Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by patman View Post
    The future isn't completely open. God planned before creation that Jesus would die for our sins if we sinned. He is wise enough to know how things will turn out most of the time, too.

    The O.V. simply doesn't believe the future is totally settled...
    Hello Patman,

    The scripture inidicates that God determined that the heathen (Rome) would
    join with the rulers (of Israel) to bring about the crucifixion...could it have happened any other way without contradicting the prophecy of Psalms 2?

    I guess I still don't completely understand the OV.
    Originally posted by Interplanner
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Originally posted by Interplanner
    You're too literal to get it.
    Originally posted by Interplanner
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by patman View Post
      You are the one who is confused. I am half tempted to make you just re-read my last post.

      You were confused by this: " God added to the commands promises for those who obey/disobey them."

      You thought I was making up a new word apparently. I could say "I added to 3 1 for those who needed extra" and you should understand those people got 4. Granted there are better ways to say it, but why didn't you realize that is what I was doing?

      That kinda throws a lot of your points off if you didn't even know what I was saying before.

      I will stick with my points.

      Law and Promise are two different things, and neither one are conditional. One does not receive the Covenant promises by keeping the Law. And the Law is not obeyed in order to receive reward. It is demanded and required that the creature obey the Creator; we must obey God or we die.

      Law is kept as a matter of submission to the will of God. Promises are received, not by earned rewards, but strictly according to the grace of God.

      IOW's I believe the reason all things happen, has nothing to do with the actions of sinners, but all to do with the good pleasure of God.

      Admittedly, I may be taking this a bit afield of your intentions, but I do so enjoy my own posts!

      If you aren't going to take the time to read and understand what I am saying before you hit the reply button, you'll just have to ask someone else about the O.V. because apparently you don't really care enough to read what I have to say.
      It seems you are motivated to explain OVT, and I am motivated to explain contrasting Covenant Theology . . and will do so at any opportunity. Sorry if I abused your sensitivities this time. Maybe you should just shoot me.

      Nang
      "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

      " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
      Gordon H. Clark

      "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
      Charles Spurgeon

      Comment


      • #78
        Thank you for your response, Philetus.
        Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        In Luke, Christ was using an ancient instrument of rhetorical comparison,
        Does scripture use rhetorical comparisons in any other place?
        I would have to research more. I am certain it does occur elsewhere. Why do you ask?
        Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        God's decree finds all of mankind fallen. None have any claim on God's grace. Yet, instead of leaving all of mankind to their just punishment, God gratuitously confers undeserved happiness upon one portion of mankind (elect),—an act of pure mercy and grace to which no one can object,—while the other portion (reprobate) is simply passed by. No undeserved misery is visited upon the reprobate. No one has any right to object to this part of God's decree. If the decree dealt simply with innocent persons, it would be unjust to assign one portion to reprobation; but since the decree deals with men in a particular state, a state of guilt and sin, it is not unjust.
        None have any claim on God's grace? What about your so called 'elect'? Doesn't the "one portion of mankind (elect)” have a claim the rest could object to? That is such double talk that you can’t possibly call that PURE mercy and grace. You have to call that at best 50% mercy and Grace. No one objects to God’s decree that all mankind is under the curse of sin; nor would anyone in their right mind object to PURE mercy and Grace. What the Open View (and many others) object to is your Calvinistic (“Any strict Calvinist (e.g., myself)”) twisted interpretation of God’s universal offer of salvation to ‘WHOSOEVER WILL’.
        Actually, this is not doubletalk. By “none have any claim on God’s grace”, I mean no one in and of themselves. That does not imply that God does not bestow His good grace to some (e.g., the elect). You emphasis on “PURE mercy and grace” is redundant with God’s own pure attributes. Anything God does would be, by definition, pure. You are attempting to lift something out of the concept of God’s grace and make it distinct from what is already inherent in God’s nature.
        Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        No one has a birthright to be saved or offered salvation.
        Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Yeper! That’s correct! That is why we can call it Pure Grace and you can’t.
        See my response above. All actions by God are in fact pure actions by God, whether we want to label them something else or not.
        Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        14. Much of the larger portion of the human race has been elected to life.
        And again, you base your numbers on what exactly?
        While God’s decree of election and predestinating love, is discriminating and particular, it is, nevertheless, very extensive.

        "I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands; and they cried with a great voice, saying, Salvation unto our God who sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb," Revelation 7:9-10.

