ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lon

Well-known member
Phil: The question is what aspects of the future are known as possible and which aspects are known as certain? The future does not become actual until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present.

God can state His intentions about the Messiah in advance because He has the ability to bring about what He states. The same is true of judging wicked nations. This aspect of the future is known as certain. Because He does not purpose, intend, intervene in random lottery numbers, He would not predict with certainty the lottery draw from before the creation of the world. If He was to prophecy the lottery number for a certain date, He would have to intervene and cause the numbers to be picked. Contingency is an equal possibility of happening or not. Genuine freedom involves contingencies and possibilities, not actualities, necessities, certainties (though the latter do exist under different circumstances).

Non sequitur. There is no crystal ball, but rather scriptures that attest to foreknowledge as actual 'knowledge of the future.' It isn't just knowledge of self-determinism. There are perfectly good ways to explain that idea in scripture but it isn't at all. God predicts the actions of man before they happen, names names, tells how they will respond etc. This is either direct manipulation as Rob has stated or is foreknowledge. As with him, I see no other option in the either/or scenario. Either God controls Pharoah to reject or He foreknows Pharoah will reject the call to "Let my people go."
 

Lon

Well-known member
Soley is the pivotal word. (Might not be the right spelling.)
The greater danger is destroying the narrative with doctrines based on a single motif or string of proof texts to make other texts non applicable to the WHOLE TRUTH. It is as important to exegete images as it is to exegete words. Something seldom if ever taught in seminaries until recently.

It is much like killing the Spirit with over emphasis of the letter.

Philetus

Can you provide a few of the doctrinal passages for your stance? I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself. I think you are arguing more for misperceived theology rather than Biblical doctrine; systematic theology of man rather than God-given doctrine. That is why, in your last post I responded to, I suggested further clarification. I 'think' I know where you are coming from, but I have to hope I'm catching your meaning clearly. I believe you are talking about traditional doctrine/systematic theology vs. Biblical doctrine here (my best guess).

In addition, I caution what you perceive to be taught in seminary. Blanket statements are usually overstated and from my experience, it is an incorrect assessment. People who've never been or have only been to one seminary tend to make statements like this. It is merely a caution for whatever it is worth.
 
Last edited:

RobE

New member
What "free" will act?

That is not the definition of reprobation at all.

Really, do the reprobate become so by their own will or is it a matter of God's predisti-Nang-tion?:wave: Howdy, we've missed you in these parts.

Reprobation is God leaving men to suffer the penalties of their sin.

Reprobation is the human state of being under Godly curse and condemnation for sin; bereft of any hope of grace or salvation from God.

It appears that Muz now agrees with you if you've been following his comments.

There is no compatibility between EDF and "free" will, for "free" will is non-existent.

It is either/or.

Either God has EDF (which I believe wholeheartedly He does), and there is no "free" will.

Or there is an autonomous agency attributable to man that precludes EDF.

The OT side with the fallacy of freedom of will; I take the side of Biblical truth that God has decreed and ordained according to EDF.

You might as well skip the middle ground, for it is not existent..

As I've stated multiple times this is the error in thinking which is common to Calvinism and Open Theism. Pagan Greek thinking at that, brought about by pagan Greek philosophy. Oh, wait! Now I'm sounding like those same people!

Let me re-state: The scriptures present free will existing with EDF present. Am I to believe them, or you? I'm not claiming that free will is LFW because I don't believe in the tooth fairy anymore. I'm claiming that Augustine believed in free will, Aquinas believed in free will, etc., etc., etc. Should I believe them or should I believe someone on the internet with a pen name of Philetus?

2 Timothy 2:14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth.​

By the way, what's the significance of 'Nang'?
 

RobE

New member
At the time of Jesus' words, Judas' heart had shifted. It was present knowledge and apparent what Judas was purposing to do. God can read minds and see circumstances, you know. Jesus did not prophecy this until Judas went bad. He did not predict it when He was 12 in the Temple, right?
John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​
That's right, but the scripture which Jesus eludes to was written before Christ was born. And Christ is making a statement about a future occurence at the same time. Both the scripture which tells of a future act of a free will agent and Christ who tells of a future act of a free agent---are presenting EDF as truth. The only alternative is to say that God coerced Judas to perform an evil act. Saying Christ foreknew Judas' free will act through seeing Judas' heart destroys the idea that future free will acts are unknowable.

