ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

godrulz said:

In reality, there are 4 views on the nature of time/eternity that have merit as possible explanations of the biblical data. e.g. exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction or absurdity like God creating a rock so heavy He cannot lift it. It is not that God's ways are beyond reason.

Click to expand...

godrulz,

Using out finite reasoning how can we reconcile the teaching that the Lord Jesus is completely and totally Man but at the same time He is completely and totally God?

We accept that teaching by "faith",and while some things are above our reasoning that does not mean that the same things contradict reason.

Books on Open Theism usually present the biblical, historical, theological, philosophical basis for the view. Some issues relating to time, eternity, foreknowledge, free will, predestination, etc. require godly, philosophical speculation if they are not explicitly addressed in a systematic way in the Bible...

Click to expand...

In regard to the topic of "predestination" we do not have to rely on "speculation" in order to answer the false teaching of the Calvinists on this subject.Instead,if we turn to the Scriptures we can see that every single time this word is used it is used in regard to the believer receiving his new,glorified body when we meet the Lord in the air:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren"(Ro.8:29).

The Lord predetermined that all those who believe during the present dispensation would be conformed to the image of His Son.

All of the terms that the Calvinits mis-use can be explained by using the Scriptures.Therefore,our faith does not rest on "speculation".

It is that we reason away His revelation. If it says God changes His mind, we should accept this. Proof texts that say God does not change His mind in specific cases do not mean that He cannot change His mind (Platonic), but that He will not at times.

Click to expand...

The Lord expresses a part of His very nature in the following verse:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

He will not change His mind.But open-theists will go to other verses that they say proves that He does just that.But the verses they refer to are verses that are not revealing His very nature,but instead they are verses that are used in a narrative.And unless we are to believe that these verses contradict Numbers 23:19 we know that the verses used in a narrative are used in a figurative sense,and that figure of speech is anthropomorphic.

This figure of speech is defined as "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings,irrational creatures,or inanimate things"("The Campanion Bible",Appendix 6,"Figures of Speech").

So when the Scriptures are revealing the "nature" of God we should take that as final.If any other verses from a narative contradict what the Scriptures say about His nature then we can very easily understand that a figure of speech is being employed.

Again,our faith does not rest on speculation but instead on the sure Word of God.And if there are verses which seem to contradict verses which reveal the nature of the Lord we can understand that those verses are to be taken in a figurative sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: Making revelation anthropomorphic to support a preconceived theology is a weaker position than changing classic views that do not have Scriptural support (e.g. strong immutability; impassibility).

Click to expand...

I agree that impassibility is not Scriptural (the only statement I find of this in the Bible is from one of Job's comforters!), yet there is a difficulty with interpreting God changing his mind as meaning like what we do. Two difficulties!

The first is that the word has more meanings than "changed his mind," and one of these other meaning might be what is meant. The second is that there are statements that God does not speak and then not act! Which in this case must mean he does not change his mind.

So it is not a simple matter of interpreting a verse literally and forsaking some philosopher's conclusions. It is a matter of making a synthesis of Scripture, such as where God speaks of his wings, as you mentioned, and yet he fills heaven and earth.

Blessings,
Lee

How God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Part Two

How God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Part Two

How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

B. God chose Moses as his spokesman to Pharaoh.

1. Moses and Pharaoh grew up together in the Egyptian palace (Exodus 2:1-10). One can only speculate about the dynamics of this relationship. I see a similarity to Jesus situation, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor (Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:3,4).

2. This Moses had previously taken justice into his own hand and killed an Egyptian. Afterwards he was a fugitive (2:11-15). Pharaoh’s predecessor had wanted to kill Moses (also 4:19)

3. God led Moses to become a shepherd (3:1). All shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians (Genesis 46:34).

4. If it is true Moses spoke with faltering lips, this could be another reason why Pharaoh wouldn’t listen to him (6:30).

In Pharaoh’s opinion, what self-respecting god would choose to speak through this loser?

ChristisKing said:

What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?

Click to expand...

God, in His sovereignty, chose one nation over another for His purposes. It was not based on merit/works, but sovereign choice. Jesus said to hate our parents (Lk. 14:26). The Hebrew concept does not mean to despise Esau nor our parents as evidenced by other verses. Our loyalty to God must be supreme compared to our love and loyalty to parents (relative vs absolute 'hate'). It is not talking about individuals being saved or lost before they were born. Jacob was favored over Esau in the area of service, not salvation.

