Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

TIPlatypus

New member
Here is an example of what I would call spiritual regeneration.

I am a slave to sin. I enjoy raging and violence and lying and stealing and all kinds of immorality. No matter how hard I try coming away from this, I am doomed to fail. I will end up hating myself because I enjoy things which I know are wrong and cause suffering. Therefore, since I am fortunate to know about Jesus (and not everyone is that lucky), I choose to ask him to regenerate my spirit that I may come away from sin and start to follow God's law. Does this make sense? Of course it does. Do you disagree with this? We shall see. This is what salvation means for me.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Here is an example of what I would call spiritual regeneration.

I am a slave to sin. I enjoy raging and violence and lying and stealing and all kinds of immorality. No matter how hard I try coming away from this, I am doomed to fail. I will end up hating myself because I enjoy things which I know are wrong and cause suffering. Therefore, since I am fortunate to know about Jesus (and not everyone is that lucky), I choose to ask him to regenerate my spirit that I may come away from sin and start to follow God's law. Does this make sense? Of course it does. Do you disagree with this? We shall see. This is what salvation means for me.

There is no life in an unregenerated man, with which to ask to follow God and His Law. Fallen man is spiritually DEAD.

Romans 3:10-18

Regeneration (resurrection) to new spiritual life comes from outside the sinner, through the working of God the Holy Spirit, who raises sinners to new spiritual life . . . giving them new hearts, minds, and wills to serve God and His Word; granting them repentance and faith to believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Jeremiah 32:39)
 

BrianJOrr

New member
Your assumption is faulty. The Scripture does not say that man can if his will is convinced to follow God's law; rather, man apart from the Spirit cannot submit. Carnal man lives by the flesh.

But the carnal mind can be transformed.

Yes, it is transformed by the Holy Spirit. God’s new covenant entailed him removing the heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh. You don’t ask for a new heart; God does it by his own will, through the Spirit. “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” Ezekiel 36:26


"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jeremiah 13:23).

What version are you quoting? That phrasing is grammatically atrocious.

It’s from the ESV. However, your issue with the grammar doesn’t dismiss the text. You just pulled out a red hearing. How about explaining what the text means, if you think my use of it is wrong.

How is this:

New International Version
Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

New Living Translation
Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.

New American Standard Bible
Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.

King James Bible
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.


"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8).

You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

Your dismissal of my text from Jeremiah tells me you don’t know what this means.

One is only persuaded to choose when God has given him a new heart, spiritual regeneration of his heart of stone, to obey and submit to his law. Only then can he see clearly which path leads to righteousness (the kingdom) and which path leads to damnation.

Do you have Scripture that states that?

Uh, I just explained it below; the entire section you pretty much dismissed. I will go ahead and give a few more texts.

Titus 3:4-6, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

God already said in Ezekiel that he will gives us a new heart and a new spirit (in the OT the heart means the entire being of a person; his mind, emotions, will, etc.)

Then below, (the portion you dismissed, which explains the will of the Spirit to regenerate whom he pleases) Jesus explains this to Nicodemus:


Jesus explains how one can see the kingdom:

"Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:3-8).

Where in this passage do you see one who is born of the flesh having his carnal mind persuaded to see the kingdom, so he can choose to enter it? You don't. He cannot see it. That's the point! That's why Nicodemus was baffled; he was theteacher of Israel and you would think of all people he would have been able to see it.

John demonstrates this point further, speaking about those who did receive Christ, “[Jesus] gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

One has to be born again, which is up to the will of the Spirit, not man.

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

However, its important that you understand that it is not the Spirit forcing man to choose (I see that is a misconception among OTs). Man has already made his choice (Romans 1), so God gave him over to the consequence of their folly. But when the Spirit comes and penetrates man's heart, through the preaching of the gospel, it gives him a new heart of flesh, which freely sees, desires, and chooses Christ, turning from sin, and freely submitting to God's law.

No forcing or coercion of man's will in any way; rather, God extends his grace by doing a supernatural work in the dead heart, which only desires to serve idols, to serve the living God.

That is amazing grace.

