stand up to contextual scrutiny. The weight of Scripture is that God loves and died for all men. The reason that all are not saved is that they love darkness more than light (Jn.), they suppress the truth by their wickedness (Rom.), they reject truth in favor of the lie, etc. We see God not desiring any to perish. His impartial love seeks to convince and convict and draw all men. The reason that all are not saved lies in the heart of man, not the mysterious will of God. The gospel is preached with persuasion and power to all men. In Acts, some believed, some sneered, while others procrastinated. These all involve the heart, mind, and will of men. The deficiency is not in God's desire or power, but in the nature of man's heart and the parameters for a reciprocal love relationship (that cannot be coerced, caused, nor unilateral). We could go on and on dissecting each aspect of TULIP.

The bottom line for me is that sound exegesis (grammatical, contextual, historical, theological, literal, etc.) does not lend itself to a elect vs non-elect concept in light of explicit revelation of God and His ways. A few proof texts out of context are not persuasive to me. There are alternate understandings of the pet texts that Calvinists use. The theology is problematic in light of Scripture and God's self-revelation.

John 3:16, 36 alone is sufficient proof against TULIP.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Hilston said:
Obfuscation. You can't rationally deny that Paul unambiguously states that individuals are predestinated and elected to redemption in Christ. So instead, you dodge by trying to deflect the discussion.

That's not what Paul says.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:​
Do I need to point out the plural (non-corporate) pronouns?

Will you now agree with Paul that God predestinated individuals to redemption in Christ?


God did predestine individuals to salvation (as opposed to objects, frogs, dogs, etc.). He predestined that all who believe and respond to His drawing will become part of the people of God. Yes, individuals make up the group. The question is when this is settled? Is it in eternity in the mind of God before creation or is it as each person choses today whom they will serve? God's generic plan for the church and all individuals who will eventually become part of His people was settled in advance. Whether Tom, Dick, Harry, Mary, Sue, Betty believes or persists in unbelief is settled in real space time after they are born, not in the decrees before creation.

This view is consistent with God's great love and justice. His plan of redemption is potentially efficacious for all men, but is only appropriated by some men. It was intended for all, but not all receive Him. Your view makes God's love arbitrary and His redemption limited in scope (for the so-called frozen chosen elect in eternity). He saves some, but damns others that He could save if He only wanted to. It takes responsibility off of evil men and puts it in God's will. It overstates God's will and negates the fact that God created significant others with a will (God is not the only being/factor in the universe...by His sovereign choice and decree, of course).

Relational theism trumps determinism/omnicasuality. Your view finds resonance with fatalistic Islam. My view resonates with the general tenure of all of Scripture.

Of course we agree to disagree.
 

sentientsynth

New member
Well, godrulz, you didn't answer my question. I'm asking why "reading election and non-election into the text from before their existence is indefensible."

Why is that indefensible? Please unpack the logic for me.

godrulz said:
John 3:16, 36 alone is sufficient proof against TULIP.
Yeah. That God so loved the kosmos that He sent his one of a kind Son to die for it ... that completely blows away TULIP.

Here's some more of what John says re Christ's propitious death, defining for all who read just who the kosmos for whom Christ died is.

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

1 Jo 3:16 Hereby we have known love, because *he* has laid down his life for us; and *we* ought for the brethren to lay down our lives.

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


Furthermore it's hilarious to read you harping on and on about the proof-texting that the myopic Calvinists perform and then turn around to read something like "John 3:16, 36 alone is sufficient proof against TULIP." You're a walking contradiction, godrulz.

Proof-texting is just fine for you, but if the big bad wolf-in-sheeps-clothing Calvinist comes at you with handfuls of verses, such as Hilston has done, you accuse him of of twisting the scriptures. Very shameful of you, this is.

Besides, you're supposed to be exposing us "Calvinists" as the scripture-twisters. You doing the same stuff you accuse us of doing is simply digging your own hole.
 

God_Is_Truth

New member
lee_merrill said:
Heave ho, me hearties! One more good push or two and I believe the good ship Open View ships water enough to clap eyes on Davy Jones and his locker.

Blessings,
Lee <- Calvinist lifeboats of course to be available...