Foreknowledge everywhere you turn. The only defensible position you have is to say that God coerced Judas. You see only within extreme Calvinism is foreknowledge unnecessary. God simply decrees action and it occurs. There's no need for foreknowledge there. They believe in it because the scriptures profess it; but it's truly unecessary to the Calvinist view of existence. God decrees, it happens.

You can't fight what you agree with. So Godrulz, did Jesus foreknow Judas' free acts which would lead him to being doomed; or, did God decree Judas' actions and Calvin was right?

'None has been lost except the one....' who in the future will be '...doomed to destruction so that Scripture...' written before Christ or Judas was born '....would be fulfilled.'.​

These illustrate agreements between what Christ foreknows and what the Holy Spirit, as the source of scripture, foreknows.

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

Jesus wasn't twelve here either, but Judas hadn't made his free will decision to act yet. Christ foreknew that free will act.
 

RobE

New member
When doubt is planted for interpreting narrative inconsistently with doctrinal passages there is a huge problem. Bob Hill is a very gracious man and I'm not bringing his character into the discussion, but his doctrine. RobE has linked this passage and it is worthy of attention for addressing Rob's questions. If we build doctrine soley off of narrative as Bob H. has, there are serious consequences.

Yes, I keep it there so I can find the o.v. position when I need it. Bob Hill is a good man with righteous intentions. Every time one of these guys says I don't understand open theism, I read it to try to ascertain what I missed. It struck me as sincere, but I could see that the same argument which Calvin struggled with was the source of open theism's existence.

All scripture is true while our understanding is lacking. It's this gap we strive to fill.
 

Philetus

New member
Can you provide a few of the doctrinal passages for your stance? I cannot concur that we can kill narrative with doctrinal passages. The whole of scripture supports itself. I think you are arguing more for misperceived theology rather than Biblical doctrine; systematic theology of man rather than God-given doctrine. That is why, in your last post I responded to, I suggested further clarification. I 'think' I know where you are coming from, but I have to hope I'm catching your meaning clearly. I believe you are talking about traditional doctrine/systematic theology vs. Biblical doctrine here (my best guess).

In addition, I caution what you perceive to be taught in seminary. Blanket statements are usually overstated and from my experience, it is an incorrect assessment. People who've never been or have only been to one seminary tend to make statements like this. It is merely a caution for whatever it is worth.

This thread is full of 'doctrinal' passages that over emphasize proof-texts while ignoring the narrative. Its the primary knee-jerk reaction to Open Theism. Your summery of Bob Hill's post is a prime example of tossing out narrative while claiming to see the 'whole' by reading only 'biblical doctrine' to refute the teachings of narrative. At its worst a purely doctrinal reading of scripture reduces God to an 'unmoved mover' in the midst of the sweep of creation's history where God is portrayed as the 'most moved mover' in a dynamic, interactive story.

One doesn't have to attend a seminary to know what their focus is. One can read. The press is overrun and the internet makes the availability of scholarly research papers an easy reach, especially if one subscribes through his own university library. And just which of those tribal 'doctrines/systematic theologies' being so closely guarded is biblical? "Yours," no doubt? Even if it rips the narrative to shreds? I don't think so. Mine? Not necessarily! Open Theism is a relatively new discipline (as far as 'systematic theology' goes) and has a lot of work ahead of it. I'm constantly reminded of this when I read how easily Open Theists toss around terms that are forced on it by preconceived theologies read as 'biblical' doctrine and try to fit them into the mix. We all suffer from residual thinking.

I've been arguing points of Open Theism since high school though I never heard it called such until I got to TOL. The likes of Boyd, Sanders and Pinnock have only served to bring it to the forefront of evangelical circles and in my case helped me to be more disciplined in my reading of scripture. I'm sure you are aware of the fallout they have endured from the guardians of their traditions.

Philetus

BTW, Since you seem to find the personal data so necessary, I've done biblical and theological work at three very diverse schools. I just keep coming home where there is at least moderate tolerance for thinking outside the boxes. You will probably find it amusing that my own school hasn't quite found a category for me yet. That's fine with me. I think Open Theism hasn't much more than scratched the surface of the need to rethink and un-reform the classical strongholds. The discussion has only begun and the views expressed here on TOL are but preliminary discussion about a few major but most important issues. Just MHO.
 

Philetus

New member
Phil: The question is what aspects of the future are known as possible and which aspects are known as certain? The future does not become actual until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present.