        I believe that God has elected untold millions of mankind to everlasting and eternal salvation and happiness. Exactly what proportion of mankind God has included in His purpose of mercy, we have not been informed. But, in light of the future days of prosperity which are promised to the Church, it may be inferred that much the greater part will eventually be found among the number of His elect.

        On two occasions in Revelation 19 we are carefully told that the sword by which the victory of the Word of God is won proceeds out of the mouth of the conqueror (verses 15 and 21). I do not think this is a literal war, but that the conquest is accomplished by the spoken word—in short, by the preaching of the Gospel. Thus we have in front of us a picture of the victory of the Gospel of Christ in the world. All the imagery of the dreaded battle and its hideous details in Rev. 19 is to give us an impression of the completeness of the victory. Christ's Gospel is to conquer the earth; He is to overcome all His enemies.

        We are living in a time that is relatively golden when compared with the first century of the Christianity, and this progress will continue until we shall see a practical fulfillment of the prayer, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." As we interpret the broader view of God's gracious dealings with the sinful world, we see that He has not distributed His electing grace with stingy hand, but that His purpose has been the restoration to Himself of the whole world.

        The promise given to Abraham was that his posterity should be a vast multitude,—"In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore," Genesis 22:17; "I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then may thy seed also be numbered," Genesis 13:16. And in the New Testament we find that God’s promise refers not only to the Jews as a separate people, but that those who are Christians are in the highest sense the true "sons of Abraham." "Know therefore, that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham"; and again, "If ye are Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise," Galatians 3:7, 29.

        Isaiah declared that the pleasure of God should prosper in the hands of the Messiah, that God should see of the travail of Christ’s soul and be satisfied.

        The idea that the saved shall greatly outnumber the lost is also borne out in the contrasts drawn in the Scriptures. Heaven is always pictured as the next world, as a great kingdom, a country, a city; while on the other hand hell is uniformly represented as a comparatively small place, a prison, a lake (of fire and brimstone), a pit (perhaps deep, but narrow), (Luke 20:35; 1 Timothy 6:17; Revelation 21:1; Matthew 5:3; Hebrews 11:16; 1 Peter 3:19; Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8-27). When angels and saints are mentioned in the Scriptures they are said to be hosts, myriads, an innumerable multitude; but no such language is ever used in regard to the reprobate, and by contrast the number of the lost appears to be relatively insignificant (Luke 2:13; Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 5:11). In the immense range of God's dominion, good is the rule, and evil is the exception. As Shedd writes, “Sin is a speck upon the azure of eternity; a spot upon the sun. Hell is only a corner of the universe."

        But, some will ask, what about, "Narrow is the gate, and straightened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it," and, "Many are called, but few chosen," Matthew 7:14; 22:14? Do these verses not teach that many more are lost than saved? I believe these verses are meant to beinterpreted in a temporal sense, as describing the conditions which Jesus and His disciples saw existing in Palestine in their day. The large majority of the people about Christ and His disciples were not walking in the ways of righteousness, and the words here are spoken from the standpoint of that era rather than from the standpoint of the distant day of Judgment. In the verses we have before us a portrait representative of life as they saw it, and which would, for that matter, describe the world as it has been even up to the present time. But, as the centuries pass, is it never to be that the proportion following the two paths of sin or righteousness never reversed?

        The verses in Matthew above are also designed to teach us that salvation is a path of difficulty and sacrifice, and that it is our duty to concern ourselves to the path with diligence and persistence. No one should assume his redemption is a matter of course. Those who enter into the kingdom of heaven will do so through many tribulations; hence the command, "Strive to enter in by the narrow door," Luke 13:24. The choice in life is represented as a choice between two roads, one broad, smooth, and easy to travel, but leading to destruction. The other road is narrow and difficult, and leads to everlasting life. As Warfield wrote, there is no more reason to suppose that this similitude teaches that the saved shall be fewer than the lost than there is to suppose that the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25) teaches that the lost and the saved shall be precisely equal in number. And there is far less reason to assume that this similitude teaches that the saved shall be few comparatively to the lost than there is to suppose that the parable of the Tares in the corn (Matthew 13:24) teaches that the lost shall be inconsiderable in number in comparison with the saved—for that, in fact, is an important part of the teaching of that parable.