Forget trying to debate; you're going to present nothing but circular logic.

How about you explain why God, according to you, chooses not to regenerate some people.

You are just smoke-screening here. Instead of changing the subject, how about you just deal with the texts I have used to demonstrate my point, and show me a counter explanation using the same texts.

Your assertions are futile with out a defense for them.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Here is an example of what I would call spiritual regeneration.

I am a slave to sin. I enjoy raging and violence and lying and stealing and all kinds of immorality. No matter how hard I try coming away from this, I am doomed to fail. I will end up hating myself because I enjoy things which I know are wrong and cause suffering. Therefore, since I am fortunate to know about Jesus (and not everyone is that lucky), I choose to ask him to regenerate my spirit that I may come away from sin and start to follow God's law. Does this make sense? Of course it does. Do you disagree with this? We shall see. This is what salvation means for me.
And now you are no longer a slave to sin.

Yes, it is transformed by the Holy Spirit. God’s new covenant entailed him removing the heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh. You don’t ask for a new heart; God does it by his own will, through the Spirit. “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” Ezekiel 36:26
And?

It’s from the ESV. However, your issue with the grammar doesn’t dismiss the text. You just pulled out a red hearing. How about explaining what the text means, if you think my use of it is wrong.
:doh:

First off it's "herring."

Secondly I said nothing of your usage.

How is this:

New International Version
Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

New Living Translation
Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil.

New American Standard Bible
Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.

King James Bible
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.
I prefer the NKJV, which I already read. The other day when I responded to you.

My issue was that the phrasing in your post made no grammatical sense.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8).
I know this.

I also know: "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." [Romans 8:9]

Your dismissal of my text from Jeremiah tells me you don’t know what this means.
I didn't dismiss anything. You need to pay attention.

Uh, I just explained it below; the entire section you pretty much dismissed. I will go ahead and give a few more texts.
All you did was beg the question.

Titus 3:4-6, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

God already said in Ezekiel that he will gives us a new heart and a new spirit (in the OT the heart means the entire being of a person; his mind, emotions, will, etc.)
None of this states what you claim it does. You are assuming the conclusion.

Then below, (the portion you dismissed, which explains the will of the Spirit to regenerate whom he pleases) Jesus explains this to Nicodemus:

John demonstrates this point further, speaking about those who did receive Christ, “[Jesus] gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

One has to be born again, which is up to the will of the Spirit, not man.
As always; circular logic.

You are just smoke-screening here. Instead of changing the subject, how about you just deal with the texts I have used to demonstrate my point, and show me a counter explanation using the same texts.

Your assertions are futile with out a defense for them.
I don't need to counter your arguments because they are arguments from silence. You can't even defend them with the text you use; because the text does not make the statements you claim they do.
 

BrianJOrr

New member
These are your answers? So, where in here is there a refutation? A refutation is to prove wrong by making an argument against what I have presented and substantiating it with evidence. You have not addressed the text with an alternate explanation that demonstrates my position to be inconsistent and in error.

And now you are no longer a slave to sin.


And?


:doh:

First off it's "herring."

Secondly I said nothing of your usage.


I prefer the NKJV, which I already read. The other day when I responded to you.

My issue was that the phrasing in your post made no grammatical sense.


I know this.

I also know: "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." [Romans 8:9]

Yes, I know this as well. So how does one get the Spirit?


I didn't dismiss anything. You need to pay attention.


All you did was beg the question.


None of this states what you claim it does. You are assuming the conclusion.


As always; circular logic.


I don't need to counter your arguments because they are arguments from silence. You can't even defend them with the text you use; because the text does not make the statements you claim they do.

Furthermore, I see that you completely glossed over this (see below) in your response (well, you just made a remark about the grammar of Jeremiah 13:23, but nonetheless no refutation was provided to the position I presented with the Scriptures):

Your assumption is faulty. The Scripture does not say that man can if his will is convinced to follow God's law; rather, man apart from the Spirit cannot submit. Carnal man lives by the flesh.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil" (Jeremiah 13:23).


"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8).

