Theology Club: Open Theism Destroys Arminianism??

[themuzicman]

If your idea is correct then we must stand reason on its head in order to believe what Paul said here is speaking about Paul "commanding the Gentile to eternal life," as you imagine:

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:46-48).​

There is absolutely nothing found in the "context" that even hints that Paul "commanded" these Gentiles to eternal life. The only "command" spoken of in this passage is the one which the Lord commanded Paul and Barnabas to be the light of the Gentiles.

You mean other than the part where Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly? Or the part where they were commanded to preach to the Gentiles?

I mean, it isn't as though the text only alludes to Paul being the active agent, here. It explicitly tells us that Paul and Barnabas are speaking BOLDLY. The Gentiles there believed because of Paul's preaching. The obvious meaning of the text is obvious.

You just refuse to believe what is written here. Instead, your imagination runs wild in your zeal to defend your preconceived ideas!

Now you're just projecting. Paul and Barnabas speak boldly. Those gentiles who hear the bold preaching are commanded to eternal life, and they believe.

This text simply doesn't say what you want it to say.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You mean other than the part where Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly? Or the part where they were commanded to preach to the Gentiles?

There is nothing here that even hints that Paul commanded anyone to eternal life:

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46).​

This tells us exactly what Paul and Barnabas spoke boldy: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

Not one word about Paul commanding anyone to eternal life. Then let us look ahat immediately follows:

"For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth: (Acts 13:47).​

Again, there is nothing there which even hints that Paul commanded anyone to eternal life. Now let us look at what immediately follows:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

From the context where this verse is found there is nothing that hints that Paul ever commanded anyone to eternal life.

You just refuse to believe what is written in these verses and you just made up, out of thin air, the idea that Paul was commanding the Gentiles to eternal life!

The only Persom in the entire universe who can ordain or appoint men to eternal life is the LORD.

 

[themuzicman]

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

Heard what? What did they hear? Paul preaching. Paul (and Barnabas) are the only ones spoken of as acting in this context.

Again, a passive verb without an indirect object takes on the active agent in the context as its actor. So, for all your attempts to impose your systematic theology in this context, you do not have God mentioned as an active agent, here, and thus we must conclude that Paul is the actor, and Paul's preaching is the active agent for Acts 13:48.

The only Persom in the entire universe who can ordain or appoint men to eternal life is the LORD.

This may or may not be so. But this verse does not support your claim. This is the problem with your systematic theology: It rests on a poor exegetical foundation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Heard what? What did they hear? Paul preaching.

It is evident what they heard and what they heard is in 'bold" here:

"For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth: And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:47-48).​

Why do you insist on reading into these verses something that is not said in them? You just demonstrate that your ideas are so weak and pitiful that you are forced into making the Scriptures say things which are not there!

 

[Derf]

Hi Jerry,
It's good to be getting on the same page, don't you think? From your post, I can see that you are reluctantly and somewhat covertly admitting that the "changeless" passages are not referring to every conceivable kind of change, but only a change in nature. Thus, we need to move on to the next part of the conversation, where we discuss what kind of things can change without a "nature" change. I'll try to bring that theme into my answers below.

Hi Derf,

Earlier I said:

If the Lord Jesus took on a new nature when He came to the earth then it is impossible to argue that He remained the same as He was before. Your idea contradicts what is said here:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

To this you said:



Please tell me exactly in what way is the Lord Jesus the same yesterday, and today and forever?

To my point above, your question is really just asking what kind of things fit within the term "nature" and which don't. And for now, we'll say that the things that don't fit within the term "nature" are allowed to change from yesterday to today to forever. Things like clothes and hair style, I suppose.

But please note that the context of Heb 13:8 is decidedly about how we are supposed to act--in other words, for that part of Hebrews, the "same yesterday, today, and forever" is talking about moral changelessness, like monogamy (Heb 13:4) and contentedness (Heb 13:5) and respecting leadership/authority (Heb 13:7).

It would not change my nature because I am a man now and when I put on my spiritual body I will still be a man.