        Having said all of this let me caution that there is also no more reason to suppose that these scripture references to the two paths teaches that the number of the saved shall be fewer than the number of the lost than there is to suppose that the parable of the lost sheep teaches that only one out of a hundred goes astray and that even the lost sheep shall eventually be brought back, which would indeed be absolute restorationism.

        In summary, when we contrast the rapid spread of Christianity with the rapid disintegration that is taking place in all of the other world religions, it appears clear that Christianity is the future world religion. In the light of these facts we face the future confident that the best is yet to be.
        Originally posted by Philetus View Post
        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
        17. The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.
        Right again! But again, your interpretation and application stinks! All are 'elected' to receive or reject God's offer of salvation by GRACE through Faith but not all will respond favorably. Those who do are the 'elect' to receive power/the right to become children of God.
        Universal curse/Partial solution? The Calvinistic view of God is of a weak, controlling despot that doesn’t know the first thing about love, redemption or relationship. The God that has all the power and freedom to love Jacob and Hate Esau and still goes to the cross to redeem ALL humanity is the God revealed in Christian scripture. Total solution.
        Sunday School 101
        Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
        For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
        Clearly, I believe in limited atonement. Negative rhetoric notwithstanding, to prevent this post from being even longer, let’s examine at the matter more carefully in a separate post.
        Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



        Do you confess?
        Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
        AMR's Randomata Blog
        Learn Reformed Doctrine
        I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
        Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
        Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
        The best TOL Social Group: here.
        If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
        Why?


        Comment


        • #79
          =Ask Mr. Religion
          Clearly, I believe in limited atonement.


          "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

          " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
          Gordon H. Clark

          "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
          Charles Spurgeon

          Comment


          • #80
            Limited atonement may fit TULIP, but it is not biblical. Even Calvin believed in general redemption. God's love is not limited nor arbitrary. Double predestination was 'horrific' to Calvin, yet he did not have the sense to reject it.
            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by godrulz View Post
              Limited atonement may fit TULIP, but it is not biblical.
              O.K. you have made an asserted declaration denying the plain teaching of the Word of God . . .so you must now substantiate and prove from Scripture that the atonement of Jesus Christ was not limited, but indeed, universal.

              For either the atonement of Jesus Christ was limited or it was universal.

              Waiting . . .

              Nang
              "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

              " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
              Gordon H. Clark

              "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
              Charles Spurgeon

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Nang View Post
                O.K. you have made an asserted declaration denying the plain teaching of the Word of God . . .so you must now substantiate and prove from Scripture that the atonement of Jesus Christ was not limited, but indeed, universal.

                For either the atonement of Jesus Christ was limited or it was universal.

                Waiting . . .

                Nang

                It begs the question to say TULIP is biblical. In fact, it is deductive, preconceived, and not biblical. The 4-point Calvinists would also quibble with you. In other threads, we have beat this dead horse. It is not the topic of this thread (bunny trail).

                The atonement is provision for all and intended for all. John 3:16 Jesus loved the sinful world (Johannine use of 'world'), not just the elect. He is not willing for any to perish (2 Peter 3:9).

                Part of the resolution is to distinguish the grounds (the reason for/by which) of salvation (grace, person and work of Christ) and the conditions of salvation (not without which; repentant faith/continuance in the faith).
                The objective provision (efficacious for all who believe; not all believe, so not all are saved) must be subjectively appropriated. Grace and the gift of eternal life are not earned or merited just because one responds to the convincing and convicting of the Spirit. God initiates and provides salvation, but He is not a divine rapist. Reciprocal love relationships involve two parties. Salvation is not caused or coerced (faith precedes regeneration; regeneration does not precede faith or there is no good reason why universalism would not be true since God's love is impartial and unlimited).

                In your view, the cross is limited in effectiveness and God's love is arbitrary (both unbiblical).
                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                  It begs the question to say TULIP is biblical. In fact, it is deductive, preconceived, and not biblical.
                  Who is talking TULIP, but you?


                  The 4-point Calvinists would also quibble with you.
                  There is no such thing as a "4-point Calvinist." These types are Amyraldians.


                  The atonement is provision for all and intended for all. John 3:16 Jesus loved the sinful world (Johannine use of 'world'), not just the elect. He is not willing for any to perish (2 Peter 3:9).
                  So say all Arminians.

                  Part of the resolution is to distinguish the grounds (the reason for/by which) of salvation (grace, person and work of Christ) and the conditions of salvation (not without which; repentant faith/continuance in the faith).
                  The only "ground" for salvation, is the loving grace and love of God for His Elect, chosen and created in Jesus Christ. DIVINE ELECTION is the sole ground presented in Scripture for the salvation of sinners.


