How the Gospel Works

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Respectful... line by line replies... being generated...

Almost all Calvinists will say no

Honestly... I agree and think you really mean the devoted to Calvinism... Calvinists... but don't... because you have sympathy for those that limit Christ.

BUT I think they will agree with me when I say "Yes" here. I'm not obfuscating, I just think clarification is important.

No Lon... only after you use intellect as a slight of hand to encourage them to give the biblical answer would they or do they.

If you weren't obfuscating... you wouldn't have had to tell me.

Most Calvinists assume what you mean is this: "Did Jesus die to save every human being that has ever lived."

No Lon... they go to LA and The Cannons of "Dork" to remind them why Jesus didn't... even though scripture emphatically says HE DID!

Think about your answer too.

Fair enough... :think:

I would say you would say 'no, because if that was the purpose, it would have done exactly that and we'd all be universalists.'

You know me better than this! I would say yes and my free will Theology... rooted in Open principles... would clearly bring the answer out in one sentence.

No, rather, you and I believe specifically, that He died, and all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 10:13 You are gracious and I think that suffices BUT to cover most objections, forget Calvinism (everybody else) for a second. I'm trying to answer scriptures with scripture expressions. If I CAN'T do that and be a Calvinist, then I can't be a Calvinist either. Let me say that again: If, as a Calvinist, I cannot answer any question you give me with scriptures, but have to resort to a Calvinist statement, then I'm sunk. Hold me and all Calvinists accountable. We 'can' use scriptures to answer all questions. The moment we can't we and any other theology system that cannot, is sunk. Done deal. We all need to be saying "Explain that to me with scriptures."

I sense an inner struggle in your words and only you, I and a few others here allow words of others to impact our search... that deeply... to the point of leveling to zero and falling to our knees for guidance.

Scripture is the right answer. But how we hear it is crucial... as well... and thus our exposition isn't Commentary but expression of perspective.

Commentary on them is fine, but we need to be reading scriptures more.

Honestly... I loath every time I've picked up a Commentary or created one. I want my words to DIE!

So, and it is a net that catches us all, if you disagree, please show me from scriptures. I'd need to see, very specifically, a verse that the Lord Jesus Christ died to save all men without exception if that was your meaning, and thank you. -Lon

Okay... John 3:16... And shall I dump the rest that say all?

Look! If the knight in shining armor shows up... but Repunsal doesn't lower her hair... she's out of luck! How hard is that? :idunno:

Awkward for me and most of us, even MAD. Almost all of us believe we are born sinners. This thread I started has 552 responses!

Lon... I'm scripturally armed to destroy that premise now. Either Adam was created sinnless and without a sin nature... and still botched it up... or God made the first of us with the "Bend" towards sin and punished us for His Will... in the same breath... you can call that Apple hole Tersness... but you can't call it obfuscation.

I think we both see this particular question,nearly the same but perhaps for how 'definite' those being saved are. Romans 11:25 Matthew 13:24-30

I need perspective and clearification.

A bit of my perspective (bear with me, a little long but I think necessary):

Wphewwwwwwwwww

the story of Pharaoh. Exodus 7:3-4 First of all, it looks 'unconscionable' that God would 'harden' Pharaoh's heart on purpose. I've seen a lot of bad theology about this. The passage was always very troubling to me and never matched the God I love. I really had a hard time, until I saw something: Verse 3 "...though I multiply My signs and wonders...."
God could have jumped, immediately to the last plague. Some suggest it was 'for Israel' that ten plagues existed. That when they saw them, their faith would be strengthened.....but it wasn't. Many of them participated with the golden calf, complained about manna, etc. etc.

Surely it 'was' for the faithful remnant, but I believe ten plagues were grace. Why? "I multiply My signs and wonders...." To me, it is the same thing. God foretold, knowing Pharaoh, what His actions would do BUT Paul tells us God's signs and wonders are seen by every man. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

In a nutshell, God and all His actions, will either draw or repel, including the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is for some, the chief cornerstone, and for others, their stone of stumbling. Same Lord Jesus Christ. While a Calvinist will say God actively causes reprobates, they fail often to explain that love is either accepted or rejected. By simply showing this love, then, God actively causes builders of faith, to trust in Him. Conversely, all men who reject Him, stumble over that very grace.

This is not the words of a Calvinist! You can't frame it any other way! You are on the money of the matter and free will response is at the center of your theme. You just dislike the word... because "free will" is "Calvin's Devil"

Therefore, when you ask, I do have somewhat the mind of an Arminian in recognition that men are responsible for what they do with the Lord Jesus Christ and their sin condition.

I like the term Arminianism as much as I like Calvinism... but... THANK GOD! That explains how you are the "enigma" of blessing that you are!

That said, there is and should be a lot of crossover of shared beliefs between Calvinists and others, else everybody else is right, and we are not Christians. Any who embrace scriptures may not agree, but we should be expected to agree 'most' of the time, imho. Those who followed Paul and those who followed Apollos? No luxury to not be one body. Why? --> Christ. Paul said "Who is Paul? Who is Apollos?" I'd have liked to have met and chatted with that Apollos fellow. :think:

... :thumb: Though we know how all of the over 30,000 squabble... and we do too... at a far smaller number of hyphenations.

Thinking is hard. I pray mostly that we become thoughtful believers, weighing all things. You have challenged me to 'think' and I pray my reply has done the same, to the glory and honor of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. -Lon

Amen! And... that's why I Love you as my Thunder Brother in Him!

:e4e:

Finished ... line by line... response @Lon

Spoiler

 

[Danoh]

Ryrie's for example, is almost 700 pages! :noway:

The thing that differs between a book that covers just the basics, and a much larger work that goes into various aspects of a thing in much more in-depth.

Baker's primer, for example, is a mere 78 pages (Google the words "pdf dispensational relationships" - it should be the first pdf that comes up).

Though I myself hold to there being only four basic dispensations - Promise - Law - Grace - Kingdom Fullness.

Israel's Promise, and Law eventually merging with their restored Kingdom (Millennial Reign), followed by said Kingdom itself eventually merging with the Body's Mystery Grace into the Fullness of Times, Rev. 11:15; 1 Cor. 15:28; Eph. 1:10, Eph. 2:7.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[Right Divider]

Ryrie's for example, is almost 700 pages! :noway:

I'm not talking about things once a "theologian" gets a hold of them. They are long-winded wind-bags. That's true for "dispensational theologians" as well as "reformed theologians" (and really, any other kind).

Note also that Ryrie is not a Mid-Acts dispensationalist. He is Acts 2 and that might be why he has to ramble on and on and jump through hoops to try to justify his version.

Do you disagree with my basic premise?

That God dispenses different instructions with different responsibilities to people from time to time. Sometimes to different people and somethings to the same people.​

 

[Cross Reference]

Huh? I've always liked you since I was Nameless.in.grace.... and I'm not out to "tell you you're wrong". Please clarify... as I am scratching my head... in respects to your reply.