Yes, that's good! And how would someone else be able to tell that you are a man vs, say, a catfish? One might say: "a man has 2 arms and 2 legs, is able to talk and walk and hold things with his hands, thinks and creates both tools and art, and breathes air, whereas a catfish has fins and a tail, swims expertly, eats crud from the bottom of lakes and streams, and gets oxygen from water". But for our purposes, we need to determine the differences between a man and God. Here's a first cut:

God	Man
Everlasting	Can die
Spiritual	Physical
Holy--cannot sin	Able to sin
All powerful	Weak/susceptible to pain and suffering
Spatially uninhibited	Confined to a single location

There are no doubt plenty more things to add, but let's look at these five for now. We can back all these up with scripture if you think it's necessary, but I'd rather not just yet.

So, in heaven before becoming a man, I think we'd both agree that Jesus would fit under the category of "God". Would He also fit under the category of "Man" for all eternity? It doesn't seem possible, does it, since these are stated as opposites. So I think we can safely say that Jesus was not a man for all eternity. And I think we can safely say that Jesus, when He became a man, participated in the characteristics of "Man". (Some would argue with me about "Able to sin", so if that bothers you, please disregard it and just focus on the other four). If my table is accurate, then either Jesus changed in His nature, or something else happened to allow Him to look like He changed in nature, or possibly that He added some contradictory characteristics while keeping His other ones, if that makes any sense. The normal answer is that last one--that Jesus "added" a human nature. This may bother you, and I can't say I'm completely comfortable with it, but I think it is the best fit of my three choices.

Let me know what you think about this. If you don't like my descriptions of the natures of God and man, please provide some of your own for us to discuss.

Now let us look at these two verses again:

"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).​

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

In both of these verses it is made plain that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as a man before He came to the earth. I said that there is no other way to interpret the verse other than that way.

To which you answered:

I've provided you an alternate translation already, but you've rejected it.

Frankly,I couldn't make heads or tails about what you said. Could you please try again?

You extrapolated beyond what the text says. The text did not say Jesus was a man in heaven, but that HE was in heaven. If He was not a man before He was a man, then HE would refer to Jesus as He was before He became a man. But after He became a man, at which time He took on the title of "son of man", He then could say that the son of man came down from heaven.

Here's another way to look at it. Let's say, for example, that Jerry Shugart was born in New Jersey, but went to California for college, met a girl there and settled down in Los Angeles. Now, when Mrs. Shugart is talking to her friends, she might say "My husband was born and raised in New Jersey." Answer me this: does that mean you were married before you were born? If not, then saying that the son of man came down from heaven doesn't mean Jesus was the son of man prior to coming to earth. There's a continuity of person, but not necessarily of title or even of form.

Notice that John 3:13 indicates that as Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, He was also declaring that He was "in heaven", which I believe indicates that while He was spatially located in the room with Nicodemus, He was also somehow located in heaven, too. I don't pretend to know how that works, but it is indicative, possibly, of the fact that He is both God and man (see table above).

And while you are at it, please explain what Paul said in this verse:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

Here Paul is explict when He identifies the Lord Jesus as "man." And the meaning of the Greek word translated "from" denotes "origin--the point whence action or motion proceeds" (Strong's Definitions).

Therefore, we can understand that the place from which the MAN Lord Jesus came from is heaven.

First, let's talk about what is obviously NOT being said. It is obvious from this verse that Jesus was NOT a man from all eternity. If He were, then there's no way that Adam could be the "first man", since the first man was of the earth, earthy. The second man being the Lord from heaven tells us that Jesus became man after Adam was created. And it tells us that Jesus is a man. But because there have been, as you pointed out so eloquently, quite a few men born since Adam, "second man" must refer to something else besides just any man.

Additionally, since the tense of both static verbs ("is" in both cases) is present tense, it's unlikely that "first man" is really talking about just Adam (since Adam was already dead by this time). As I stated before, Jesus become a second type or race of man, distinct in some way from Adam and his progeny, and the first part of the verse is talking about the first type or race of man.

Now let us look at this verse:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).​

If we are born with a "sin nature" then that means that the Lord Jesus was also born with a sin nature. And we both know that isn't true. That means that people do not come out of the womb with a sin nature. Men are born with a free will so when they sin they cannot blame it on their nature.

I appreciate your comments, Derf.