                  The objective provision (efficacious for all who believe; not all believe, so not all are saved) must be subjectively appropriated.
                  Pray tell, what are you talking about? Scripture, please!!!

                  Grace and the gift of eternal life are not earned or merited just because one responds to the convincing and convicting of the Spirit.
                  Agreed. Faith is a gift, not a work.


                  God initiates and provides salvation,
                  Agreed.

                  but He is not a divine rapist.
                  I absolutely hate this argument. It is disgusting. There if nothing "forced" about the love of God for His people. And His people love Him because He first loved them (I John 4:19) which does not describe force or rape at all. This "rape" argument is purely demonic and anyone with an IQ over 90 should toss it. IMO.


                  Reciprocal love relationships involve two parties.
                  Nope. You are wrong and have been taught wrong.

                  Grace is not a two-sided love . . . it is a one-sided love of God bestowed upon His enemies who hate His Person. This reality is what makes the love of God for sinful man to be grace, and not just somehow "reciprocal" on God's part. God loved us while we were yet sinners.

                  Salvation is not caused
                  Oh yes, it is! If God had not chosen to save me despite my sins, I would surely burn in hell forever, for I would have never choosed to love Him. I had no choice to do so, for my will was held in bondage to serving sin, death, and the devil. I hated God and opposed God and thoroughly rejected Him . . .until He caused me to love Him . . .by His grace and powerful Holy Spirit.



                  (faith precedes regeneration; regeneration does not precede faith
                  Not so. A sinner dead in transgressions must first be spiritually resurrected to new life (regenerated) before he can see (believe, comprehend) the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)

                  Otherwise, one teaches that God resurrects the spiritually dead, according to their work of faith (belief and repentance), prior to even having the Holy Spirit . . .supposedly achieved in the putrid flesh somehow. Impossible!


                  In your view, the cross is limited in effectiveness and God's love is arbitrary (both unbiblical).
                  In my view, the cross work of Jesus Christ was 100% efficacious, for His blood justified and saves all the Father gave Him to save. Jesus promised the Father He would save all of them, and lose none. (John 17:12, 10:28)

                  God's love is elective, not arbitrary.

                  But I know you have not been properly taught the doctrines of grace via Covenant election, so it is not surpising you cannot comprehend or appreciate what Godly election entails.

                  The Calvinist believes that the limited atonement of Jesus Christ saved 100% of those elect by God that Christ represented (as federal head) in His death.

                  The Arminian (and all various forms of semi-pelagian views, including OVT'ers) believe that Jesus Christ atoned for all but only succeeded in saving some . . .and they have no percentage to offer, of what that portion of mankind might be covered by the blood sacrifice of Christ.

                  So they teach a atonement that saves 100% . . . but the question is still asked . . .how much of mankind will suffer in hell, despite the (supposed 100% effacious) death and resurrection of Christ?

                  33% 66% 001%

                  They do not know. They cannot tell us. All they can admit, is that a percentage of the sinful human race will still be judged and thrown into the lake of fire, for lack of being found named in the Lamb's Book of Life.


                  Nang
                  "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                  " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                  Gordon H. Clark

                  "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                  Charles Spurgeon

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    What really gets me about OV (one of many things actually) is the seemingly contradictory belief that God knows some things about the future but not all. And before all of you OV Apologists start jumping all over me with the "strawman" accusations, I want to state that in the years I've been on TOL, I've yet to really a witness an adequate and logical explanation of this.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by SOTK View Post
                      What really gets me about OV (one of many things actually) is the seemingly contradictory belief that God knows some things about the future but not all. And before all of you OV Apologists start jumping all over me with the "strawman" accusations, I want to state that in the years I've been on TOL, I've yet to really a witness an adequate and logical explanation of this.
                      Good observation on your part. It is not a "strawman" accusation, for here is one example of exactly such contradiction, that was posted just today:

                      "The future isn't completely open. God planned before creation that Jesus would die for our sins if we sinned. He is wise enough to know how things will turn out most of the time, too." Patman

                      Go figure . . .
                      "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                      " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                      Gordon H. Clark

                      "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                      Charles Spurgeon

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by SaulToPaul View Post
                        Hello Patman,

                        The scripture inidicates that God determined that the heathen (Rome) would
                        join with the rulers (of Israel) to bring about the crucifixion...could it have happened any other way without contradicting the prophecy of Psalms 2?