You go beyond the context to assume that election is individual unto salvation vs corporate unto service.

Jerry Shugart said:

godrulz,

Using out finite reasoning how can we reconcile the teaching that the Lord Jesus is completely and totally Man but at the same time He is completely and totally God?

We accept that teaching by "faith",and while some things are above our reasoning that does not mean that the same things contradict reason.

In regard to the topic of "predestination" we do not have to rely on "speculation" in order to answer the false teaching of the Calvinists on this subject.Instead,if we turn to the Scriptures we can see that every single time this word is used it is used in regard to the believer receiving his new,glorified body when we meet the Lord in the air:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren"(Ro.8:29).

The Lord predetermined that all those who believe during the present dispensation would be conformed to the image of His Son.

All of the terms that the Calvinits mis-use can be explained by using the Scriptures.Therefore,our faith does not rest on "speculation".

The Lord expresses a part of His very nature in the following verse:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"(Num.23:19).

He will not change His mind.But open-theists will go to other verses that they say proves that He does just that.But the verses they refer to are verses that are not revealing His very nature,but instead they are verses that are used in a narrative.And unless we are to believe that these verses contradict Numbers 23:19 we know that the verses used in a narrative are used in a figurative sense,and that figure of speech is anthropomorphic.

This figure of speech is defined as "ascribing to God what belongs to human and rational beings,irrational creatures,or inanimate things"("The Campanion Bible",Appendix 6,"Figures of Speech").

So when the Scriptures are revealing the "nature" of God we should take that as final.If any other verses from a narative contradict what the Scriptures say about His nature then we can very easily understand that a figure of speech is being employed.

Again,our faith does not rest on speculation but instead on the sure Word of God.And if there are verses which seem to contradict verses which reveal the nature of the Lord we can understand that those verses are to be taken in a figurative sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

Revelation > Reason. Many things we accept by faith as a revelation of God. They are not unreasonable, but beyond our finite understanding (e.g. Trinity; incarnation, etc.). We understand that Jesus is the God-Man. This is explicit revelation, even if we do not grasp the exact nature of the union of Deity with humanity. Other areas are not explicitly revealed in Scripture. These things we can speculate on with godly reasoning (e.g. the exact mechanism of creation; the nature of eternity in relation to time, etc.).

The example of God changing His mind or not can be understood literally in both contexts. Just because you misunderstand the context is not reason to assume we must take one set of verses figuratively. There is a difference between God not being able to change His mind (strong immutability, impersonal, not free) and God not being willing to change His mind under some circumstances. There is no contradiction between one context where God does change His mind because the people respond to His call and conviction, and the other context where He refuses to change His mind (though He could if He wanted to), because man refuses to repent and obey. The point is that God is not fickle and arbitrary if He changes His mind, nor is He unjust if He does not in other situations (will not vs cannot).

Many seeming contradictions result from a false construct like Calvinism. They look at one set of proof texts while ignoring the other set or explaining them away as figurative. The strength of Open Theism is that it can accept the revelation literally and at face value without contradiction. If we say certain things about God's revelation are merely figurative, it leaves God no way to communicate the opposite truth if that is what is true, in fact. Weak immutability trumps Greek, pagan philosophy and its influence on strong immutability (i.e. God is unchanging in His perfect character and attributes, but His relations, knowledge, emotions, thoughts, experiences do change because He is personal and free).

ChristisKing said:

The "all men to be saved" in verse 4 is the same as the "all men" in verse 1. Paul is not asking Timothy to pray for every single man on Earth, that would be ridiculous to read this into his letter. Paul is simply teaching Timothy to pray for all types of men...

Click to expand...

ChristisKing,

What is ridiculous is your attempt to "edit" the letters of Paul.He did not say that the Lord would have all "types" of men to be saved.You say that it is riduculous to think that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single man on earth but that it is not ridicuclous for him to pray for every "type" of men!

And if "all" in verse one means "all types" of men then are we not to assume that it means the same thing in the verse which follows,"For kings,and for all who are in authority."

Do you really think that Paul is saying here to pray for all "types" of men who are in authority?And if Paul meant all "types" then why did he not write that?

The Scriptures say that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

Your attempt to change the plain meaning of the word "all" reminds me of those who follow the Chrch at Rome who attempt to hold on to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life.They deny that the word "all" in the following verse means "all":

"For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

I guess that they can borrow from you and say that Paul is only saying that "all types" of men have sinned.