All I am asking is for you to explain where I am wrong in what I wrote that you should give the cartoon no-no face with no comment?

Why are you dragging this out? What's the problem?

 

[Lon]

Lon...

I hear myself forming replies and I shudder at my terseness. I genuinely know what a powerful witness you are!

No worries, a little back atcha, but nothing too too,

Here comes the kicker...

Those questions couldn't be any more simple! And yet... there it is... "Obfuscation"...

- the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
~ Reference... Google search definition[/QUOTE] Except I have been clear, opaque, and intelligible. I already told you I was going to meet in the middle and only discuss scriptures. I find most 'simple' questions are not simple, especially if they are not asked well.

You took 1000 words to answer three straight... clear... obvious questions that 1 of required a simple yes or no... and the other two could have been answered in 4 sentences or less.

:nono: 762. Your response now, that was 1377

Why do you think that is? I may have revealed the possible answer... quote to come... here...

Why guess? I told you why, to get you to think. Was that so bad? :think: On top of that? I reread what I wrote. I think it was exceptionally clear.

Okay... So.. you acknowledge that God died for All mankind... Even those that will most likely perish in their sins?

What 'most likely?' 1/3 of the planet claims to be Christian. The 2/3 don't. "Most likely?" Here is the honest answer: Your 'questions' obfuscate. I don't deal well with fuzzy or cloudy. If you have a very specific question, all the better. If you don't? You get about 700 words to your 123 words of questions.

I asked if you really believed that God didn't die for those that rejected Him...

Specifically, He died. His death has an effect on the righteous and the unrighteous.

You have followed through with... "I don't"

Er, no. I asked, instead, for you to clarify as well as give me scriptures your were referring to. Post a scripture and ask: "do you believe this?" My answer will nearly always, be yes (I recognize "you shall surely not die" is in Genesis).

This requires absolutely zero use of vague theological terms like Calvinism and Arminianism...

I agree, it is why I asked for a 'verse.'

In fact.. only obfuscation would come of blending seminary terms with this straight forward conversation.

Right. You and I both started without a scripture one even from Musterion's post. However, I have given a good many scriptures in this thread and I endeavor to purposefully do so as well as ask for them, (which I did).

I want to specify a matter... I and you are adamantly apposed to ANY and ALL limiting of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross. I and you are bound in brotherhood in compassion for those that are washed in doubt or deceived that God is ANYTHING... but Love.

Agreed. As I said, the ten plagues were grace. Grace hardened Pharaoh's heart. God is who He is. Whenever He comes to a man

There... global thinking... "engaged". Posturing... dismissed.

As I said, I reread my post for clarity. I 'am' a global thinker, but I answered your three questions each at a time. That's linear-sequential.

However... to heat this up a bit... I have noted you scuffling with Robert Pate... and honestly... allow me to be direct... Pate rails against "So-Called"... "Hyper-Calvinist Precepts". Most of us in the Open and Dispensational camp distinguish between the two.

I noticed that too. He doesn't see the distinction. A few others don't. Btw, you aren't difficult to read here either. I think this is all fairly straightforward. The only thing to do, imho, from here, is to post and ask about scriptures, explain those scriptures.

I buried my hatchet with "Calvinism"... quite a bit back... but... and I emphasize but... here comes the core concern of the matter...

Calvinism arrogantly reaches to inject extra biblical Precepts... via extra biblical prescription and recorded statements of faith... that threaten the purity of the gospel with scripture... alone. You... do not do this. You encourage the Bible and Spirit approach on a continual basis and have even provided me with one of my favorite lines of communication. "We must let Jesus and the Bible mold us and not attempt to reverse the order of that simple and powerful commitment."

I don't have a problem with that and even agree that many words weary a soul. Of the making of many words there is no end, etc. etc.

The danger of glamorizing a more biblical "Calvinism"... is... that some that are weak in faith may believe that @beloved57 and @Nanja 's brand ... also @Nang 's and Mr. Nang' brand of Calvinism are good.

The sad truth is that Some become fruit inspectors and are prone to squash all biblical dialogue that is speculative... outside the works of "reformed" Commentary, Decree and Declaration.

I keep these cards close to my chest... normally... because I haven't felt it necessary to address... but Calvinism is an aggressively rehashed collection of Papal decree... filtered through the lens of men that resisted the institution of power... but maintained a vast volume of core theological values that were dispensed by the "Universal" "Mother" of "Brick and Mortar".

I consider myself neither Protestant or Catholic... because I believe that Jesus is the FOUNDATION of the Universal... Invisible Body of Believers. I believe that the Holy Spirit works through all modes of "Hyphenated Christians"... and this includes... Calvinists and Catholics... HOWEVER... I resist the idea that any institution of MAN should ever be placed in between myself and our MAKER.

Thus... I "choose" "Open Theology" as my NASCAR Sponsor... and paint it on the side of my Witness Race Car... to convey that God is our God of "Personal and Collective... progressive Revelation" ... and "Perpetual Dialogue" of scriptures... to be... continually free in discussion of scripture... "Through the Lens" of Jesus Christ as my and others... ONLY TEACHER... through His Holy Spirit.... and recognize that while His teachings and HOLY Scriptures are "Inerrant".... we are not.. and thus.. our perception is recognized as PERCEPTION and NOT Canon.

We've talked about these of your concerns before. I carry concerns about MAD but have very large concerns about Open Theism regarding the character of God.

Calvinism is "Closed" theology that stakes the claim that all that is to be studied is FULLY Studied and Revealed. Western Eschatology roots in this very ideal. I don't believe that declaring that Scripture has been neatly interpreted and Conveyed correctly by extra biblical men or women... is ever a GOOD approach.

There is a lot that is simple and easy to understand. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light, but even Open Theism has lengthy books (and threads). There is no 'biblical' theology that I know of, that isn't systematized in order to explain it. We all belong to camps and denominations. Whenever we 'can' reach across the aisle, we should, and often. Oddly, and probably poorly, the denomination I am affiliated with has Open Theists, Calvinists, Arminians, Snake-handlers, charismatics, and legalists. It is an odd duck denomination.

To be direct... Neither do you! Musty called you out... yesterday ... and identified that you can't straddle the fence of theology. He further articulated a truth... that so called "Hyper Calvinists" tend to be more direct about what they believe. And... if it isn't the gospel dismemberment that is vomited out of the mouth of Hyper-Calvinists... that hangs Calvinism on its own gallows.. it is the Obfuscation of So called "Progressive?" Calvinists that struggle to pound the square peg of Calvinism into the simplistic Jesus Hole of the Nitty Gritty Gospel that over complicate smack that is easy enough for a kid to understand ... and "that" OVERCOMPLICATION ... again... hangs Calvinism on its own gallows.