                        I guess I still don't completely understand the OV.
                        Yes, it could have went differently, but contradicting the prophecy sometimes happens...

                        This is going to be a longer post. Please read it very carefully and think about it for a few days. You should understand that prophecy is there to inspire righteousness, it is not meant to be be 100% accurate. Accuracy was never God's intent for prophecy.

                        Are you familiar with the book of Daniel? There a lot of prophecies that you can track dead on, including many that involve the Messiah. But some of those didn't come to pass.

                        Daniel 9
                        25 “ Know therefore and understand,
                        That from the going forth of the command
                        To restore and build Jerusalem
                        Until Messiah the Prince,
                        There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;


                        The command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was made by Cyrus in 457 BC.

                        The "week" represents 7 years.

                        7 x 7 = 49. 7 x 62 = 434. 434 + 49 = 483. This leads us to conclude that 483 years would pass from the command until the Messiah. As mentioned that took place in 457 BC. To find out when the prophecy is to be fullfilled, we have to "count backwards" (because years in BC go down, not up), so for lack of a better way 457 BC + 483 years is 457 - 483 and that is -26 orrr 26 AD.

                        My math is ball park, it does not take into account the Jewish calendar, leap years, and other considerations, but you can see how a quick figuring of the years gets us so close to the year Jesus was crucified (32 AD). For a compelling calculation of how this prophecy was fulfilled to the day, click here and look up the 70 weeks question.

                        I said all that to say this. The second part of the prophecy was not fulfilled. If you read further in Daniel 9, there is another week that something very interesting happens:

                        Daniel 9
                        26 “ And after the sixty-two weeks
                        Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
                        And the people of the prince who is to come
                        Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
                        The end of it shall be with a flood,
                        And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
                        27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

                        So after Messiah is cut off, a prince was supposed to come, and he was going to establish a covenant for 1 week, or 7 years. After that, the end was to come.

                        I must now back track a little. I started in the middle of the prophecy. It mentioned 7 weeks and 62 weeks. That makes 69 weeks. This final week makes 70 weeks.

                        Daniel 9
                        24 “ Seventy weeks[a] are determined
                        For your people and for your holy city,
                        To finish the transgression,
                        To make an end of[] sins,
                        To make reconciliation for iniquity,
                        To bring in everlasting righteousness,
                        To seal up vision and prophecy,
                        And to anoint the Most Holy.

                        You can see that the intent was that all this happen in order. No gaps, no leaps. 7 years after Jesus was "cut off" this "prince" was supposed to make war and then the end would come, and not only that, no more transgression or sin, everlasting righteousness, sealing up of prophecy.

                        What really happened? Well, we still sin, more prophecy was added to the Bible in the book of revelation and we are still here 2000 years later.

                        Not convienced that this was supposed to happen right after Jesus was crucified? Jesus tells his disciples the end was coming "soon," well 2000+ years is not soon. Jesus meant soon as in sooon. As in their generation.

                        Mark 9:1
                        And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.

                        He wasn't talking about the transfiguration. He was talking about the full power of the kingdom of God present on earth in power.

                        Matthew 16:28
                        Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

                        He told his disciples to watch for the abomination of desolation spoken of in the very same chapter of daniel, in the very same prophecy I am telling you about. Remember, the abomination is to take place in that final week, and here Jesus is telling his disciples they would see it happen:

                        Mark 13
                        14 “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

                        Jesus is telling his closest disciples what they are going to experience. They, the 12, will be persecuted, they, the 12, will see the abomination.

                        Then later in the chapter, Jesus says it ever so clearly:

                        Mark 13
                        30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

                        But it didn't happen. That last week never came to be. Why? Because the way things were going, God had to change the plan.

                        Mark 13
                        10 And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.

                        Israel was supposed to preach the gospel to the entire world, and be persecuted by it. But as we can see from the present state of Israel, they never did embrace the gospel, they certainly didn't preach it.

                        So God went straight to the Gentiles through Paul as another way to get them to turn back to them.

                        Romans 11:11 I say then, have they[Israel] stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

                        In going to the Gentiles, and having to wait on Israel to agree to be a part of his kingdom, God has choose to wait. He changed the outcome of a carefully planned out prophecy for their sake, to make them righteous before he returns.