You still have not dealt with the issue as to why the Holy Spirit would assume we would accuse God of "unrighteousness" and "why He would find fault" with sinners or "who has resisted His will?" Why is the Holy Spirit assuming that we would have these thoughts? Why would we think God was unrighteous, or question why He would find fault with sinners, or "who is resisting His will by doing evil?"

Why?

Click to expand...

If you put the question of which you speak in the "context" you will see that the reference is not in regard to eternal life and eternal damnation but instead it is in regard to "service".

It starts at verse 12,where it says that the older will serve the younger and that the Lord loved Jacob (the younger) more than He loved Esau (the Greek word translated "hate" is equivalent to "loving less" in a qualified sense--"Ro. ix. 13,the signification to love less,to postpone in love or esteem,to slight"["Thayer's Greek English Lexicon"].The idea that the mesaning is "positive hate" could not be corrrect because the Scriptures reveal that the Lord bestowed many blessings on Esau.).

So in regard to the younger serving the older,Paul asks,"Is there unrighteousness with God?".The question is not in regard to questioning the Lord's unrighteousness in regard to the "fiction" that He would form some men with the express purpose of destroying them,but instead the question is in regard to why the purpose of the lives of some men is more honorable than that of other men.

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use at the table of a king,while he designs another for some less honorable purpose.But both are formed for some "useful" purpose.Neither is formed for the purpose of destroying them.A potter who would make a vessel for the deliberate purpose of destroying it would be described as a maniac.And by your false teaching on these verses you are making the Lord to appear to be a maniac of the worst kind.

Also,in order to cling to your false ideas you must "edit" the words revealed in the Scriptures.To you "all men" means "all types of men".If that is the meaning that Paul wishes to convey then why did he not say that?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

godrulz said:

The strength of Open Theism is that it can accept the revelation literally and at face value without contradiction.

Click to expand...

godrulz,

I must disagree with what you say about no contradiction in the teaching of Open Theism.

For exaple,the following verses are used by the Open Theists in their attempt to prove that the Lord has purposely limited His foreknowledge:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

According to Open Theism the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God,and He did not know until Abraham drew back his hand with the knife in order to slay Isaac.

But this is what the Lord says about His nature:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Lord would not need to see the "outward" act of Abraham before He would know that Abraham had a fear of God.He knew the heart of Abraham.So in order to use Genesis 22:10-12 to support their ideas the Open Thesists are directly contradicting the Word of God.

Besides,if the Lord did not know the heart of Abraham,how did He know that Abraham might not turn away from his intention to slay Isaac at the last split-second?

These verses in regard to Abraham are clearly written in an anthropomoric sense and is not to be taken literally.

If we say certain things about God's revelation are merely figurative, it leaves God no way to communicate the opposite truth if that is what is true, in fact.

Click to expand...

The Scriptures reveal that the sun sets and the sun rises.Are we supposed to take this literally when we know that it is the earth that is rotating on its axis and the sun is not really rising?

We must use our common sense in order to understand what is to be taken literally and what is not.And if something is said about the actions of God in a narrative that directly contradicts the revelation of God in regard to His very nature then we should recognize that the things in the narrative are not to be taken in a literal sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

How God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Part Three

How God hardened Pharaoh's heart - Part Three

How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

C. God designed miracles with the intention of hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

1. God chose, initially, to have Moses perform miracles which Pharaoh’s magicians could replicate. This was the opposite of a demonstration of power. These wonders were designed to get Pharaoh in the habit of defying God ( Ex.7:8-8:7). The sign of the staff becoming a snake and the plagues of blood and frogs didn’t faze the magicians. Not until the plague of gnats did they finally admit, “This is the finger of God" (8:19).

2. The plagues were of limited duration. They did not force Pharaoh’s hand. The Lord was monitoring Pharaoh to see how much he could endure. God wished to demonstrate multiple plagues, not just one or two of long duration. He did not really want the early plagues to be too much for Pharaoh to resist.

3. The third and fourth plagues were only irritations. The gnats and flies caused no economic damage or immediate health problems. These plagues would help innoculate Pharaoh’s heart. He could show he was tough enough to endure.