God can state His intentions about the Messiah in advance because He has the ability to bring about what He states. The same is true of judging wicked nations. This aspect of the future is known as certain. Because He does not purpose, intend, intervene in random lottery numbers, He would not predict with certainty the lottery draw from before the creation of the world. If He was to prophecy the lottery number for a certain date, He would have to intervene and cause the numbers to be picked. Contingency is an equal possibility of happening or not. Genuine freedom involves contingencies and possibilities, not actualities, necessities, certainties (though the latter do exist under different circumstances).

You know I'm in 100% agreement with this! We have said this over and over and over again. Now, find a better way of saying it or at least another way of saying it. Anyone who gets OT gets the lottery thing. We even get "isdfoiwoiahaueit'. God interacts with and within creation's history. He is both moved and moves. Sometimes God announces His intentions ahead of His actions. Sometimes God can be dissuaded while at other times not. Sometimes God responds to the prayers of His people. Sometimes God issues ultimatums. If that is ‘foreknowledge’ then I believe in it. But, I doubt that our idea of ‘foreknowledge’ will pass muster with the settled view who see the future as an observable event (foreknown to God and RobE) that has already taken place.

Where better to play with the ideas than here where occasionally someone actually presents an argument that is worth addressing. Playing with it stirs up thinking. We aren't going to convince anyone 'otherwise' and who knows, we might even stumble onto something worth keeping. Maybe its time we set the agenda. Maybe not. I just know that nothing new has been dealt with on this thread since it became part 2.

Philetus
 

Philetus

New member
Non sequitur. There is no crystal ball, but rather scriptures that attest to foreknowledge as actual 'knowledge of the future.' It isn't just knowledge of self-determinism. There are perfectly good ways to explain that idea in scripture but it isn't at all. God predicts the actions of man before they happen, names names, tells how they will respond etc. This is either direct manipulation as Rob has stated or is foreknowledge. As with him, I see no other option in the either/or scenario. Either God controls Pharoah to reject or He foreknows Pharoah will reject the call to "Let my people go."

Great story about an awesome God. God knows Pharaoh (somebody in a position of authority, especially somebody who is harsh, gives unreasonable orders, and expects unquestioning obedience and is dependent on the slave labor for building his tomb) will reject the command to “let my people go”. Heck even Moses knew that. In fact God says He will ensure it; harden Pharaoh’s heart. Sounds like intention in the narrative to me.

Philetus
 

lee_merrill

New member
Foreknowledge everywhere you turn. The only defensible position you have is to say that God coerced Judas. You see only within extreme Calvinism is foreknowledge unnecessary. God simply decrees action and it occurs. There's no need for foreknowledge there.
Ooo, good point.

So Godrulz, did Jesus foreknow Judas' free acts which would lead him to being doomed; or, did God decree Judas' actions and Calvin was right?
Good question.

'None has been lost except the one....' who in the future will be '...doomed to destruction so that Scripture...' written before Christ or Judas was born '....would be fulfilled.'.​

These illustrate agreements between what Christ foreknows and what the Holy Spirit, as the source of scripture, foreknows.
And saying there are illustrative prophecies won't do here, for Jesus states this as a requirement, not as an apt illustration of a picture made in times past. "So that Scripture would be fulfilled" must mean this was required, Jesus had this view throughout with regard to prophecies surrounding his death.

Matthew 26:54 "But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Yet each step must require certain human choices.
 

Philetus

New member
All God had to do to harden the heart of “somebody in a position of authority, especially somebody who is harsh, gives unreasonable orders, and expects unquestioning obedience” (which has become the dictionary definition for Pharaoh) is to get in his face and reveal Himself as the Great ‘I am’ challenging the puffed up self perceptions of a wan-a-be god. Foreknowledge of what doesn’t exist? Or just knowledge of who is really God and 'foreknowledge' of what the true God is capable of doing? I’ll filter my doctrinal reading through narrative any day.

Philetus
 

lee_merrill

New member
I must by the way say I side with Calvin on this one, and believe that Judas and those who carried out the crucifixion were not choosing freely, I believe only within the will of God is there freedom to choose, and outside is only bondage and slavery to sin--and desire--and the devil.

