Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists
- Thread starter BrianJOrr
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
I missed this request. What is it about this verse you want answered?
musterion
Well-known member
By the way, Brian. As requested, I just read your take on Romans 9. It is fundamentally flawed because you began with the assumption that it's all about individual salvation/reprobation, and interpreted it accordingly. So did Piper, in that quote of him.
Now before you accuse me of doing the same thing from the opposite direction, hear me out.
As stated yesterday, was Paul's context the salvation of Pharaoh via the Gospel? Nope. Was Jacob's or Esau's? Nope. These representatives of those nations, as used in the overall plans of God, was Paul's point because (as I think you agreed in your own writing) that was bound to be the very objection an outraged Jew would have raised:
That's my condensed paraphrase of the rhetorical exchange this section of Romans. So now, please consider the following VERY carefully, Brian:
Would the Jews who'd raise the objections Paul anticipated have been objecting to God, in eternity past, supposedly electing and reprobating individuals to soul salvation from sin, or to damnation? Would THAT have been a devout, law-minded Jew's problem? No. As far as I'm aware, the Jews didn't really HAVE such a concept as that.
So for you to be correct that Paul championed Calvinism in Romans 9, those Jews needed to be objecting to the very things people like me object to. But they weren't. They were operating under a whole other theological, soteriological and eschatological paradigm -- God's nation of priests -- that from Moses onward had centered on national Israel.
Yet the horrid superimposition Calvinists force into the minds of those Jews, and into the mind of Paul, in order to force it upon the text, is that they were all thinking in the Pauline paradigm we think in today...particularly, your Calvinistic paradigm.
Are you prepared to go that far?
Because you already have.
That's why I said yesterday that claiming those Jews' objections were identical to mine (or mine to theirs), and that Paul was the proto-Calvinist is the worst kind of blasphemous eisegesis. You are promoting and defending gravely serious error that you'd best repent of.
Now before you accuse me of doing the same thing from the opposite direction, hear me out.
As stated yesterday, was Paul's context the salvation of Pharaoh via the Gospel? Nope. Was Jacob's or Esau's? Nope. These representatives of those nations, as used in the overall plans of God, was Paul's point because (as I think you agreed in your own writing) that was bound to be the very objection an outraged Jew would have raised:
| "Where do you get off suggesting God is mad at us?" an outraged Jew asks Paul. "We have the fathers, the covenants, the promises, the prophets --" "All true," Paul concedes. "But you're faithless, and such faithlessness has caused God to do such things before. Look at how He had Jacob and Esau play out. Look at what He did with Pharaoh's Egypt. And need I remind you that He's put Israel in time out more than once? I tell you now, brothers, that He will do it again because of your stubborn, ignorant unbelief. And if He does, you will have no grounds to complain OR to blame Him because you were warned," Paul replies. |
That's my condensed paraphrase of the rhetorical exchange this section of Romans. So now, please consider the following VERY carefully, Brian:
Would the Jews who'd raise the objections Paul anticipated have been objecting to God, in eternity past, supposedly electing and reprobating individuals to soul salvation from sin, or to damnation? Would THAT have been a devout, law-minded Jew's problem? No. As far as I'm aware, the Jews didn't really HAVE such a concept as that.
So for you to be correct that Paul championed Calvinism in Romans 9, those Jews needed to be objecting to the very things people like me object to. But they weren't. They were operating under a whole other theological, soteriological and eschatological paradigm -- God's nation of priests -- that from Moses onward had centered on national Israel.
Yet the horrid superimposition Calvinists force into the minds of those Jews, and into the mind of Paul, in order to force it upon the text, is that they were all thinking in the Pauline paradigm we think in today...particularly, your Calvinistic paradigm.
Are you prepared to go that far?
Because you already have.
That's why I said yesterday that claiming those Jews' objections were identical to mine (or mine to theirs), and that Paul was the proto-Calvinist is the worst kind of blasphemous eisegesis. You are promoting and defending gravely serious error that you'd best repent of.
That's a pretty big assumption.
Mayan civilization.
Word based mystic
New member
mayan offspring still exist.
watered down genetics but still very much exist.
judgement came from europe for their continued child sacrifice.
their structured governmental society was destroyed.
rev 14:16 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people;
even heavenly angels/messengers preach the gospel to reach all tribes, tongues and nations.
your better than that.
those one liner speculative assumptions to support your doctrine doesn't do you justice.
Can you show that they never heard?
Cross Reference
New member
How so? Do you believe they have all been reached by the missionaries?
Word based mystic
New member
Because if you deny the Trinity you are the spirit of the antichrist.
Log that one down for your learning new lessons checklist bro.
Cross Reference
New member
I wouldn't seem like a fool if you wouldn't be stupid.
I asked for you to explain the All of them you assume were in darkness. You can't do that but to only assume it because of traditional religious belief systems re Jesus Christ.
Word based mystic
New member
that had nothing to do with the topic of the mayans.
Hunting for labels to label people because your argument or logic is weak is also below your norm for discourse.
redirecting your argument to another subject is below your past norm of discourse.
are you sure your account is not hacked?
You've been accused of denying the Trinity via pm
I'm checking that because if that were true we are done
Word based mystic
New member
who is pm
and listening to unsubstantiated accusations and keeping that in your thoughts to one who names the Lord Jesus as savior and God is also beneath you. at least from looking at your past posts.
are you sure your not hacked.
who is pm?
and what has He/she to do with the mayans.
If someone pm d you and said I denied the Trinity then I would expect you to ask me about it no matter what the op was. Pm - private message
Nang
TOL Subscriber
How good are you at proving negatives?
Word based mystic
New member
no one private messaged me saying that you denied the trinity.
why would someone do that?
and i obviously wouldn't private message you accusing you of not believing the trinity. you never said anything like that in any of your comments. So.
I did private message you a while back on requesting your perspective on an issue.
after you gave me a rep about a similar subject.
that is all i remember about anything related to a pm.
not sure what this is all about but feel free to Private message me for anything more.