I'll say it again, if Calvinism doesn't fit, then find out what I believe and forget the term. You already know a good amount of what I believe, as well as where we adamantly disagree. For instance, Open Theism is a deal breaker to me. If I had to vote, I'd vote them out of the denomination, along with the snake-handlers BUT I'd oust the legalists before either of you. Those churches are abusive, lack grace, and are very similar to Westbro. They really need to be chucked out of any denomination that names the name of Christ. Eventually, we 'could' kick everyone out of our denominations. We need to determine which hills we indeed will die upon.

@Sherman is a fair shooter that looks out for all of us that glorify Jesus and Recognize the supremacy of the Spirits ability to teach us... in conjunction with the God enacted preservation of Scripture... and I mean Scripture that is available to us as a deep tool of study, discussion and application. I dropped Shermans name... because I need to point out that this forum is available to perpetuate fresh discussion of scripture... and to be blunt... Nang... Nanja... Beloved57 and others would be at every corner to disrupt that... by exalting Calvinism as superior to Sola Scripture... in full recognition of what Sola really means... and @Robert Pate prevents that from occurring by perpetually nipping the issue in the bud. Yes.., I know Robert has many abandoned threads... but... Robert serves an important purpose! He challenges the reasoning of men and women that exalt man's teachings above Jesus. It's that simple.

Whatever place anyone has on TOL is for some purpose, generally espoused by Knight and perhaps his moderators. I think they do a fairly good job. I don't, however, see a huge purpose in starting a thread on the same exact 15 topics every month. My tally lists them. In reality, if you or another wanted to read one, the next one is forgettable because for all intent and purpose, they are exactly the same. So for me? Shallow. I tend to avoid them. I've already addressed all his concerns multiple times.

If Robert were to stop... the Hyper Precepts of Calvinism would be plastered on every OP and with charges of blasphemy issued to anyone who dared question the Supremacy of reformed understanding that is Christmas wrapped in the Name of John Calvin. That's not a good thing. You obviously are refreshed by the challenging dialogue that comes from the "Open" discussion of scripture... and thus... ToL is an oasis away from your overly dogmatic counter parts. Can you deny that? Do you "loath" or "enjoy" the challenging look at scripture that this Christ and following in the John 5:39 of the matter... scripture... centric site offers?

Actually, read us. Most of us don't bring up Calvinism often. Me? I'd just as soon participate in threads about scriptures and answer any current concern/event thread with scriptures.

Calvinism is a Papacy... it decrees what scripture "actually" "means" and accordingly.., retards OPEN... Dialogue from Acts 11:26 types that want to be searchers and not just... passengers.

All of our theologies do that. There are Open Theists that ADAMANTLY disagree with other Open Theists about the extent of God's foreknowledge, by example. I'm proud of such among us: We are reading scriptures and saying "Hey! Hold on there a moment Buckaroo! Scriptures say this!" We all want to be scripturally corrected. Are we sometimes 'papal, authoritative, or dogmatic' about it? Yeah, I agree, we often can be. Me? I try to correct with all gentleness. Let's look to our own camps as far as indoctrination and exerting authority over another. I cannot but think, we all have this problem.

Calvinism supposes that understanding Calvinism is understanding God and thus... scripture is not a medium of searching... but a simple matter of the study of Doctrines of men that say what scripture means.

No, vise versa. If you can ever show me I'm wrong from scripture, that is where I'll continue to stand. Calvinism nor Open Theism is anything so dear that I don't go to scriptures first. I 'think' it is why I am well-liked on TOL. Whenever we see Christ in one another, it is always our love for Him, and championing His grace, His scriptures. We may need correcting, but none of us can go wrong when we are heading toward Him. His road narrows, we will eventually run into each other. I'm encouraged, not discouraged. We don't have to agree on everything, most things.

You can Tip Toe around it Lon... but your mind, heart and Soul do not allow you to stifle genuine search... even if it walks off the path of what Calvinism Pre Destines as the "Correct" Supposition.

No, not tiptoe. Ignore? Yes. I'd quickly tiptoe out of a rattle-snake-handling service in TN, though.

I say all of this from my heart.. and know your replies are also as such...

So let's get right to it...

Is salvation Available to ALL mankind?

I am a theologian so should answers to all questions. From the viewpoint of all men, yes. I 'think' most Calvinists would see it this way: His salvation is sufficient for all who will ever call upon His name. Our disagreement is rather the normal/traditional theology vs Open on this, however. For the Open Theist, such as yourself, God didn't and doesn't know who will be saved. Such is impossible, imho, because He said few will ever find the narrow way. Any conversation after this, would be stopped upon our mutual disagreement. I fundamentally and biblically believe God knows all who will be saved throughout the entire timeline. Most of us do.

Is rejection of the Gospel a result of God's Will... or Human Choice?

Might frustrate you, there is no 'or.' Both. I have no logical problem, and I am logical, with both being consistent. Most don't, but I'm a reasonably intelligent man and can illustrate such as being logically consistent.

Do you believe that blood will pour so much farther and SAVE so many more than we can even comprehend?

I know you Lon... your answers are Yes... Human Choice... and Yes... But you filter that through the obfuscation of Calvinism and thus... you formulate the Gospel through the Hyperbole of your respect for men that claim the title of a system of belief that you "support"... and yet deviate from on many occasions.

Why do you do this? Love for your human friends and fellow searchers. That's why... but Lon... How many Crucibles... B57's and Nanja's do you want screwing up the gospel?

By endorsing Calvinism... you unknowingly open others up to claiming a Hyper... or as @musterion eluded earlier.... more direct form... of Calvinism.

Either you are attempting to guide those of Calvinism out of their LA misconceptions and Hyper views... or you are seeking to guide others into them. You can say neither... but you and AMR endorse "Calvinism".

Don't forget SBC too! There are some genuine wacko's with that denomination....but some incredibly virtuous men of faith too.....

Cocaine is medically useful for eye surgery and many other applications... should I now endorse "Cocaine" and hope that no one mistakes what I mean by doing so?

Yes, if it is truly useful. I've heard marijuana for glaucoma as well. We need to 'use' what God has given, not abuse it. I am as against Morphine addiction as I am against these other abuses.

My point? ... I shut my mouth out of Love for you and AMR and focused on those that are deceived as to who Jesus is... and as we have both done together... those who remove the Jesus of the matter in respects to Who He Is.... but... I feel this is appropriate to write at this time... You and AMR remove yourselves from the Global Calvinist consortium and distinguish "Hyper Calvinism" from "Your Understanding" of Calvinism. Do you see where I'm going with this?

I 'think' we do better taking on one another, one person at a time. I love most MAD and even a good number of Open Theists. A few bother me. Safe? No, a few Calvinists I've met have bothered me too. Ever heard of Mark Heard? "Only God Can Take Me Like I AM." This one will speak to you. I tend to listen to mostly Christian music because it definitely echoes happenings in my soul more than about anything else. I'm a foreigner (not a capital F) and alien to these lands.