4. The fifth plague killed all the livestock. This was the first plague with noticeable economic consequences. However, Egypt was wealthy, and this was a small price to pay to keep their enslaved laborers. They had replaced livestock in their fields by the time plague seven came along. We don’t know if they bought livestock from the Hebrews or external trading partners.

5. The first record of the Lord hardening Pharaoh’s heart (9:12) is after the plague of boils (plague 6). This is admittedly speculative, but there is no record of Pharaoh or his officials suffering, but rather the magicians and “all the Egyptians” (which may refer to the common people). It helps Pharaoh to harden his heart if he and his inner circle are not personally affected.

There is no admission here of God determining Pharaoh’s choices against Pharaoh’s will or forcing him to sin. Such a view would also be speculative, and it would not agree with the overwhelming context of God using providential power and clever methods to draw Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.

6. The day before plague 7 ( Hail and lightening ), Pharaoh and his officials were warned (9:13-19). Some of them heeded the warning and suffered only minor damage (9:20,21). I suggest it helps to harden the official’s hearts when they suffer less damage then their countrymen and come out on top.

The first time God claims to have hardened the hearts of Pharaoh’s officials, as well as Pharaoh’s heart, is after this plague (10:1,2). When God says, “I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them...” I agree with God he has accomplished his goal, and at the same time I find no fault with Him or His methods.

Jerry Shugart said:

ChristisKing,

What is ridiculous is your attempt to "edit" the letters of Paul.He did not say that the Lord would have all "types" of men to be saved.You say that it is riduculous to think that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single man on earth but that it is not ridicuclous for him to pray for every "type" of men!

And if "all" in verse one means "all types" of men then are we not to assume that it means the same thing in the verse which follows,"For kings,and for all who are in authority."

Do you really think that Paul is saying here to pray for all "types" of men who are in authority?And if Paul meant all "types" then why did he not write that?

The Scriptures say that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

Your attempt to change the plain meaning of the word "all" reminds me of those who follow the Chrch at Rome who attempt to hold on to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life.They deny that the word "all" in the following verse means "all":

"For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

I guess that they can borrow from you and say that Paul is only saying that "all types" of men have sinned.

If you put the question of which you speak in the "context" you will see that the reference is not in regard to eternal life and eternal damnation but instead it is in regard to "service".

It starts at verse 12,where it says that the older will serve the younger and that the Lord loved Jacob (the younger) more than He loved Esau (the Greek word translated "hate" is equivalent to "loving less" in a qualified sense--"Ro. ix. 13,the signification to love less,to postpone in love or esteem,to slight"["Thayer's Greek English Lexicon"].The idea that the mesaning is "positive hate" could not be corrrect because the Scriptures reveal that the Lord bestowed many blessings on Esau.).

So in regard to the younger serving the older,Paul asks,"Is there unrighteousness with God?".The question is not in regard to questioning the Lord's unrighteousness in regard to the "fiction" that He would form some men with the express purpose of destroying them,but instead the question is in regard to why the purpose of the lives of some men is more honorable than that of other men.

With the same clay the potter may form one vessel for use at the table of a king,while he designs another for some less honorable purpose.But both are formed for some "useful" purpose.Neither is formed for the purpose of destroying them.A potter who would make a vessel for the deliberate purpose of destroying it would be described as a maniac.And by your false teaching on these verses you are making the Lord to appear to be a maniac of the worst kind.

Also,in order to cling to your false ideas you must "edit" the words revealed in the Scriptures.To you "all men" means "all types of men".If that is the meaning that Paul wishes to convey then why did he not say that?

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

Good insights. This is the same thing as Calvinists having the nerve to say that: "For God so loved the elect that He gave....". God's universal, impartial love for mankind must not be reduced to a specious elect vs non-elect arbitrary concept to support a preconceived theology.

Jerry Shugart said:

godrulz,

I must disagree with what you say about no contradiction in the teaching of Open Theism.

For exaple,the following verses are used by the Open Theists in their attempt to prove that the Lord has purposely limited His foreknowledge:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

According to Open Theism the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God,and He did not know until Abraham drew back his hand with the knife in order to slay Isaac.

But this is what the Lord says about His nature:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Lord would not need to see the "outward" act of Abraham before He would know that Abraham had a fear of God.He knew the heart of Abraham.So in order to use Genesis 22:10-12 to support their ideas the Open Thesists are directly contradicting the Word of God.

Besides,if the Lord did not know the heart of Abraham,how did He know that Abraham might not turn away from his intention to slay Isaac at the last split-second?