:rotfl:

Thanks for the laugh Lee! Open Theism has so much more ground to stand on than Calvinism that, by your analogy, Calvinism is taking root at the bottom of the ocean. :ha:

Calvinism is not of the bible.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Hi everyone,

I had some questions, Sir Godrulz…

Paul is making one overall argument here, is he not? So then what would that be?

I hold that Paul is saying salvation (this passage is indeed about salvation) is by God’s decision.

Paul saying “I raised you up for this very purpose” is Paul misleading us here? No, he is clearly saying God has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes.

Here God is choosing in issues of salvation, and illustrating it with choices he made before people were born, before they were in power, and choosing now about salvation as well.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

How could God know only a remnant would be saved, according to the Open View? And then later, "All Israel will be saved"?

Blessings,
Lee
 

God_Is_Truth

New member
lee_merrill said:
Hi everyone,

I had some questions, Sir Godrulz…

Paul is making one overall argument here, is he not? So then what would that be?

I hold that Paul is saying salvation (this passage is indeed about salvation) is by God’s decision.

It can be by God's decision and yet not only by God's decision. God decides what the condition is by which someone is saved. Therefore, salvation is his decision. But, who meets that condition is up to the individuals, and so salvation is also their decision. Thus, it is both God's decision and man's decision.

Romans 10
But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;​

Paul saying “I raised you up for this very purpose” is Paul misleading us here? No, he is clearly saying God has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes.

Absolutely true. But what you have overlooked is that this can be general, rather than specific. God can decide to have mercy on all those who choose Him and harden all those who do not. He could have chosen to not give salvation to anybody, for that is in his power. God is indeed sovereign over salvation. But Paul is not making the point that God in fact specifically chooses one individual for eternal life and chooses another for damnation.

1 Timothy 2
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.​

Here God is choosing in issues of salvation, and illustrating it with choices he made before people were born, before they were in power, and choosing now about salvation as well.

Paul doesn't write that Pharoah was destined to take that path from before birth. It says he was raised up suggesting that at one point he was not in such a position. At the least, he became destined for it during his life, rather than being predestined before he was born.

Further, Paul's own conclusion (v.30-31) show he is speaking of the previous division that existed concerning Jews and Gentiles and not specific individuals irrespective of groups.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

How could God know only a remnant would be saved, according to the Open View?

Isaiah may well be speaking about the present state of godlessness in his time.Though there were many people who were physically Israel, only a few (remnant) were following God. Thus, under that covenant only the few would be saved.

And then later, "All Israel will be saved"?

Why would this be an issue specifically for open theism and not any other?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
lee_merrill said:
Hi everyone,

I had some questions, Sir Godrulz…

Paul is making one overall argument here, is he not? So then what would that be?

I hold that Paul is saying salvation (this passage is indeed about salvation) is by God’s decision.

Paul saying “I raised you up for this very purpose” is Paul misleading us here? No, he is clearly saying God has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes.

Here God is choosing in issues of salvation, and illustrating it with choices he made before people were born, before they were in power, and choosing now about salvation as well.

Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

How could God know only a remnant would be saved, according to the Open View? And then later, "All Israel will be saved"?

Blessings,
Lee


Romans 9-11 is about the election of national Israel for service and bringing forth the Messiah. Israel was to bless the nations of the world. They dropped the ball, so God raised up the Gentiles for a time. He has not abandoned Israel and will once again deal with them. Paul is answering the concerns of the Jewish believers who wondered if God had snubbed Israel and why (in light of previous convenants). The issue is not individual salvation or election/non-election (TULIP). Justification and condemnation were dealt with in the earlier chapters (Rom. 1-5). Sanctification was dealt with in Rom. 6-8. These chapters are more applicable to the individual believer vs national Israel.

Sorry I cannot help you further. This is my dogmatic conviction. You will have to continue to believe your ideas. I find †hem contrary to the context and the flow of Paul's general argument.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
sentientsynth said:
Well, godrulz, you didn't answer my question. I'm asking why "reading election and non-election into the text from before their existence is indefensible."

Why is that indefensible? Please unpack the logic for me.


Yeah. That God so loved the kosmos that He sent his one of a kind Son to die for it ... that completely blows away TULIP.