"At the beginning I said there were Personalities in God. I will go further now. There are no real personalities anywhere else. Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most 'natural' men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Blessings,
Lee
 

lee_merrill

New member
All God had to do to harden the heart of “somebody in a position of authority, especially somebody who is harsh, gives unreasonable orders, and expects unquestioning obedience” (which has become the dictionary definition for Pharaoh) is to get in his face and reveal Himself as the Great ‘I am’ challenging the puffed up self perceptions of a wan-a-be god. Foreknowledge of what doesn’t exist? Or just knowledge of who is really God and 'foreknowledge' of what the true God is capable of doing? I’ll filter my doctrinal reading through narrative any day.
The problem however is that the Open View doctrine is that free choices cannot be known, and in prophecy we meet them at every turn, even in the area of salvation, which Open Theists must hold to be free, yet "only a remnant will be saved."
 

Philetus

New member
All Jesus (the Son of God, the incarnate ‘I am’) had to do was get in the face of somebody (a wan-a-be on-his-own-terms disciple, a son of perdition, a devil) who though he new better than the Father, Son and Spirit how to bring about the kingdom and salvation and not budge on their plan. Foreknowledge? …or just knowledge of what Judas was up to and a nudge of resignation to the Father’s will. ‘Go do what you will, and do it quickly’ doesn’t sound like coercion to me. I’m sticking with the narrative. Pretty much rules Judas out of the remnant, huh.
Philetus
 

Philetus

New member
The problem however is that the Open View doctrine is that free choices cannot be known, and in prophecy we meet them at every turn, even in the area of salvation, which Open Theists must hold to be free, yet "only a remnant will be saved."

What are there ... three direct references (NIV) to 'remnant' in the New Testament (only Romans 11:5 in the KJV) clearly referring to Israel?

Salvation is free ... free to whosoever will whether Jew or Gentile. Know anybody among the whosoever-won't, Lee?
 

lee_merrill

New member
What are there ... three direct references (NIV) to 'remnant' in the New Testament (only Romans 11:5 in the KJV) clearly referring to Israel?

Salvation is free ... free to whosoever will whether Jew or Gentile. Know anybody among the whosoever-won't, Lee?
Yes, however this prediction must be held by OVTers, to involve essentially free choices, must it not? and of people unborn yet, for hundreds of years.
 

RobE

New member
I must by the way say I side with Calvin on this one, and believe that Judas and those who carried out the crucifixion were not choosing freely, I believe only within the will of God is there freedom to choose, and outside is only bondage and slavery to sin--and desire--and the devil.

"At the beginning I said there were Personalities in God. I will go further now. There are no real personalities anywhere else. Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most 'natural' men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

Blessings,
Lee

This truth is what we are compelled to believe as we examine the scripture.

John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.​

By what means does flesh become Spirit if not through the death of the natural man?

Romans 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.​

Through the law, death of the natural man was increased for God's good purpose. For what Satan meant for evil, God always intended to bring about good. The good of joining natural man to a supernatural eternity with Him.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.​

We discover that sin which is meant as evil, becomes the conduit for the destruction of the natural men in the world and the rebirth of spiritual men in Christ.

So to state that we are only truly free in Christ, the eternal Vine, and dead to the natural behaviors of this world --- Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. --- is true according to the scriptures.

Romans 3:24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
1 Corinthians 7:22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.
1 Corinthians 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.
Galatians 2:4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Colossians 1:22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—
Colossians 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him,
Colossians 3:11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.​

Christ was the purpose of creation. We, as His body, are free through our re-born selves.

Libertarian Free Will doesn't exist prior to our regeneration(grafting into the vine), for we are only able to do that which is natural to us. We're free to act within our worldly natures, but not truly free in the sense that God is. After regeneration we are able to choose between the two wills which exist within us - the natural and the Christ's will.

6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Adam was able to give birth to flesh, but our Heavenly Father who is Spirit gave birth to us. Praise God.
 

RobE

New member
God interacts with and within creation's history. He is both moved and moves. Sometimes God announces His intentions ahead of His actions. Sometimes God can be dissuaded while at other times not. Sometimes God responds to the prayers of His people. Sometimes God issues ultimatums. If that is ‘foreknowledge’ then I believe in it. But, I doubt that our idea of ‘foreknowledge’ will pass muster with the settled view who see the future as an observable event (foreknown to God and RobE) that has already taken place.