These verses in regard to Abraham are clearly written in an anthropomoric sense and is not to be taken literally.

The Scriptures reveal that the sun sets and the sun rises.Are we supposed to take this literally when we know that it is the earth that is rotating on its axis and the sun is not really rising?

We must use our common sense in order to understand what is to be taken literally and what is not.And if something is said about the actions of God in a narrative that directly contradicts the revelation of God in regard to His very nature then we should recognize that the things in the narrative are not to be taken in a literal sense.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

Some passages are literal, while others are figurative. The context will determine which is which. Sometimes we do not understand a passage and wrongly assume we must take it figuratively to avoid contradiction. God does see the heart, but an outward test can be definitive for the person to know where they are at. It is also possible for a person to act contrary to their general heart. In any given test, we can pass or fail it. Until the test and choice is made, it is not known as an absolute certainty. It may be a high probability which way we will go, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Some here say that God has purposely limited his knowledge. The only way God has limited His knowledge is by chosing to create free moral agents that can produce genuine unknowable and alternative contingencies.

Here is a quote I think challenges our traditional thinking. It has some merit:

Since God has these omni attributes, He has the ability to determine what He does not want to know (rulz- future free will contingencies are logically not exhaustively knowable as certainties...the type of creation God chose vs deterministic), where He does not want to go, and what He does not want to do.

Reformed theologian Charles Hodge:

"It is admitted that theologians are not infallible, in the interpretation of Scripture. It may, therefore, happen in the future, as it has in the past, that interpretations of the Bible, long confidently received, must be modified or abandoned, to bring revelation into harmony with what God teaches in His works."

Even traditional, classical theologians are rethinking the Platonically influenced attributes of God and have moved away from strong immutability and impassibility to a more biblical understanding. Open Theism was on the cutting edge of this paradigm shift that shows that God is personal, responsive, providential rather than a meticulous control-freak and unchanging in every sense. God is transcendent and immanent.

Jerry Shugart said:

ChristisKing,

What is ridiculous is your attempt to "edit" the letters of Paul.He did not say that the Lord would have all "types" of men to be saved.You say that it is riduculous to think that Paul is telling Timothy to pray for every single man on earth but that it is not ridicuclous for him to pray for every "type" of men!

And if "all" in verse one means "all types" of men then are we not to assume that it means the same thing in the verse which follows,"For kings,and for all who are in authority."

Do you really think that Paul is saying here to pray for all "types" of men who are in authority?And if Paul meant all "types" then why did he not write that?

The Scriptures say that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

Your attempt to change the plain meaning of the word "all" reminds me of those who follow the Chrch at Rome who attempt to hold on to the idea that Mary lived a sinless life.They deny that the word "all" in the following verse means "all":

"For all have sinned,and come short of the glory of God"(Ro.3:23).

I guess that they can borrow from you and say that Paul is only saying that "all types" of men have sinned

Click to expand...

Paul is clearly teaching Timothy that he should include "kings and all in authority" in his prayers because God will also be saving these type of men as well. He is clearly teaching all types of men in these verses.

The words "all men" is used in Scripture to mean:

1) Every single man and woman
2) Every single man only
3) All nations and races
4) Every man and woman from Israel
5) Every man only from Israel
5) A great number of people (but not every single person on Earth)
6) Men from every station in life (rich and poor; ordinary and rulers; or "types of men.")

You need to see the context of how "all men" is used in order to understand what "all men" means in any particular verse.

Lets take a look at a few examples, ok?

MAR 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.

This means a great number of Israelites, it does not means every single person on earth.

LUK 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

This means a great number of lost people, it does not mean every single person on earth.

JOH 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

This does mean every single man and woman on earth.

LUK 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

This means all lost men and women, not every single person on earth.

ACT 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

This means men and women from every nation and race, it does not mean every single person on earth.

ACT 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

This means all the believers in this church only, it does not mean every single person on earth.

ACT 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.

This means all the men and women who saw the miracle or knew the man who was healed in Jerusalem, it does not mean every single person on earth.

ACT 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.

This means all the men and women in the town that only happened to be present, it does not mean every single person on earth.

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.

This means all "types of men and women" and certain men and women who were "Jews and Gentiles," it does not mean every single person on earth (many were not pleased with Paul....lol).

1TI 2:1-2 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.