One is only persuaded to choose when God has given him a new heart, spiritual regeneration of his heart of stone, to obey and submit to his law. Only then can he see clearly which path leads to righteousness (the kingdom) and which path leads to damnation.

Jesus explains how one can see the kingdom:

"Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:3-8).

Where in this passage do you see one who is born of the flesh having his carnal mind persuaded to see the kingdom, so he can choose to enter it? You don't. He cannot see it. That's the point! That's why Nicodemus was baffled; he was theteacher of Israel and you would think of all people he would have been able to see it.

He had to be born again, which is up to the will of the Spirit, not man.
"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

However, its important that you understand that it is not the Spirit forcing man to choose (I see that is a misconception among OTs). Man has already made his choice (Romans 1), so God gave him over to the consequence of their folly. But when the Spirit comes and penetrates man's heart, through the preaching of the gospel, it gives him a new heart of flesh, which freely sees, desires, and chooses Christ, turning from sin, and freely submitting to God's law.

No forcing or coercion of man's will in any way; rather, God extends his grace by doing a supernatural work in the dead heart, which only desires to serve idols, to serve the living God.

That is amazing grace.

Show me where I am making an argument from silence? Where have I assumed the conclusion in my argument?

Might I add this to support my argument:

Romans 3:10-11, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Paul says "no one seeks for God . . . no one does good." So, how then does someone get God the Spirit to dwell inside of him, when he does seek him?

Jesus says that Spirit blows where it wants to (John 3:3-8). It makes sense because we, with our hearts of stone, don't seek the Spirit. Paul further makes it clear that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

It seems clear that the Spirit has to change one's heart first, who Jesus says makes one born again by his own will (John 3:5-8), so that one can proclaim Jesus as Lord.

That is how one goes from . . .

Romans 8:6-8: "For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. "

to . . .

Romans 8:9: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you."

So, the "you" Paul is speaking of are the Christians at the church in Rome who were in the flesh, but they now have the Spirit dwelling inside of them.

Paul gives more detail to the Ephesians, speaking of their lives prior to God's grace:

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:1-3).

They were 'following the course of the world' and 'the prince of power of the air,' and, here is the important part showing our total life of depravity, 'among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

That is how we once walked. No where do we see Paul say that man is seeking God or even desires to do so. He makes it clear, our nature was that of wrath. So, I refer to the Jeremiah 13:23 passage again, with a slight revision: "Can you, who are by nature a child of wrath, a doer of evil, change your own nature to do good?"

No, you cannot. And that is the point of Jeremiah's passage; an Ethiopian cannot change his skin color, and a leopard cannot change his spots.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
These are your answers? So, where in here is there a refutation? A refutation is to prove wrong by making an argument against what I have presented and substantiating it with evidence. You have not addressed the text with an alternate explanation that demonstrates my position to be inconsistent and in error.

Yes, I know this as well. So how does one get the Spirit?

Furthermore, I see that you completely glossed over this (see below) in your response (well, you just made a remark about the grammar of Jeremiah 13:23, but nonetheless no refutation was provided to the position I presented with the Scriptures):

Show me where I am making an argument from silence? Where have I assumed the conclusion in my argument?

Might I add this to support my argument:

Romans 3:10-11, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Paul says "no one seeks for God . . . no one does good." So, how then does someone get God the Spirit to dwell inside of him, when he does seek him?

Jesus says that Spirit blows where it wants to (John 3:3-8). It makes sense because we, with our hearts of stone, don't seek the Spirit. Paul further makes it clear that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

It seems clear that the Spirit has to change one's heart first, who Jesus says makes one born again by his own will (John 3:5-8), so that one can proclaim Jesus as Lord.

That is how one goes from . . .

Romans 8:6-8: "For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. "

to . . .

Romans 8:9: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you."

So, the "you" Paul is speaking of are the Christians at the church in Rome who were in the flesh, but they now have the Spirit dwelling inside of them.

Paul gives more detail to the Ephesians, speaking of their lives prior to God's grace:

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph. 2:1-3).