 

[Lon]

Do you disagree with my basic premise?

That God dispenses different instructions with different responsibilities to people from time to time. Sometimes to different people and somethings to the same people.​

Can't disagree. Have to agree. Dispensation is a Bible word. Hebrews 1:1,2

 

[Lon]

Respectful... line by line replies... being generated...

Honestly... I agree and think you really mean the devoted to Calvinism... Calvinists... but don't... because you have sympathy for those that limit Christ.

No Lon... only after you use intellect as a slight of hand to encourage them to give the biblical answer would they or do they.

If you weren't obfuscating... you wouldn't have had to tell me.

If I had to tell you, then it couldn't be obfuscation. I am, however, trying to bridge a gap of communication problems between parties. Such always has to be a larger concern for me (and you are correct, it is).

No Lon... they go to LA and The Cannons of "Dork" to remind them why Jesus didn't... even though scripture emphatically says HE DID!

Look, I don't say "MAD-crazy" so 'Dork" isn't necessarily appreciated either. I kind of like those Canons.

Fair enough... :think:

You know me better than this! I would say yes and my free will Theology... rooted in Open principles... would clearly bring the answer out in one sentence.

Nope. Else you'd be a Universalist as well. We both know (no wiggle room - know) that few they are that will ever find the narrow way. Why? Because our Lord said so. Your Open Theology cannot touch Him on that. You know it. I know it. To me, your post looks like obfuscation to avoid it. Do I believe that? Nope. I don't tend to knee-jerk the first words out of my mouth. I'm trying to be better than that. You need better than that, else we both dump communication. I'm unwilling to do that. "For some reason, you don't seem to be connecting the dots here." "Seem" allows you to know what is going on in my head regardless of what your intention was, and it communicates effectively, that I think you can't possibly hide behind an Open Theist sentiment here. I've left you plenty of room to respond, and meaningfully. Why? --> You, me, anybody else, needs to see your reasoning.

I sense an inner struggle in your words and only you, I and a few others here allow words of others to impact our search... that deeply... to the point of leveling to zero and falling to our knees for guidance.

We all need to soul-search issues involving God's grace and get it right, true.

Scripture is the right answer. But how we hear it is crucial... as well... and thus our exposition isn't Commentary but expression of perspective.

Our commentaries aren't 'bad' they are just 'our' understanding of them. That has to come out in discussions else we cannot spur one another on to love and good.

Honestly... I loath every time I've picked up a Commentary or created one. I want my words to DIE!

I think I've been there, done that. Any more, I think it important too, to have this 'human' connection. God has ordained that we sharpen one another, encourage one another, correct one another 2 Timothy 3:16

Okay... John 3:16... And shall I dump the rest that say all?

First, do you have a version of John 3:16 that says all? I try, really hard, to make sure whatever scripture I am arguing, actually says (and I try 'exactly') what I'm saying. Otherwise we are just back to my commentary and opinion rather than what scriptures says. I need help on this one as well as any other verses off the top of your head.

Look! If the knight in shining armor shows up... but Repunsal doesn't lower her hair... she's out of luck! How hard is that? :idunno:

It is a fine analogy and I think it works. A Calvinist, however...THIS Calvinist, however, doesn't think it is a luck of the draw, wait'n'see, or roll of the dice. The hair is down. It is Repuzel's thought to save. If she knew ahead of time exactly how many would climb, it doesn't stop the hair being down. Some Calvinists may say she actually raises her hair when an unregenerate passes, I do not believe that. The hair is there. As far as man? Any one of us can/may climb. For Saul, the hair whipped around and struck him blind.

Lon... I'm scripturally armed to destroy that premise now. Either Adam was created sinnless and without a sin nature... and still botched it up... or God made the first of us with the "Bend" towards sin and punished us for His Will... in the same breath... you can call that Apple hole Tersness... but you can't call it obfuscation.

Gonna move this to here. If anybody else wants to tackle it here, I'll be reading along. There too! It is a huge topic. How many pages are your three on this now (good place to link and plug them in this thread by response).

I need perspective and clearification.

K, trying to answer this question:

(3) What does 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance... mean to you, and what does (ALL) mean within it's context?

Romans 11:25 Matthew 13:24-30

I was agreeing. I simply believe God knows that number. Matthew 24:36 To me? Another one of those troubling problems with Open Theology: It just doesn't hold up scripturally to me. Important? Not for this thread and we both know where each other stands. It is important for an Open Theology discussion.

Wphewwwwwwwwww

Agree, the heat mixed with forest fires in our area (Canad/WA) has my internet off'n'on. :noway:

This is not the words of a Calvinist! You can't frame it any other way! You are on the money of the matter and free will response is at the center of your theme. You just dislike the word... because "free will" is "Calvin's Devil"

:think: It always goes both ways on anything we agree on. We OFTEN use the same scriptures for our respective corners (as we should and better be). Often times, we are seeing things from our own perspectives, but I will say, often, an Open Theist is more of a Calvinist than about any other theologian simply because He believes God does determine and heavy on hand. The disagreement is over the 'constancy' of His Sovereignty and meticulous control. I see it all the time, Open Theists, maybe half the time. :think:

I like the term Arminianism as much as I like Calvinism... but... THANK GOD! That explains how you are the "enigma" of blessing that you are!

... :thumb: Though we know how all of the over 30,000 squabble... and we do too... at a far smaller number of hyphenations.



Amen! And... that's why I Love you as my Thunder Brother in Him!

:e4e:

Finished ... line by line... response @Lon

Spoiler

His blessings today. -Lon

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

No worries, a little back atcha, but nothing too too,



- the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
~ Reference... Google search definition...

Except I have been clear, opaque, and intelligible. I already told you I was going to meet in the middle and only discuss scriptures. I find most 'simple' questions are not simple, especially if they are not asked well.

:nono: 762. Your response now, that was 1377


Why guess? I told you why, to get you to think. Was that so bad? :think: On top of that? I reread what I wrote. I think it was exceptionally clear.

What 'most likely?' 1/3 of the planet claims to be Christian. The 2/3 don't. "Most likely?" Here is the honest answer: Your 'questions' obfuscate. I don't deal well with fuzzy or cloudy. If you have a very specific question, all the better. If you don't? You get about 700 words to your 123 words of questions.


Specifically, He died. His death has an effect on the righteous and the unrighteous.


Er, no. I asked, instead, for you to clarify as well as give me scriptures your were referring to. Post a scripture and ask: "do you believe this?" My answer will nearly always, be yes (I recognize "you shall surely not die" is in Genesis).


I agree, it is why I asked for a 'verse.'


Right. You and I both started without a scripture one even from Musterion's post. However, I have given a good many scriptures in this thread and I endeavor to purposefully do so as well as ask for them, (which I did).