Here's some more of what John says re Christ's propitious death, defining for all who read just who the kosmos for whom Christ died is.

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

1 Jo 3:16 Hereby we have known love, because *he* has laid down his life for us; and *we* ought for the brethren to lay down our lives.

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.


Furthermore it's hilarious to read you harping on and on about the proof-texting that the myopic Calvinists perform and then turn around to read something like "John 3:16, 36 alone is sufficient proof against TULIP." You're a walking contradiction, godrulz.

Proof-texting is just fine for you, but if the big bad wolf-in-sheeps-clothing Calvinist comes at you with handfuls of verses, such as Hilston has done, you accuse him of of twisting the scriptures. Very shameful of you, this is.

Besides, you're supposed to be exposing us "Calvinists" as the scripture-twisters. You doing the same stuff you accuse us of doing is simply digging your own hole.

The Johannine use of 'world' often refers to unregenerate man, not the elect at all. Like many Greek words, it can mean various things in various contexts. What it does not mean is that God only loved and died for your so-called elite elect class. John 3:16 is a universal gospel in a nutshell. Your arbitrary and limited love/redemption is a product of bad theology, not the heart and mind of God.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Hilston asked: Will you now agree with Paul that God predestinated individuals to redemption in Christ?

godrulz said:
TULIP is deductive, not inductive from the text.
Is that a "no"?

godrulz said:
... It is a preconceived theology that does not stand up to contextual scrutiny.
Yet, when I show you how your demitheology is disproven by scripture, you persist because of your preconceived theology. Fascinating. There's a term for this. It starts with an "S".

godrulz said:
... The weight of Scripture is that God loves and died for all men.
That's only if you read the scriptures through the lens of your deductive and preconceived theology, GR.

godrulz said:
We see God not desiring any to perish.
No, we see God not desiring that any of the Elect perish. Context, GR, context.

godrulz said:
... His impartial love seeks to convince and convict and draw all men.
No, His impartial and arbitrary love accomplishes exactly that for which He intends it: the infallible salvation of those for whom He died.

godrulz said:
... The reason that all are not saved lies in the heart of man, not the mysterious will of God.
It's both, GR. This is abundantly proven in scripture. (Jn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.; Ro 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy).

godrulz said:
... The deficiency is not in God's desire or power, but in the nature of man's heart and the parameters for a reciprocal love relationship (that cannot be coerced, caused, nor unilateral). We could go on and on dissecting each aspect of TULIP.
Straw man, GR. I'm not defending TULIP. I'm merely pointing out to everyone how your deductive and preconceived theology is impervious to the teachings of scripture and to logic.

godrulz said:
The bottom line for me is that sound exegesis (grammatical, contextual, historical, theological, literal, etc.) does not lend itself to a elect vs non-elect concept in light of explicit revelation of God and His ways.
When you admitted earlier, "We would need to do a detailed study on this topic. I am not prepared to do so," you disqualified yourself from making such statements GR. When confronted with scripture that opposes your preconception, you beg off, and proceed to contradict Paul, who perspicuously states that individuals are elected to redemption in Christ.

godrulz said:
A few proof texts out of context are not persuasive to me.
How convenient. This is exactly the kind of answer I would expect from someone whose preconceived and deductive theology contradicts scripture. But, lest there be any question regarding the ubiquity of individual election in scripture (i.e. much much more than "a few proof texts"), have a look at these:
Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. ["elect" here is plural, meaning a plurality of individuals]
Ro 16:13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. [An individually chosen person]
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; ["elect" here is plural, meaning a plurality of individuals]
1Th 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. [Note the plural possessive pronoun, "your," denoting a plurality of individuals whom God elected]
2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: [Note the plural pronoun put with "chosen you," denoting a plurality of individuals, i.e. "chosen you all.]
2Ti 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. [Individual election]
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. [Note that "elect" here is plural, denoting the election of a plurality of individuals]
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; ["elect" here is plural, meaning a plurality of individuals]​
I know, I know, your deductive and preconceived theology doesn't care. A whole pile of "prooftexts" will not be persuasive to you because of your deductive theology and preconceptions.