They were 'following the course of the world' and 'the prince of power of the air,' and, here is the important part showing our total life of depravity, 'among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

That is how we once walked. No where do we see Paul say that man is seeking God or even desires to do so. He makes it clear, our nature was that of wrath. So, I refer to the Jeremiah 13:23 passage again, with a slight revision: "Can you, who are by nature a child of wrath, a doer of evil, change your own nature to do good?"

No, you cannot. And that is the point of Jeremiah's passage; an Ethiopian cannot change his skin color, and a leopard cannot change his spots.
None of your Scriptures state what you claim. That is an argument from silence. You are assuming a conclusion based on absent evidence.
 

musterion

Well-known member
No where do we see Paul say that man is seeking God or even desires to do so.
So did you ever get around to answering your dilemma of how God can damn those who refuse Christ on the specific grounds of refusing Him? I mean, if His irresistible, effectual calling is the only reason anyone can come to Him, then not coming to Him is evidence one was not called, which in turn is evidence God doesn't want them saved. Now I'll be the first to admit that that's logically consistent, as far as it goes. But the problem remains: how does God remain just for damning them -- not for sin generally -- but for fulfilling His desire that they reject Christ?

Illustration: If I secretly manipulate you into making a choice, then publicly denounce you specifically for making that "choice" (in quotes because I alone know that you had no alternative), I'd be a despicable lying hypocrite and should be condemned for what I did.

How is your portrayal of God's secret pre-creation counsels any different?
 

BrianJOrr

New member
So did you ever get around to answering your dilemma of how God can damn those who refuse Christ on the specific grounds of refusing Him? I mean, if His irresistible, effectual calling is the only reason anyone can come to Him, then not coming to Him is evidence one was not called, which in turn is evidence God doesn't want them saved. Now I'll be the first to admit that that's logically consistent, as far as it goes. But the problem remains: how does God remain just for damning them -- not for sin generally -- but for fulfilling His desire that they reject Christ?

Illustration: If I secretly manipulate you into making a choice, then publicly denounce you specifically for making that "choice" (in quotes because I alone know that you had no alternative), I'd be a despicable lying hypocrite and should be condemned for what I did.

How is your portrayal of God's secret pre-creation counsels any different?

Lets flip this:

How is God just if there are those who die as sinners and go to hell that never got a chance to hear the gospel? Unless . . . you don't believe that we are all by nature sinners and under God's wrath for our sin.

How would that be any different? If God elected a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation according to his divine purposes (Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Peter 1:1-3; Rev. 5:9b) and only saving those any different than God not revealing his gospel to parts of the earth where people have never heard it and die in there sins?

Either way you slice it, he elected someone. Either he left a group to perish in sin, or he chose a group to be "be holy and blameless before him" (Eph. 1:4). I think the Scriptures more clearly demonstrate that God pro-actively elected a people unto salvation. It is obviously hard to grasp this, so we have to look at what the Scriptures show us and leave the 'why' up to God. Man is guilty for his sin and Christ is the only way. (John 14:6; Romans 1:20-32; 6:23)

But if we just assume that those who never hear the gospel receive an automatic pardon from God, then it seems that it would be logical that we should never share the gospel with anyone. Think about it, what better way to ensure salvation than to not share the gospel with anyone!

However, we have the Holy Spirit in us, guiding us to reach those whom Christ died for that have been scattered out abroad to be called into fellowship with him (John 11:52). God's purposes will come to fruition, for no one can thwart his plans.







http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4262560&postcount=28
 

BrianJOrr

New member
Can't answer it honestly, as I predicted. Typical cult behavior.

I have answered this question, but you don't like the answer, which is why I put the ball in your court. However, when the question is directed at you, you can't provide a response.

That has been the consistent issue in the OV forum; many can ask all the questions but can't/won't respond to any (with the exception of Desert Reign), or they answer little bits and just skirt around the issue, making jeers about Calvinism and the 'sophistry' it employs to come up with its doctrines, yet they fail to present an alternate interpretation with the very verses the Reformed tradition uses to support its theological distinctions.