Agreed. As I said, the ten plagues were grace. Grace hardened Pharaoh's heart. God is who He is. Whenever He comes to a man


As I said, I reread my post for clarity. I 'am' a global thinker, but I answered your three questions each at a time. That's linear-sequential.


I noticed that too. He doesn't see the distinction. A few others don't. Btw, you aren't difficult to read here either. I think this is all fairly straightforward. The only thing to do, imho, from here, is to post and ask about scriptures, explain those scriptures.


I don't have a problem with that and even agree that many words weary a soul. Of the making of many words there is no end, etc. etc.


We've talked about these of your concerns before. I carry concerns about MAD but have very large concerns about Open Theism regarding the character of God.


There is a lot that is simple and easy to understand. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light, but even Open Theism has lengthy books (and threads). There is no 'biblical' theology that I know of, that isn't systematized in order to explain it. We all belong to camps and denominations. Whenever we 'can' reach across the aisle, we should, and often. Oddly, and probably poorly, the denomination I am affiliated with has Open Theists, Calvinists, Arminians, Snake-handlers, charismatics, and legalists. It is an odd duck denomination.


I'll say it again, if Calvinism doesn't fit, then find out what I believe and forget the term. You already know a good amount of what I believe, as well as where we adamantly disagree. For instance, Open Theism is a deal breaker to me. If I had to vote, I'd vote them out of the denomination, along with the snake-handlers BUT I'd oust the legalists before either of you. Those churches are abusive, lack grace, and are very similar to Westbro. They really need to be chucked out of any denomination that names the name of Christ. Eventually, we 'could' kick everyone out of our denominations. We need to determine which hills we indeed will die upon.


Whatever place anyone has on TOL is for some purpose, generally espoused by Knight and perhaps his moderators. I think they do a fairly good job. I don't, however, see a huge purpose in starting a thread on the same exact 15 topics every month. My tally lists them. In reality, if you or another wanted to read one, the next one is forgettable because for all intent and purpose, they are exactly the same. So for me? Shallow. I tend to avoid them. I've already addressed all his concerns multiple times.

Actually, read us. Most of us don't bring up Calvinism often. Me? I'd just as soon participate in threads about scriptures and answer any current concern/event thread with scriptures.

All of our theologies do that. There are Open Theists that ADAMANTLY disagree with other Open Theists about the extent of God's foreknowledge, by example. I'm proud of such among us: We are reading scriptures and saying "Hey! Hold on there a moment Buckaroo! Scriptures say this!" We all want to be scripturally corrected. Are we sometimes 'papal, authoritative, or dogmatic' about it? Yeah, I agree, we often can be. Me? I try to correct with all gentleness. Let's look to our own camps as far as indoctrination and exerting authority over another. I cannot but think, we all have this problem.

No, vise versa. If you can ever show me I'm wrong from scripture, that is where I'll continue to stand. Calvinism nor Open Theism is anything so dear that I don't go to scriptures first. I 'think' it is why I am well-liked on TOL. Whenever we see Christ in one another, it is always our love for Him, and championing His grace, His scriptures. We may need correcting, but none of us can go wrong when we are heading toward Him. His road narrows, we will eventually run into each other. I'm encouraged, not discouraged. We don't have to agree on everything, most things.


No, not tiptoe. Ignore? Yes. I'd quickly tiptoe out of a rattle-snake-handling service in TN, though.


I am a theologian so should answers to all questions. From the viewpoint of all men, yes. I 'think' most Calvinists would see it this way: His salvation is sufficient for all who will ever call upon His name. Our disagreement is rather the normal/traditional theology vs Open on this, however. For the Open Theist, such as yourself, God didn't and doesn't know who will be saved. Such is impossible, imho, because He said few will ever find the narrow way. Any conversation after this, would be stopped upon our mutual disagreement. I fundamentally and biblically believe God knows all who will be saved throughout the entire timeline. Most of us do.


Might frustrate you, there is no 'or.' Both. I have no logical problem, and I am logical, with both being consistent. Most don't, but I'm a reasonably intelligent man and can illustrate such as being logically consistent.


Don't forget SBC too! There are some genuine wacko's with that denomination....but some incredibly virtuous men of faith too.....


Yes, if it is truly useful. I've heard marijuana for glaucoma as well. We need to 'use' what God has given, not abuse it. I am as against Morphine addiction as I am against these other abuses.



I 'think' we do better taking on one another, one person at a time. I love most MAD and even a good number of Open Theists. A few bother me. Safe? No, a few Calvinists I've met have bothered me too. Ever heard of Mark Heard? "Only God Can Take Me Like I AM." This one will speak to you. I tend to listen to mostly Christian music because it definitely echoes happenings in my soul more than about anything else. I'm a foreigner (not a capital F) and alien to these lands.

Asked by me... and well answered by you. You make it hard to lower horns and lay into you with a full charge... and... that's a major compliment coming from me... you have committed Proverbs 15:1 to heart and soul... :e4e:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

All I am asking is for you to explain where I am wrong in what I wrote that you should give the cartoon no-no face with no comment?

Why are you dragging this out? What's the problem?

Okay... you connect Christ's walk with our carnal walk. This is your brand of "going past salvation"... but... intimacy with Jesus is the most intimate relationship a person can have ... and... I never go... "past salvation"... because I don't believe that we can walk as HE... in our "bodies of death". Do you recognize the Pauline verbiage?

Morales are not Christianity... the whole world has them and ... even... some Atheist's morals outshine the most Pious of Christians... but what righteousness He imparts to our flesh... for whatever purpose... that's His... and despite His assistance in our lives... we kneel in failure... daily.

I can either praise the devil's plan or God's. Satan wants us to curse God and die. God wants us to accept His free gift and spend eternity with Him.

To go past that with anyone is attempting to LORD over their personal lives with "religious piety". I know better than to cast stones from my "glass house".

Do I need to clarify?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

If I had to tell you, then it couldn't be obfuscation. I am, however, trying to bridge a gap of communication problems between parties. Such always has to be a larger concern for me (and you are correct, it is).

The confirmation helps.

Look, I don't say "MAD-crazy" so 'Dork" isn't necessarily appreciated either. I kind of like those Canons.

I see them as extra biblical viper venom! But... I'll leave it at that.

Nope. Else you'd be a Universalist as well. We both know (no wiggle room - know) that few they are that will ever find the narrow way. Why? Because our Lord said so. Your Open Theology cannot touch Him on that. You know it. I know it. To me, your post looks like obfuscation to avoid it. Do I believe that? Nope. I don't tend to knee-jerk the first words out of my mouth. I'm trying to be better than that. You need better than that, else we both dump communication. I'm unwilling to do that. "For some reason, you don't seem to be connecting the dots here." "Seem" allows you to know what is going on in my head regardless of what your intention was, and it communicates effectively, that I think you can't possibly hide behind an Open Theist sentiment here. I've left you plenty of room to respond, and meaningfully. Why? --> You, me, anybody else, needs to see your reasoning.