                        I hope you can see that God doesn't use prophecy as an "See, I told you so," but rather, "This is my plan if you do this or that," instead. The future is not settled, this allows God to be dynamic, but still concise with his plan to save the world through prophecy.
                        - Changing wineskins, at last.

                        - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Nang View Post
                          I will stick with my points.

                          ......

                          It seems you are motivated to explain OVT, and I am motivated to explain contrasting Covenant Theology . . and will do so at any opportunity. Sorry if I abused your sensitivities this time. Maybe you should just shoot me.

                          Nang


                          You were the one who butted in, Nang... If you don't care what I have to say, why should you expect me to read your post? It only seems fair.

                          Don't worry, tho, maybe someone else will read it.

                          I feel silly to have to tell you that my sensitivities are just fine... I could tell you were real concerned, but don't worry, there is no need to shoot you

                          My reply to you was just my impression of your attitude here. You are the one reading emotions into it

                          - Changing wineskins, at last.

                          - iPhone's Coolest Bible/, Touch Bible.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            In an earlier dialog between Philetus and myself…
                            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            17. The doctrine of election is repeatedly taught and emphasized throughout the Scriptures.
                            Originally posted by Philetus View Post
                            Right again! But again, your interpretation and application stinks! All are 'elected' to receive or reject God's offer of salvation by GRACE through Faith but not all will respond favorably. Those who do are the 'elect' to receive power/the right to become children of God.
                            Originally posted by Philetus View Post
                            Universal curse/Partial solution? The Calvinistic view of God is of a weak, controlling despot that doesn’t know the first thing about love, redemption or relationship. The God that has all the power and freedom to love Jacob and Hate Esau and still goes to the cross to redeem ALL humanity is the God revealed in Christian scripture. Total solution.
                            Sunday School 101
                            Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
                            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            Clearly, I believe in limited redemption. Negative rhetoric notwithstanding, to keep this long response from getting longer, let’s examine at the matter more carefully in a separate post.

                            The question under the subject of "Limited Atonement" is, Was Christ’s sacrifice an offering of Himself as sacrifice for the whole human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or did His death have special applicability to the elect? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ intended to make salvation for all mankind possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of those who had been given to Christ by the Father?

                            Arminians (and other Arminian derivatives) hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God, Christ died for the elect only, and that Christ’s death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought more clearly amplified if we used the phrase Limited Redemption rather than Limited Atonement. Calvinists and Arminians believe the Atonement is strictly an infinite transaction. But for Calvinists, the limitation emerges, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is, in redemption.

                            No limits can be set on the value or power of the atonement which Christ made, since it depends upon and is measured by the one making it—Christ—and the value of His suffering was infinite. Therefore, the atonement was infinitely meritorious and might have saved every member of the human race had that been God's plan. The atonement was limited only in the sense that it was intended for, and is applied to, particular persons; namely for those who are actually saved.

                            Universal atonement destroys its inherent value. When applied to everyone, while we know some will be lost, universal atonement makes salvation objectively possible for all but it does not actually save anybody. To Arminians’ the theory of atonement makes it possible for persons to cooperate with God’s divine grace and therefore save themselves—if they will.

                            If atonement makes salvation possible, it applies to all persons. If atonement effectively secures salvation, it has reference only the elect. The choice is an atonement of high value or an atonement of wide extension. The Arminian limits the power of the atonement, saying that the atonement itself does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits the atonement quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.

                            Arminian related atonement:
                            If the benefits of the atonement are universal and unlimited, the atonement must have been
                            1. a sacrifice to blot out the curse upon mankind through the fall in Adam;
                            2. a mere substitute for the execution of the law which God in His sovereignty saw fit to accept in lieu of what the sinner was bound to render;
                            3. not a perfect satisfaction which fulfilled the demands of justice;
                            4. God no longer demands perfect obedience as He did of Adam;

                            5. God now offers salvation on lower terms in that
                            5a. God removes legal obstacles and accepts the faith and evangelical obedience as a person with a graciously restored ability could render, if he chose, with the Holy Spirit of course aiding in a general way; and
                            5b. grace would be extended in that God offers an easier way of salvation—“God accepts fifty cents on the dollar”, since the crippled sinner can pay no more.
                            If the Arminian doctrine were true it would mean that millions of those for whom Christ died are finally lost, because they refused to believe, and that salvation is thus never applied to many of those for whom it was earned by Christ. Spurgeon said: "If Christ has died for you, you can never be lost. God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sins He will not punish you. ('Payment God's justice cannot twice demand; first, at the bleeding Savior's hand, and then again at mine.') How can God be just if he punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards?" In short, the ransom for many, but not all (Matthew 20:28), is misunderstood and God is unjust to demand an extreme penalty from the substitute (Christ) and then from the persons themselves.