An assertion is not a refutation.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I have answered this question
No, you haven't. What you do is what all Calvinists do: reframe inconvenient questions to make them align with the assumptions of Reformed soteriology, then pretend you answered the original question on its own terms but without actually touching its substance. That is most dishonest but very typical of Calvinists who appear utterly incapable of thinking outside the hive.

So let's try it again, without you flipping it:

If I secretly compel you to perform an act, then publicly condemn you for performing it as if YOU CHOSE to do it (which you did not because you didn't HAVE the power of choice), what words would describe me and my actions in this illustration?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have answered this question, but you don't like the answer, which is why I put the ball in your court. However, when the question is directed at you, you can't provide a response. That has been the consistent issue in the OV forum; many can ask all the questions but can't/won't respond to any (with the exception of Desert Reign), or they answer little bits and just skirt around the issue, making jeers about Calvinism and the 'sophistry' it employs to come up with its doctrines, yet they fail to present an alternate interpretation with the very verses the Reformed tradition uses to support its theological distinctions. An assertion is not a refutation.

What was the question?
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I have answered this question, but you don't like the answer, which is why I put the ball in your court. However, when the question is directed at you, you can't provide a response.

That has been the consistent issue in the OV forum; many can ask all the questions but can't/won't respond to any (with the exception of Desert Reign),

Look, allow me to intervene. I'll do you a deal: I will answer your direct question. Within 24 hours of my answering it, you will answer Musterion's question. Directly and without 'flipping it'. No coming back to me with some discussion of what I said. No asking for clarification or complaining or other tangents.

Is that a deal?

For information I would remind you that your reputation for avoiding questions goes before you, as in the exchange I quote below for example. So now is your chance to set the record straight.

So you are suggesting that if no one had misunderstood the Old Testament, then there would have been no need for a New Testament?

Please answer directly as I feel your response is crucial.

Or are you suggesting that the Old Testament was inherently incomprehensible?

And if you are suggesting that, then why were the Jews considered blameworthy for not understanding it?

And we have come to a point where any further discussion on this topic will be a waste of time—for me that is. ...

I think what is quite obvious is that DR is being untruthful in his view that he is without influence,

And by the way, this offer is open until your next post to this thread. It's a question of dignity I hope you understand. It's been a long time since Musterion first asked you his question and of course it's been quite a while since I asked you mine quoted above (and others that went unanswered or discussions left unfinished) so I and I daresay other open theists here would not want to be seen to be being soft or liberal about their beliefs. Our beliefs are serious and we expect you to take them seriously or not at all.
 
Last edited:

musterion

Well-known member
Look, allow me to intervene. I'll do you a deal: I will answer your direct question. Within 24 hours of my answering it, you will answer Musterion's question. Directly and without 'flipping it'. No coming back to me with some discussion of what I said or other tangents.

Is that a deal?

Nice try, but it won't happen. I was ready to make the same offer but realized he won't do it without continued avoidance...if you or I reply first, he'll focus ad infinitum on that and ignore his half of the deal. He can't afford to tackle that question head-on and he knows it. They all know it.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
For the record, no I don't subscribe to Greg Boyd's and Jesse Morrell's view of God having knowledge of every possible future. I sympathise with their view but I not believe it is ultimately realistic.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Nice try, but it won't happen. I was ready to make the same offer but realized he won't do it without continued avoidance...if you or I reply first, he'll focus ad infinitum on that and ignore his half of the deal. He can't afford to tackle that question head-on and he knows it. They all know it.
I can, if need be. In a nutshell: To save you. Romans 9:22,23
So did you ever get around to answering your dilemma of how God can damn those who refuse Christ on the specific grounds of refusing Him? I mean, if His irresistible, effectual calling is the only reason anyone can come to Him, then not coming to Him is evidence one was not called, which in turn is evidence God doesn't want them saved. Now I'll be the first to admit that that's logically consistent, as far as it goes. But the problem remains: how does God remain just for damning them -- not for sin generally -- but for fulfilling His desire that they reject Christ?
It is a question that has been asked before so the answer is readily available. The longer version might need to be catered to your specific need without a long treatise, but long version links are available too.

Ask Mr. Religion has answered it here on TOL as well, if I remember rightly.
 
Top