Lon... the Universalist strategy is bull hockey! If God... the KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR has His hand outstretched to ALL mankind... but "some" refuse to take it... as they drown... He "Chooses" to "Respect" that Autonomous gesture. He also knows hearts and knows when a heart grasps His hand while the body can't... as well... so there is that too!

The No or you're a Universalist gag is smoke and mirrors... to ignore mankinds part in the ballet of SALVATION. We "Accept". That's the part where a person has to accept Him in their humility of "need".

You're going to get hammered if you try the lame "Calling one a Universalist" tactic on me again. The Yes is that He reached out to ALL! He paid for all! If a banker calls me and says a person paid for my house for me and I snap back in pride that no one has that right but me... so give them their stinking money back... that's on me!

We all need to soul-search issues involving God's grace and get it right, true.

Amen

Our commentaries aren't 'bad' they are just 'our' understanding of them. That has to come out in discussions else we cannot spur one another on to love and good.

Fair... but man gets in HIS way... far too much. I'm always liable to cite a discrediting disclaimer in what I write that relegates my work to opinion... and point right back to Jesus and scripture. If I ever do different... I've failed!

I think I've been there, done that. Any more, I think it important too, to have this 'human' connection. God has ordained that we sharpen one another, encourage one another, correct one another 2 Timothy 3:16

Amen!

First, do you have a version of John 3:16 that says all? I try, really hard, to make sure whatever scripture I am arguing, actually says (and I try 'exactly') what I'm saying. Otherwise we are just back to my commentary and opinion rather than what scriptures says. I need help on this one as well as any other verses off the top of your head.

Kosmos! And there are so many that say ALL it is rediculous. :doh: you win! You're a Calvinist with blinders on to the word "all" in scripture! For real? Long belabored sigh..... :shrug: but alas... we all have our "quirks".

It is a fine analogy and I think it works. A Calvinist, however...THIS Calvinist, however, doesn't think it is a luck of the draw, wait'n'see, or roll of the dice. The hair is down. It is Repuzel's thought to save. If she knew ahead of time exactly how many would climb, it doesn't stop the hair being down. Some Calvinists may say she actually raises her hair when an unregenerate passes, I do not believe that. The hair is there. As far as man? Any one of us can/may climb. For Saul, the hair whipped around and struck him blind.

You got that God is our Knight and we are Repunzel?

Gonna move this to here. If anybody else wants to tackle it here, I'll be reading along. There too! It is a huge topic. How many pages are your three on this now (good place to link and plug them in this thread by response).

You opened with a verse there that I think we will have to discuss like two Jews fighting over the implications and support of what that serpent means to our discussion. I love clanging verses... but... method and exposition of perspectives will be the next stop... in conjunction with the verses. That's the only way we'll at the very least... carry one another's understanding around, while maintaining what we feel drawn towards.

K, trying to answer this question:

I was agreeing. I simply believe God knows that number. Matthew 24:36 To me? Another one of those troubling problems with Open Theology: It just doesn't hold up scripturally to me. Important? Not for this thread and we both know where each other stands. It is important for an Open Theology discussion.

Hmmmmm... I see the need for a perspective thread on the impact of foreknowledge and the simple expression of how it is present in the minds of one another. To be specific... this is a can of worms... in and of itself.

Agree, the heat mixed with forest fires in our area (Canad/WA) has my internet off'n'on. :noway:

Oh man! I lived in WA for a bit. It is beautiful!

:think: It always goes both ways on anything we agree on. We OFTEN use the same scriptures for our respective corners (as we should and better be). Often times, we are seeing things from our own perspectives, but I will say, often, an Open Theist is more of a Calvinist than about any other theologian simply because He believes God does determine and heavy on hand. The disagreement is over the 'constancy' of His Sovereignty and meticulous control. I see it all the time, Open Theists, maybe half the time. :think:

Why did you have to get so nasty and insinuate "that"?

Oh man... that hurt! I disagree on the like a Calvinist comment! But... I can chuckle too. You're always good with the debate and you manage to bring the subtle jabs back in an enormously effective... yet classy way.

But... I understand your perspective and your genuine intent... all kidding aside. I genuinely disagree... but I also respect what you've said here and appreciate you expressing it.

His blessings today. -Lon

:e4e:

Likewise and all of His deepest leading and guidance prayed... - EE

 

[Cross Reference]

Okay... you connect Christ's walk with our carnal walk.

Son of God notwithstanding, only insofar as He was born of the "seed of the woman" which He had to be if He was to redeem mankind.

This is your brand of "going past salvation".

I don't believe so. It is the seeking to experience the entire gospel message given us to understand learning to "love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength . .all of our [unworthy righteous] might

.. but... intimacy with Jesus is the most intimate relationship a person can have ... and... I never go... "past salvation"... because I don't believe that we can walk as HE... in our "bodies of death". Do you recognize the Pauline verbiage?

Don't care about Pauline verbiage except that as it agrees with Jesus' "Verbiage", to confirm it. Your interest max's out at the point of man's salvation without questioning how it is obtained in the fullest sense of the "Word". I know there is more. Salvation is designed/purposed to accomplish more that requires more of man to get beyond the just saved mentaly than any "scholarship conversion" allows for. What did Paul say about coming with "enticing words?:

"And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". John 17:3 (KJV, YLT, Interlinear) To know God?? What is that all about which demands we read all the scripture in the light of the Holy Spirit? Speak of the 'seemingly unsolvable' arguments flesh can sort out and know why we have so many religious denominations, seminaries and the inexhaustible amountt of Christian "self-help" books on the shelves.

To Israel, God showed His mighty acts. To Moses, His ways. Who would you rather walk with in life's wilderness'?

Paul understood that he would write from his personal experience:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 (KJV ONLY)

Morales are not Christianity... the whole world has them and ... even... some Atheist's morals outshine the most Pious of Christians... but what righteousness He imparts to our flesh... for whatever purpose... that's His... and despite His assistance in our lives... we kneel in failure... daily.

No. The righteousness you speak of that needs imparted to us is that which deals with Adam's transgression to restore man to a sinless condition in the sight of God for entry into His presence but there is more, for witnessing in this life the preaching of a sustaining life that overcomes the world [law of our flesh]; for our living in the Spiritual promised land, Romans 8. Righteous man, however righteous he truly is, is still in need of that righteousness that can only come from God by Jesus Christ that will teach him the ways of God and make Romans 8 a reality in his life. In measure can God only dispence it.