                            Calvinistic Atonement:
                            If the benefits of the atonement are not universal and unlimited, the atonement must have been
                            1. the law of perfect obedience originally given to Adam was permanent;
                            2. that God has never done anything which would give the impression that the law was too rigid in its requirements, or too severe in its penalty, or that it stood in need either of abrogation or of derogation;
                            3. divine justice demands that the sinner shall be punished, either in himself or in his substitute;
                            4. Christ acted in a strictly substitutionary way for His people, made a full satisfaction for their sins, thereby blotting out the curse from Adam and all persons temporal sins;
                            5. by Christ’s sinless life He perfectly kept for them the law which Adam had broken, thus earning for His people the reward of eternal life;
                            6. the requirement for salvation now as always has been is perfect obedience;
                            7. that the merits of Christ are imputed to His people as the only basis of their salvation;
                            8. that Christ’s people enter heaven clothed only with the cloak of His perfect righteousness and utterly destitute of any merit properly their own;

                            9. grace, pure grace, is extended not in lowering the requirements for salvation but in the substitution of Christ for His people;
                            9a. Christ took their place before the law and did for them what they could not do for themselves;

                            10. this principle of atonement is such that in every way so designed to impress upon mankind the absolute perfection and unchangeable obligation of the law which was originally given to Adam;
                            10a. it is not relaxed or set aside, but is appropriately honored to show its excellence; and
                            11. in behalf of those who are saved, for whom Christ acted, and in behalf of those who are subjected to everlasting punishment, the law in its majesty is enforced and executed.
                            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                            Do you confess?
                            Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                            AMR's Randomata Blog
                            Learn Reformed Doctrine
                            I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                            Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                            Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                            The best TOL Social Group: here.
                            If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                            Why?


                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by SOTK View Post
                              What really gets me about OV (one of many things actually) is the seemingly contradictory belief that God knows some things about the future but not all. And before all of you OV Apologists start jumping all over me with the "strawman" accusations, I want to state that in the years I've been on TOL, I've yet to really a witness an adequate and logical explanation of this.
                              The two motif theme is defensible from Scripture. It is not contradictory at all. The things that God predestines and brings about by His ability are knowable (Is. 46 and Is. 48). The mistake is to extrapolate these specific things to include all things. God does not predestine every moral and mundane choice in the universe at the expense of genuine freedom. He simply choses to not settle all things, thus he knows them as possible vs actual (contingencies have an element of uncertainty, by definition).

                              So, God can know in Genesis 3 that He will incarnate as the Lamb of God for the sins of the world in a plan of redemption. This is one motif brought about by His ability, not so-called foreknowledge.

                              On the other hand, the 2012 Superbowl is not brought to pass by God's ability, so it is not foreknown exhaustively from trillions of years ago. This is the other motif.

                              Scriptural support is found for both motifs (God changes His mind, etc.). The closed view folks take one motif literally and proof text it, but are forced to make the other motif figurative to rationalize it away to preserve a preconceived theology. Dr. Gregory Boyd develops this in more detail.
                              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Nang View Post


                                The only "ground" for salvation, is the loving grace and love of God for His Elect, chosen and created in Jesus Christ. DIVINE ELECTION is the sole ground presented in Scripture for the salvation of sinners.


                                Agreed. Faith is a gift, not a work.


                                .until He caused me to love Him . . .by His grace and powerful Holy Spirit.

                                Election is corporate (Israel; Church), not individual.

                                I did not say faith is a gift. Grammatically, salvation is the gift of God, not faith, in Eph. 2:8-10. Faith is a response of mind and will to God and truth. If faith is a gift, there is no good reason why a loving God would not give it to all men.

                                Love is not caused or coerced. Relational theism is biblical. Hyper-sovereignty/determinism is a distortion. Grace is also not irresistible or coerced. Grace can be rejected, as can love. Calvinism does limit the love of God and the efficacy of the atonement because God saves some, but damns many others that He could save if He wanted to. God wants to, but we are not willing (as Scripture says).
                                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X