Theology Club: If It Be Possible, Let This Cup Pass From Me

Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
journey said:
No.
Click to expand...

If the Lord Jesus did not think that there might be a possibility that He might be spared the agony of the Cross then why did He pray the following to the Father?:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

If the Lord Jesus did not think that it might be possible then why would He say, "if it be possible"?
 
journey

journey

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
If the Lord Jesus did not think that there might be a possibility that He might be spared the agony of the Cross then why did He pray the following to the Father?:
"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​
If the Lord Jesus did not think that it might be possible then why would He say, "if it be possible"?
Click to expand...

Already answered - see my previous posts for the only answers you're going to get from me on this issue.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
journey said:
Already answered
Click to expand...

Youcould not have already answered it because I did not even ask the question until my last post. Here it is again:

If the Lord Jesus did not think that it might be possible then why would He say, "if it be possible"?​
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart said:
My response was in regard to what you said here:

"There is no if in God's vocabulary, for He knows all things past, present, and future, having ordained them."​

Here you are putting the actions of God into a sequence, where He first ordained something to happen and then that thing happened. However, the Calvinistic understanding of God's timelessness is expressed here by William Ames:

"There is properly only one act of the will in God because in Him all things are simultaneous and there is nothing before or after. So there is only decree about the end and means, but for the manner of understanding we say that, so far as intention is concerned, God wills the end before the means" [emphasis mine](William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, translation and introduction by John, Dystra, Eudsen, [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1968], 153-154).​
Click to expand...
I have no problem with Ames' view of the eternal now of God. I fail to see how your use herein somehow makes your point regarding the unsettled theist's view of God's knowledge of the future. Of course there is no passage of time in God's existence. He is above time, wholly other than time--which He created. How does that prevent God from ordaining the temporal events in the universe He created? Do you not think that God is right now holding up the universe, including the very atoms that comprise the same? Odd that is of you, Jerry. The "ends before the means" is Ames' way (and the Reformed way) of describing the logical order of the decree of God and has nothing to do with implying sequence in the mind of God. For more study infra and supra-lapsarianism and it will become clear to you.

Have you even read the full Marrow of Theology, Jerry or do you just grab a quote here and there as you scurry about the internet looking for anti-Calvinistic fodder?

For that matter, what actual books have you fully read about open theism? Titles and authors please.

AMR <--click for a free book you should at least skim and quote mine ;)
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I have no problem with Ames' view of the eternal now of God.
Click to expand...

You have not put enough thought into it or you would realize that it destroys your position. Since with God all things happen simultaneously and there is nothing with Him that can be considered as either in the past or in the future then we must look closely at what is said in the following verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).​

Could it not also be said that God chose us "after" the foundation of the world as well? After all, since all things are simultaneous with God then common sense dictates that with God the very moment which He chose us "before" the foundation of the world was the same exact moment for Him that occurred "after" the foundation of the world. It could also be said that He chose us when we believed.

In the following verse we see similiar figurative language:

"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" (2 Thess.2:13).​

So it can be said that God, who exists in the eternal state, chose us for salvation before the foundation of the world. It can also be said that He chose us for salvation when we believed.

But for us, who exist in "time," there can only be one conclusion. God did not chose us for salvation until we believed.

That, my friend, proves that salvation is open and our salvation is not limited in any way even though the Scriptures speak of some being chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world.
 
Last edited:
intojoy

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
No it can not be said "after"

Because if God operates outside of time then there is no after only present. That means a decision was made before an end could be seen.
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart said:
That, my friend, proves that salvation is open and our salvation is not limited in any way even though the Scriptures speak of some being chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world.
Click to expand...
Since you will not take the time to follow my suggestion related to the logical order of the decree, I will point you to a starting point:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm

Review carefully and you will have a better understanding of what is going on related to your use of Ames.

AMR
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jerry Shugart said:
I see that you did not even attempt to prove that I am wrong. instead, you want to talk about something else.
Click to expand...

Jerry,

I am talking exactly about what you are discussing. Good gravy, fella, stop and actually review the material.

AMR
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I am talking exactly about what you are discussing. Good gravy, fella, stop and actually review the material.
Click to expand...

Then tell me exactly what I said is wrong and you can quote from that article all you want. Step up to the plate and actually address my points.

For your convenience I will repeat what I said:

Since with God all things happen simultaneously and there is nothing with Him that can be considered as either in the past or in the future then we must look closely at what is said in the following verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).​

Could it not also be said that God chose us "after" the foundation of the world as well? After all, since all things are simultaneous with God then common sense dictates that with God the very moment which He chose us "before" the foundation of the world was the same exact moment for Him that occurred "after" the foundation of the world. It could also be said that He chose us when we believed.

In the following verse we see similiar figurative language:

"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" (2 Thess.2:13).​

So it can be said that God, who exists in the eternal state, chose us for salvation before the foundation of the world. It can also be said that He chose us for salvation when we believed.

But for us, who exist in "time," there can only be one conclusion. God did not chose us for salvation until we believed.

That, my friend, proves that salvation is open and our salvation is not limited in any way even though the Scriptures speak of some being chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world.
 
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Jerry Shugart said:
While He walked the earth the Lord Jesus was certainly aware of the prophecies which foretold of His death. In fact, He said the following about His impending death and burial:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt.12:40).​

Yet despite the prophecies concerning His sufferings and His own words concerning His death on the eve of the crucifixion we see Him praying to the Father in the following way:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mt.26:39).​

So we can see that with the Lord Jesus the necessity to be crucified arose, not because of an irrevocable prophecy of the past, but instead from the sovereign will of the Father.

The Lord Jesus did not think that it was impossible that He might be spared from the sufferings so He did not think the future was closed.

So we can know with absolute certainity that the future is open.
Click to expand...

The Father's will proved fixed and unalterable proving that the future is determined and not open. The answer was it is not possible.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
Click to expand...

Nothing said there answers my points. Let us look what is said here:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others.
Click to expand...

From the Scriptures we know that those chosen to receive eternal life are those who believe:

"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" (2 Thess.2:13).​

That verse alone disproves the "U" in TULIP.

I have no use for any commentary written by the Calvinists.
 
intojoy

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Jerry Shugart said:
No one is chosen for salvation until they believe.
Click to expand...


I know that's what you believe. That's ok. Me, I can't get past the passages that say none seek Him not even one.
The only way that those verses make any sense for me is if they teach that since none sought Him, He by His great love made the first move.

Again, if my limited will that could never seek Him was enabled by Him because He loves me, then I am able to exercise my will to believe. It is not faith that is the gift to me but rather it is salvation. That's the gift. The moderate position and balanced view IMO is where because of divine enabling I can choose to believe my faith is exercised by me and God's sovereignty is fully involved as He did it all not only providing atonement but also providing enabling of my limited free will that was limited to the world the flesh and the devil.

Your position is too far on the human responsibility side and it will, if followed to its logical conclusion be a faith that is based upon human merit and a faith that God was obligated to respond to, a faith where you took the first step in your salvation. I think.

The strict and hyper Calvinist goes too far with the divine sovereignty side and man is saved before he believes, before he hears the gospel. That's what I thought happened to me since I was saved at five years old. Later after looking at the verses concerning man's inability to come to God on his own, I have chosen to believe in the moderate position even tho the strict view makes more sense.

Adam for example did not go to God after he fell. I am inclined to believe that his fall made it impossible for Adam to seek his God and Father who loved him unconditionally, a very tragic but true story indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top