Actually it does pass muster with me. You see, Philetus, God's intentions often involve free will agents. This type of foreknowledge doesn't require the future to be observable. Molina, you, and I accept that God is able to bring His intentions to pass with the cooperation of free will agents. To do this, requires that God foreknows the actions of those free will agents through calculation - not through observance. Even, in your accepted idea of foreknowledge, free will exists and are therefore compatible with each other. Why do we need to say they are not, just because we are unable to figure it out?
 

lee_merrill

New member
This truth is what we are compelled to believe as we examine the scripture.
Yes, God "gave us birth through a word of truth," let us note too that all analogies of salvation are passive on our part, birth, creation, resurrection, even betrothal was passive in those days.

We discover that sin which is meant as evil, becomes the conduit for the destruction of the natural men in the world and the rebirth of spiritual men in Christ.
Well, I would say the cross destroys the natural man, the sinful nature, but yes.

So to state that we are only truly free in Christ, the eternal Vine, and dead to the natural behaviors of this world --- Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. --- is true according to the scriptures.
Yes, agreed! Christ sets us free, indeed this is reason for thankfulness.

Blessings,
Lee
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Really, do the reprobate become so by their own will or is it a matter of God's predisti-Nang-tion?:wave: Howdy, we've missed you in these parts.

:wave:

Thanks for the greeting. I have been reading and enjoying the gentlemens' discussion on these matters.

I believe in double-predestination. God, out of one lump, made vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. All human beings, by nature and because of sin, would be reprobates, if God had not elected to create and save some in Christ.



It appears that Muz now agrees with you if you've been following his comments.

Believe me, all of you are misreading Muz's comments about John 6:44. I expect he will be setting you straight with his superior :dead: exegesis, quite soon.


Let me re-state: The scriptures present free will existing with EDF present.

Where? I don't read anything in the Bible about "free" will existing. There is a lot about Godly omniscience and human accountability, but nothing about "free" will.



Am I to believe them, or you? I'm not claiming that free will is LFW because I don't believe in the tooth fairy anymore. I'm claiming that Augustine believed in free will, Aquinas believed in free will, etc., etc., etc. Should I believe them or should I believe someone on the internet with a pen name of Philetus?

All of us need to continually refer back to the Holy Scriptures as we discuss these things. Sola Scriptura, remember!!

2 Timothy 2:14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth.​

(Excellent verse and timely reminder.)

By the way, what's the significance of 'Nang'?

It is a nickname given to me by a granddaughter, that stuck. It is an acronym. Can you guess what it is?

Nang
 

RobE

New member
:wave:

Thanks for the greeting. I have been reading and enjoying the gentlemens' discussion on these matters.

I believe in double-predestination. God, out of one lump, made vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor. All human beings, by nature and because of sin, would be reprobates, if God had not elected to create and save some in Christ.

And an entirely logical and just answer. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that God dispenses the only hope of salvation to select men according to this idea. The responsibility to believe is then removed from those who don't receive that hope. How then is God able to judge and condemn those same men for unbelief?

Believe me, all of you are misreading Muz's comments about John 6:44. I expect he will be setting you straight with his superior :dead: exegesis, quite soon.

I have no doubt this is true.

Where? I don't read anything in the Bible about "free" will existing. There is a lot about Godly omniscience and human accountability, but nothing about "free" will.

Matthew 26:20 When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. 21 Now as they were eating, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”
22 And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?”
23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
25 Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?”
He said to him, “You have said it.”​

Would it be fair to say that God in His goodness decreed the birth of Judas when Christ says that 'It would have been good....'?

2 Kings 17:15 , 1 Kings 19:14 , 1 Samuel 15:26 , Hebrews 12:25 , Revelation 16:9

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.​

Refusal and rebellion are an act of the will, are they not? Now you might argue that they are natural actions of the unregenerate man, but that is the correct definition of free will to begin with. LFW, I think you keep forgetting, is known to be an illusion by me. This brings us back to the first point above.

Rob said:
And an entirely logical and just answer. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that God dispenses the only hope of salvation to select men according to this idea. The responsibility to believe is then removed from those who don't receive that hope. How then is God able to judge and condemn those same men for unbelief?

All of us need to continually refer back to the Holy Scriptures as we discuss these things. Sola Scriptura, remember!!

Scriptura, anyway. I'll allow greater minds than mine to determine whether the Sola is true.

2 Timothy 2:14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth.​

(Excellent verse and timely reminder.)

I've always considered his screen name to be appropriate.

It is a nickname given to me by a granddaughter, that stuck. It is an acronym. Can you guess what it is?

1. Not Another Nice Grandma
2. Nanna ANd Grandpa
3. Never Ask Nanna or Grandpa
4. Not A Nice Grandma

How about the first word?:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top