This means "all types of men," men from every station of life, it does not mean every single person on earth.

godrulz said:

Some passages are literal, while others are figurative. The context will determine which is which. Sometimes we do not understand a passage and wrongly assume we must take it figuratively to avoid contradiction. God does see the heart, but an outward test can be definitive for the person to know where they are at.

Click to expand...

godrulz,

I will quote again the passage we are discussing:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

You say that the Lord does know the heart but Abraham must pass a test before the Lord will know whether or not he fears God.

But "fearing God" is a thing of the heart.The Lord knew that Abraham feared God before He took up the knife to slay Isaac.The Lord knew exactly where Abraham was at before he took the knife in his hand.

Before this incident we read the things which the Lord knew about Abraham:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness"(Gen.15:6).

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; ...And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness"(Ro.4:19-22).

And even before Abraham took the knife in his hand and was told that he was gonig to offer Isaac he made all the preparations for the task at hand.But yet,according to the ideas of the Open Tehesits that Lord did not yet know whether or not Abraham feared God!

According to the OPen Thesist the Lord did not yet know the heart of Abraham,and it was not until Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac that the Lord was finally able to put two and two together and understand that Abraham feared Him.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

ChristisKing said:

What caused Esau to be hated by God before he was born?

Click to expand...

He didn't. He simply loved Jacob more than He loved Esau. It is a common Hebrew idiom. God does not hate (as in dispise or detest) the unborn. If you insist that He does then you are not only a fool and do not know God but then you must also by the decree of Jesus Himself hate your entire family, for Jesus explicitly said...

Luke 14:26
[Jesus]"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.[/Jesus]

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I've been ill for the last couple of days and have fallen behind on my responses. I apologize for the delay and will respond ASAP. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to get done today but be patient and I'll respond when I can. Battuta, you present an interesting study on the issue that I'm not sure I disagree with at all, but I haven't read all of it yet so I'll let you know when I get more time.
God bless you guys!

ChristisKing said:

Paul is clearly teaching Timothy that he should include "kings and all in authority" in his prayers because God will also be saving these type of men as well. He is clearly teaching all types of men in these verses.

Click to expand...

ChristisKing,

As you correctly point out we must examine the "context" in order to determine the meaning of the term "all men".Here is the most immediate context in regard to the verse we are discussing:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:4-6).

He gave Himself as a ransom for "all" men.But you might ask,How do we know that this is not saying that He gave Himself a ransom for "all types" of men.

To answer that,please consider the following verse:

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"(Ro.5:18).

The words "all men" in the first part of this verse means every single person,and I do not think that you will argure with that.Therefore,the ame words in the second part of the verse must mean the exact thing--every single person.A "free gift" came to every single person,and the results of receiving that free gift is justification before God.

And it is not difficult to understand what this free gift is.It is "reconciliation":

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son"(Ro.5:10).

The death of the Lord Jesus paid the ransom for all men:

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven"(Col.1:20).

It is "reconciliation" that has been obtained for "all men",and it is "reconciliation" that is the "free gift" that comes upon all men unto justification of life.

Of course all men do not receive the intended result of the free gift,and that is because some men will not come within the reconciliation.That is why we as Christains are to tell men to be reconciled to God:

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God"(2Cor.5:20).

The free gift of reconciliation has been provided for "all men" by the Cross,but in order to come within that reconciliation the sinner must believe the gospel of Christ.That is why Paul says that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"(Titus2:11).

The Lord gave Himself a ransom for "all men",and therefore it can be said that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

The death of the Lord Jesus provides a propitiation for the sins of all men,and not just the sins all "all types" of men:

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"(1Jn.2:2).

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Jerry Shugart said:

godrulz,

I will quote again the passage we are discussing:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me"(Gen.22:10-12).

You say that the Lord does know the heart but Abraham must pass a test before the Lord will know whether or not he fears God.

But "fearing God" is a thing of the heart.The Lord knew that Abraham feared God before He took up the knife to slay Isaac.The Lord knew exactly where Abraham was at before he took the knife in his hand.

Before this incident we read the things which the Lord knew about Abraham:

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness"(Gen.15:6).

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; ...And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness"(Ro.4:19-22).

And even before Abraham took the knife in his hand and was told that he was gonig to offer Isaac he made all the preparations for the task at hand.But yet,according to the ideas of the Open Tehesits that Lord did not yet know whether or not Abraham feared God!

