I actually have to get some work done today. 
I will respond when I get a chance. Thanks guys! :up:
I will respond when I get a chance. Thanks guys! :up:
God's ability according to Calvinism
- Thread starter Poly
- Start date
There are many circumstances which one can imagine which would preclude your husband from being the leader of your home in 20 years. Your husband cannot, without a doubt, say that he still will be the leader in 20 years, because neither you nor him know what the future holds. Neither does your god.Poly said:
Undoubtedly using the confidence of mortal men as an example has to be one of the weakest arguments that could be presented. So what if men are confident, that doesn't mean God can be any more confident or right. Afterall, He knows little more about the future than a mortal man could know, according to the open view.
I've always wondered how an open theist copes with Romans 9, in which Paul makes it perfectly plain that man has no right to ask God why He is just for judging someone which had no choice. This is a big passage for me in terms of believing in a sovereign God.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
True, true.... when we read the entire story about the potter and the clay it's brutal for closed theists.Granite said:
I know that, but it is true none the less.Granite said::chuckle:
Ah, not exactly what I meant...
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Read Jeremiah 18, and ask yourself, why didn't the potter finish the first pot he was making? Thats the key to the potter and the clay.Granite said::chuckle:
Ah, not exactly what I meant...
When Paul talks about pots and clay, he didn't just make that up. As a Pharisee he would've been well aware of Jeremiah and was using the same story.
It's a different topic.VanhoozerRocks said:
Doctrine can be developed from any part of God's word, there are no books that are "off limits". That being said EVERYTHING must be taken in context either narrow or large, context is everything.
Furthermore... it wasn't me who brought up Proverbs.... although I certainly don't fault allsmiles for doing so.
VanhoozerRocks
New member
Knight said:
If you could send me a message explaining your position then I would greatly appreciate it.
On your second point. Yeah, sorry about that, I needed to clarify my wording on that comment. See my second post a little while after that after Poly pointed out the same thing. I was kinda intending to talk about the illocutionary intents that can restrain the "doctrinal" debates that certain texts talk to.
Soli Deo Gloria
Sorry... I really don't have time.VanhoozerRocks said:
If you want to start a new thread I will do my best to comment.
I pretty much already clarified my position on this thread but I will try to add to it if it interests you that much.
VanhoozerRocks
New member
spaz said:
While certainly not nearly as prevelant as it once was in early American Christianity, there seems to be a very small, but interesting shift occuring in certain segments of "evangelical" academia and certain demoninations. I guess only time and chance will tell though....HEHE!
This verse merely explains that....allsmiles said:
Nobody is going to be able to live a sinless life. Every human will at some point give in to desire and sin and therefore need a savior.
Jesus was the only person that was perfect and without sin.
Not according to the Bible but you are free to think whatever you wish.
That's true, of course that affirms my point completely, but it is true.
I wouldn't say Calvinism is dying (Although TOL does it's best to nail the coffin shut) but clearly there is a change in the wind (pun intended). Even Calvinism itself is struggling to redefine itself with a far more "open" approach.spaz said:
VanhoozerRocks
New member
Knight said:
This much is very true. WHich is apparent by such books as Beyond the Bounds, No Other God, and a plethora of others. A very positive effect the openess view has had, is its attempt to bring some balance back to the transcendence/relational dichotomy that seems to exist in many theologies. While I would like to think there is a golden mean and that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive (which is how they are sometimes posited). Interesting topic though.
Soli Deo Gloria