This is where the Calvinist' may be correct to embrace the idea of God decreeing salvation, i.e, Gospel preached is not needed for it and if so then my Siberian Yak shepherd friend who died before a missionary got to them, are out of luck. These will be the one's judged by God in that day and their righteousness weighed on His Divine scale.. So much for the preaching of atonement of Jesus doing it all. Who will be found guilty? Certainly not the innocent/blameless.

I can either praise the devil's plan or God's. Satan wants us to curse God and die. God wants us to accept His free gift and spend eternity with Him.

Well, I am saved and born again. Now what is your message to me? Do you have a sustaining message you feel will aid me in my conquest for overcoming the law of my sinful flesh that God's grace to me would be evidenced to my heart. And is this not where the accuser of the brethren comes "to eat up my flesh"? [Ps 27:2 KJV].

To go past that with anyone is attempting to LORD over their personal lives with "religious piety". I know better than to cast stones from my "glass house".

Self-righteousness? Who would God allow to "Know Him" in that condition?? Wake up! Don't preach that Calvinistic pap! That is simply the preacher's excuse for failure in his own life; a misery loves company thing.

Do I need to clarify?

 

[Right Divider]

Can't disagree. Have to agree. Dispensation is a Bible word. Hebrews 1:1,2

Then why do you suppose that so many people are so insanely, rabidly opposed to the idea?

 

[Robert Pate]

Why is this page so long?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

All I am asking is for you to explain where I am wrong in what I wrote that you should give the cartoon no-no face with no comment?

Why are you dragging this out? What's the problem?

Okay... you connect Christ's walk with our carnal walk.

Son of God notwithstanding, only insofar as He was born of the "seed of the woman" which He had to be if He was to redeem mankind.

Surprise! You're officially out for the count.... This is a quote from you on another thread.

God never put on flesh. Try again.

Jesus Christ was an sinless independent human being who abandoned His life to God, His Father. Ring any bells?

Is God your Father?

The "PUT ON A MAN SUIT" verbiage is bad... but... the point that God was born into humanity and born God... in our FLESH... is easy peazy to search out... and your WORKS BASED teachings... that you cloak... but can't help but expose... are DESTROYED by three verses....

1 Timothy 3:16 And without doubt great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.​

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,​

This is your brand of "going past salvation"

I don't believe so. It is the seeking to experience the entire gospel message given us to understand learning to "love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength . .all of our [unworthy righteous] might

And you also said this...

While we know God is the Author of Creation, Jesus alone, son of man, is the Author of our salvation. For that reason will God in that day highly exalt the NAME of Jesus above even His own. Until that day does Jesus sit at His Fathers righthand. See also Heb 2:10 KJV.

So... I see your ERROR

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.​

John 1:John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

... but... intimacy with Jesus is the most intimate relationship a person can have ... and... I never go... "past salvation"... because I don't believe that we can walk as HE... in our "bodies of death". Do you recognize the Pauline verbiage?

Don't care about Pauline verbiage except that as it agrees with Jesus' "Verbiage", to confirm it. Your interest max's out at the point of man's salvation without questioning how it is obtained in the fullest sense of the "Word". I know there is more. Salvation is designed/purposed to accomplish more that requires more of man to get beyond the just saved mentaly than any "scholarship conversion" allows for. What did Paul say about coming with "enticing words?:

"And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". John 17:3 (KJV, YLT, Interlinear) To know God?? What is that all about which demands we read all the scripture in the light of the Holy Spirit? Speak of the 'seemingly unsolvable' arguments flesh can sort out and know why we have so many religious denominations, seminaries and the inexhaustible amountt of Christian "self-help" books on the shelves.

To Israel, God showed His mighty acts. To Moses, His ways. Who would you rather walk with in life's wilderness'?

Paul understood that he would write from his personal experience:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 (KJV ONLY)

Morales are not Christianity... the whole world has them and ... even... some Atheist's morals outshine the most Pious of Christians... but what righteousness He imparts to our flesh... for whatever purpose... that's His... and despite His assistance in our lives... we kneel in failure... daily.

No. The righteousness you speak of that needs imparted to us is that which deals with Adam's transgression to restore man to a sinless condition in the sight of God for entry into His presence but there is more, for witnessing in this life the preaching of a sustaining life that overcomes the world; for our living in the Spiritual promised land, Romans 8. Righteous man, however righteous he truly is is still in need of that righteousness that can only come from God by Jesus Christ that will teach him the ways of God and make Romans 8 a reality in his life. In measure can God only dispence it.

This is where the Calvinist' may be correct to embrace the idea of God decreeing salvation, i.e, Gospel preached is not needed for it and if so then my Siberian Yak shepherd friend who died before a missionary got to them, are out of luck. These will be the one's judged by God in that day and their righteousness weighed on His Divine scale.. So much for the preaching of atonement of Jesus doing it all. Who will be found guilty? Certainly not the innocent/blameless.

I can either praise the devil's plan or God's. Satan wants us to curse God and die. God wants us to accept His free gift and spend eternity with Him.

Well, I am saved and born again. Now what is your message to me? Do you have a sustaining message you feel will aid me in my conquest for overcoming the law of my sinful flesh that God's grace to me would be evidenced to my heart. And is this not where the accuser of the brethren comes "to eat up my flesh"? [Ps 27:2 KJV].

So... It is you that are Saying... "AID ME IN MY CONQUEST FOR OVERCOMING THE LAW OF MY SINFUL FLESH...

but Paul Said this...

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.​

In other words... YOU ARE YOUR own Messiah! You are seeking to "Conquest". You are proving everything I wrote when I did this... :nono:...

To go past that with anyone is attempting to LORD over their personal lives with "religious piety". I know better than to cast stones from my "glass house".

Self-righteousness? Who would God allow to "Know Him" in that condition?? Wake up! Don't preach that Calvinistic pap! That is simply the preacher's excuse for failure in his own life; a misery loves company thing.

Okay... Fruit. ... ahem... "inspector". So admission of my state of hopelessness, but for what Jesus accomplished on the Cross, in the tomb and with His Self Performed Resurrection... Isn't enough in your eyes?

Do I need to clarify?

Yes and No... Dilbert... Yes... your words are muddier than swamp water full of frenzied alligators and more confused than Britney Spears at a Mensa meeting.

No... I don't desire to converse with you any further... as I am certain that you have established your own way... and "think" you are "like" the "WAY" as much as you possibly can be. You are not an individual that listens, and you will do nothing but air your opinion... no matter how much mental gym you have to perform to cram your confusion into the conflicting passages of scripture that you have rehearsed plowing over... time and time again.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Why is this page so long?

Because your thread is Awesome and generating some good dialogue. Can you handle it? J/K... I know you can handle it.. and again ... good thread!

:thumb:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Then why do you suppose that so many people are so insanely, rabidly opposed to the idea?

That's the Million Dollar Question... isn't it! :e4e:

 

[musterion]

Then why do you suppose that so many people are so insanely, rabidly opposed to the idea?

I know you know this but...