According to the OPen Thesist the Lord did not yet know the heart of Abraham,and it was not until Abraham took the knife to slay Isaac that the Lord was finally able to put two and two together and understand that Abraham feared Him.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Click to expand...

Open Theists believe that God knows the past and present perfectly. He knows what is in the hearts and minds of men. In any given free choice, someone may act in or out of character. The test was genuine. Knowing what was in his heart does not preclude Abraham from making free choices and failing a specific test at a specific time. Until the choice is made, God would know the possibilities and probabilities of what he would chose. Once the choice is made, it becomes an object of present actuality/certainty and is known as such...hence...NOW I know (certain vs possible/probable).

godrulz said:

In any given free choice, someone may act in or out of character. The test was genuine. Knowing what was in his heart does not preclude Abraham from making free choices and failing a specific test at a specific time.

Click to expand...

godrulz,

The test was not to see whether or not Abraham would "act in or out of character",but instead to determine whether or not Abraham "feared God".The verse does not read:

"...for now I know that thou acted in the way that one who feareth God should act".

Instead it says,"for now I know that thou fearest God".

Surely the Lord knew that Abraham had a fear of God before he took the knife to slay his son.And the Lord would have known that and would not need an outward demonstration in order to know the heart of Abraham:

"for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart"(1Sam.16:7).

The Open Thesists ideas directly contradict 1Samuel 16:7 by saying that the Lord did not know whether or not Abraham feared God until He judged Abraham by his outward appearance.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

Open Theists affirm that God knows the heart. Peter generally feared God and loved the Lord, yet there was some ambivalence and he failed an outward test. God knew for sure the heart when a specific test of obedience was given. I would not read too much or too little into the historical narrative. There is no reason not to take it at face value. God knew the heart and the test was genuine and resulted in new, certain knowledge based on this specific test of the heart. Man does not know the heart of others. This is not the only 'proof text' to show that God does learn new things as the objects of knowledge become actual. e.g. given the billions of possibilities, it is not possible for God to know who would ultimately be born and every moral and mundane choice they would ever make from trillions of years ago. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know the unknowable. The future has not happened and is not an object of knowledge.

godrulz said:

Open Theists affirm that God knows the heart. Peter generally feared God and loved the Lord, yet there was some ambivalence and he failed an outward test. God knew for sure the heart when a specific test of obedience was given. I would not read too much or too little into the historical narrative. There is no reason not to take it at face value. God knew the heart and the test was genuine and resulted in new, certain knowledge based on this specific test of the heart.

Click to expand...

godrulz,

You are saying that the Lord knew the heart of Abraham but the test was necessary so that the Lord would have a new and certain knowledge.

So even though the Scriptures say that the Lord knows the heart of man and does not rely on outward appearances in the case of Abraham that knowledge was not "certain" until Abraham gave an outward demonstration that he feared the Lord.

Man does not know the heart of others. This is not the only 'proof text' to show that God does learn new things as the objects of knowledge become actual. e.g. given the billions of possibilities, it is not possible for God to know who would ultimately be born and every moral and mundane choice they would ever make from trillions of years ago. It is not a deficiency in omniscience to not know the unknowable. The future has not happened and is not an object of knowledge.

Click to expand...

First of all,"with God all things are possible"(Mt.19:26).

And secondly,if the future cannot be known how do you explain the following?:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure"(Isa.46:10).

The Lord can declare "the things that are not yet done" because He has a foreknowledge of those things.The verse does not say that He can declare the end from the beginning because He can see some of "the things which are not yet done".

Again,the Theology of the Open Theologists is based on "speculation",and that speculation is employed by them in order to say that they know the "ways" of the Lord.However,Paul asks a question that is germane to the ideas of the Open Thesists:

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"(Ro.12:33,34).

The Open Theologists claim that they know the mind of the Lord and that they know the ways of the Lord even though Paul says that that "his ways are past finding out".The Open Theologists use verses that are in regard to a narrative in order to attempt to prove their theology despite the fact that their interpreation of those verses directly contradict verses that are in regard to the very nature of the Lord.

In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html

That is one reason I no longer attend a Baptist Church. Calvanism is the norm there, I need to have to part in that.

Knight said:

God has asked me to defend Him from your accusation.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

You accuse God of far worse than temptation... you accuse God of the sin itself!

Click to expand...

Amen!!!!!