godrulz said:
God did predestine individuals to salvation (as opposed to objects, frogs, dogs, etc.).
What the? What are you talking about? There is no redemption for the sin of "objects, frogs, dogs, etc." That's probably the lamest attempt at obfuscation I've ever seen. It is godrulz' attempt to accommodate the scriptures that undermine his deductive theology and to eat his cake, too. But we all see through it. Lame. Totally lame.

godrulz said:
... He predestined that all who believe and respond to His drawing will become part of the people of God.
This is blatant equivocation. Please explain what is meant by "predestined." The scripture says it means to mark out or determine in advance.

godrulz said:
... Yes, individuals make up the group. The question is when this is settled? Is it in eternity in the mind of God before creation or is it as each person choses today whom they will serve? God's generic plan for the church and all individuals who will eventually become part of His people was settled in advance.
The text doesn't say that. It says that their choosing, their election, their redemption, were settled in advance; not merely a "generic plan." The specific works for each individual saint was foreordained (Eph 2:10).

godrulz said:
... Whether Tom, Dick, Harry, Mary, Sue, Betty believes or persists in unbelief is settled in real space time after they are born, not in the decrees before creation.
Not according to the scriptures cited above and elsewhere. The individual members of the Body of Christ were chosen before the foundation of the world, i.e. logically prior to God's decree to create (Eph 1:4).

godrulz said:
His plan of redemption is potentially efficacious for all men, but is only appropriated by some men.
That's not what the scriptures say, GR. It says He came to die for those whom the Father gave Him (Jn 6:38-40) and that He will not lose a single one.

godrulz said:
... It was intended for all, but not all receive Him.
All for whom it was intended will inexorably receive Him.

godrulz said:
... Your view makes God's love arbitrary and His redemption limited in scope (for the so-called frozen chosen elect in eternity).
God's love is indeed arbitrary, in the true sense of the word. It is impartial and completely arbitrary. Particular redemption makes God's love and sacrifice truly meaningful, effectual and sufficient. Whereas the Open-View co-Savior doctrine makes Jesus a salvation assistant.

godrulz said:
... It overstates God's will and negates the fact that God created significant others with a will (God is not the only being/factor in the universe...by His sovereign choice and decree, of course).
Straw man, GR. It's a lot easier to debate an imaginary opponent, isn't it?

godrulz said:
Relational theism trumps determinism/omnicasuality.
It also trumps the teaching of scripture, doesn't it?

godrulz said:
... Your view finds resonance with fatalistic Islam.
Straw man, GR. You don't know what you're talking about, obviously.

godrulz said:
... My view resonates with the general tenure of all of Scripture.
Um ... what? What is general tenure? How does something resonate with tenure? This is simply more Open-View smokescreen obfuscation.

godrulz said:
Of course we agree to disagree.
I don't agree to disagree. There is only one truth, GR, and one true interpretation of scripture. There are no viable alternative interpretations. So I refuse to "agree to disagree" with someone whose theology mangles the word of God and does violence to logic and language.

godrulz said:
Romans 9-11 is about the election of national Israel for service and bringing forth the Messiah.
Then why does Paul use all those plural pronouns referring to a plurality of individuals, GR?

godrulz said:
... The issue is not individual salvation or election/non-election (TULIP).
Sure it is, as demonstrated in lucid terms, namely, the plural pronouns. You can pound your pulpit as hard as you want, and scream it until you're cobalt-blue in the face, and it won't change the fact that the words of Scripture contradict your claims.

godrulz said:
... Sorry I cannot help you further. This is my dogmatic conviction.
Despite your expressed "need to do a detailed study on this topic", and your blatant dodging ("I am not prepared to do so,"), you have your "dogmatic conviction." Your "dogmatic conviction" is, admittedly, not informed by a detailed study on the topic. So where does it come from? It reminds me of the burning in the bosom that my Mormon visitors were telling me about.

godrulz said:
... You will have to continue to believe your ideas. I find †hem contrary to the context and the flow of Paul's general argument.
Correction: You find them contrary to your deductive theology and preconceptions. Paul's argument, general and specific, deal with the election of individuals.

GR, will you now agree with the pile of verses that teach that God predestinated individuals to redemption in Christ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top