2 Tim 4:3

 

[Cross Reference]

Typical out:

No... I don't desire to converse with you any further... as I am certain that you have established your own way... and "think" you are "like" the "WAY" as much as you possibly can be. You are not an individual that listens, and you will do nothing but air your opinion... no matter how much mental gym you have to perform to cram your confusion into the conflicting passages of scripture that you have rehearsed plowing over... time and time again.

Well, if all you are going to do is misrepresent my words and run, I'll show you the knob on the door. However, before you exit permit me to add to my words, which I stand by, and give you a few more to chew on:

No man can forsake his way [overcome as Jesus did] without being born again. The new birth from above is the enablement for understanding and the disposition for putting into practice the law of God which is the "Word of God" now by Jesus Christ. If one is of Calvin, he is blinded to that fact, the fact of the necessity of discipleship now re-enabled by Jesus Christ and built upon Redemption as the foundation for learning the ways of God, [His reason resting in His command given to Adam].

If it could be understood that Jesus, the son of man, "held in trust" the whole Godhead until His glorification, can we not then understand what is expected of those who have been born again of the same Spirit that raised Him from the grave?

John could only understand to write this AFTER he was born again, not before:

". . . . the Word [of God] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." "and as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" . . . .(John 1:14; John 1:12 (KJV)

Question: Who is purposed by God to live in us if we are born again? Are we not to express Him as Jesus did if we as well are "holding in trust" His "Life", the very "Word of God" of the Godhead? "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be IN you." . . . . John 14:17 (KJV)

Hope you own a good commentary to aid you in sorting all that out. I have a Thompson Chain and my Oswald Chambers complete works. They work well together. Good luck unless you in some measure, have captitalized on being redeemed.

So what have you to show for how you are dealing with your responsibility for "holding in Trust" the "Word of God"? Or perhaps you need to read again, for the first time, what Jesus said to Nicodemus that you might question yourself: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (KJV) Nor is he able to understand to comprehend what is at the heart of gospel beyond how to get a free pass out of hell by reciting a canned sinners prayer.

 

[Lon]

I see them as extra biblical viper venom! But... I'll leave it at that.

GIve me the first line that bugs/bothers you from it? Other than that, a request rather than anything of consequence. If you think they are dorky, that's your opinion.

Lon... the Universalist strategy is bull hockey! If God... the KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR has His hand outstretched to ALL mankind... but "some" refuse to take it... as they drown... He "Chooses" to "Respect" that Autonomous gesture. He also knows hearts and knows when a heart grasps His hand while the body can't... as well... so there is that too!

The No or you're a Universalist gag is smoke and mirrors... to ignore mankinds part in the ballet of SALVATION. We "Accept". That's the part where a person has to accept Him in their humility of "need".

You're going to get hammered if you try the lame "Calling one a Universalist" tactic on me again. The Yes is that He reached out to ALL! He paid for all! If a banker calls me and says a person paid for my house for me and I snap back in pride that no one has that right but me... so give them their stinking money back... that's on me!

That's not a bad analogy either: One of us believes the Banker covers all, the other thinks He spent it ALL, regardless. Remember the parable of the talents? One guy buried his and was lambasted. If it helps, the Calvinist simply believes God will not do the same when He is against it in parable. Sometimes, it doesn't look like as huge of a disagreement. Anyone can come behind us and say: "What's the big deal? The Banker paid either way?" Both of us have an answer for why it is a big deal. I think that's important too. That all said, it was not an accusation, but me saying 'you are not a universalist.' I already know you aren't. Sometimes the Open Theist belief points that logical direction (I wish non Calvinists would say something similar, we get 'you believe....!" instead ).

Amen

I forgot the link (our internet went out because of the fire in E.WA/Canada and the heat).

Fair... but man gets in HIS way... far too much. I'm always liable to cite a discrediting disclaimer in what I write that relegates my work to opinion... and point right back to Jesus and scripture. If I ever do different... I've failed!



Amen!



Kosmos! And there are so many that say ALL it is rediculous. :doh: you win! You're a Calvinist with blinders on to the word "all" in scripture! For real? Long belabored sigh..... :shrug: but alas... we all have our "quirks".

There are scriptures that say or express all, I just wanted to address them one at a time, simply because John 3:16 didn't say it. God does love the world. "Whosoever" is a Calvinist as well as everybody else word. When I see 'whoever' it is 'definite.' As an Open Theist, when you see 'whoever' it is 'open' and even God doesn't know. Our perspective and converse understanding gives us a thought, different between us. To me? Being aware of it (our perspectives reaching into the text) is half the battle (or even 3/4 of it).

You got that God is our Knight and we are Repunzel?

That way works too.

You opened with a verse there that I think we will have to discuss like two Jews fighting over the implications and support of what that serpent means to our discussion. I love clanging verses... but... method and exposition of perspectives will be the next stop... in conjunction with the verses. That's the only way we'll at the very least... carry one another's understanding around, while maintaining what we feel drawn towards.

A Calvinist automatically assumes this ball is God's and that He's sovereign: We may not always know, but He starts ever game imho for a specific purpose. Even the Open Theist sees that, with God as a master at what He does. I do know His Word accomplishes what 'He' desires. For the Calvinist, in any discussion, it isn't so much what 'I thought' was the purpose of a scripture, but what He means and desires. I think you see that too: God is ALWAYS the third man in any conversation over His scriptures.

Hmmmmm... I see the need for a perspective thread on the impact of foreknowledge and the simple expression of how it is present in the minds of one another. To be specific... this is a can of worms... in and of itself.

Beyond doubt. Absolutely.

Oh man! I lived in WA for a bit. It is beautiful!

It is nice here, but WET! Not this summer though!

Why did you have to get so nasty and insinuate "that"?

LOL. Knight and Clete have both said I believe Open Theism on some issues. About the same reaction too, but I realize we who follow Him must have Him as our connection. How could any one of us not love the other, if they truly love Jesus? How could I not? So, I took it as a compliment after a bit of thought.

Oh man... that hurt! I disagree on the like a Calvinist comment! But... I can chuckle too. You're always good with the debate and you manage to bring the subtle jabs back in an enormously effective... yet classy way.

But... I understand your perspective and your genuine intent... all kidding aside. I genuinely disagree... but I also respect what you've said here and appreciate you expressing it.

In this case, it is about the fact that you and I agree, God gets His way. We both believe He is the third man, if not the only one that counts, in this conversation (both, I'm just trying to figure out how to say God is what counts in our conversation without being awkward in trying to say it, and feeling I'm not saying it w

:e4e:

Likewise and all of His deepest leading and guidance prayed... - EE

In Him -Lon

 

[Lon]

Then why do you suppose that so many people are so insanely, rabidly opposed to the idea?

Good question. I know there are few Calvinists, so it can't be just us if there are many. Are you meaning MAD, Acts 2, all? In Him -Lon