I'm not too keen on the idea that men are born sinners in the sense that they have already sinned. But I'm pretty well convinced of the fact that all men except Jesus are born with death as their destiny, due to the sin of Adam. This is one of the things that people call "sin nature", possibly focusing on the guilt aspect. Another option is that we are born with a propensity to sin, and nobody is able to avoid sinning. In both cases it seems like the main reason why we receive this problem (call it "sin nature" or something else) is because we are descended through our fathers from Adam. Jesus was able to die for someone else beside Himself, presumably because He was born of a virgin, whereas all the rest of us cannot do so.

So, when the verse says "in all things", it can't include 1. that Jesus had a sin nature, or 2. that Jesus was appointed to die for the sin of Adam.

If you are proposing that man is not born with a sin nature, because this verse would require it of Jesus, too, I'm not opposed to the idea, as long as it's recognized that somehow all humans need a savior to keep them from death, whatever you want to call that need.

 

[themuzicman]

It is evident what they heard and what they heard is in 'bold" here:

"For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth: And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:47-48).​

Why do you insist on reading into these verses something that is not said in them? You just demonstrate that your ideas are so weak and pitiful that you are forced into making the Scriptures say things which are not there!

Are you saying that Paul and Barnabas didn't say these things?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But please note that the context of Heb 13:8 is decidedly about how we are supposed to act--in other words, for that part of Hebrews, the "same yesterday, today, and forever" is talking about moral changelessness, like monogamy (Heb 13:4) and contentedness (Heb 13:5) and respecting leadership/authority (Heb 13:7).

I believe that Hebrews 13:8 is referring to the same thing spoken earlier by the author of Hebrews:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail" (Heb.1:10-12).​

Here a "contrast" is being revealed, the contrast between what the earth and heavens were when they were created and the nature of the Lord Jesus when He created them. According to this the earth and the heavens will perish while He remains the same. Therefore, since He remains the same as He was at the time of the creation and He is MAN now that means He was a MAN before He came down to the earth. And what is said here about Him by the Apostle John we can know that He did come down from heaven as MAN:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

Here John says that "no man hath ascended up to heaven BUT..."

The word "but" means "except for the fact." So John is saying that no MAN has ascended into heaven except for the fact that He (the MAN Jesus Christ) has. Then John identifies that MAN as the MAN who came down from heaven, the Lord Jesus.

You said:

Here's another way to look at it. Let's say, for example, that Jerry Shugart was born in New Jersey, but went to California for college, met a girl there and settled down in Los Angeles. Now, when Mrs. Shugart is talking to her friends, she might say "My husband was born and raised in New Jersey." Answer me this: does that mean you were married before you were born? If not, then saying that the son of man came down from heaven doesn't mean Jesus was the son of man prior to coming to earth. There's a continuity of person, but not necessarily of title or even of form.

It doesn't matter about the title because John is speaking about an "exception" to the idea that no MAN has ascended into heaven except the MAN Jesus Christ who came down from heaven. You completely ignore the meaning of what John is saying. I also quoted this verse and told you its meaning:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

Here Paul is explict when He identifies the Lord Jesus as "man." And the meaning of the Greek word translated "from" denotes "origin--the point whence action or motion proceeds" (Strong's Definitions).

Therefore, we can understand that the place from which the MAN Lord Jesus came from is heaven.​

To this you said:

First, let's talk about what is obviously NOT being said. It is obvious from this verse that Jesus was NOT a man from all eternity.

If Paul was speaking of the Lord Jesus as MAN now in heaven he would have said the "Lord in heaven," not the "Lord from heaven." And I have already explained what John meant there when he used the "Greek word translated "from" in that verse. Please tell me why you think that I am in error in regard to how I used the meaning of that Greek word. You also said:

First, let's talk about what is obviously NOT being said. It is obvious from this verse that Jesus was NOT a man from all eternity. If He were, then there's no way that Adam could be the "first man", since the first man was of the earth, earthy.

I have already explained to you what is being said in these verses but for some reason you cannot seem to grasp what Paul is saying. The verses which you cited can only be understood by this verse which precedes the verses which you quoted:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor.15:46).​

Paul is using these things to illustrate the principle that our first body is an earthly, natural body and we will be resurrected into a heavenly, spiritual body.

So when Paul speaks of the first man being of the earth he is referring to the kind of body belonging to Adam. Then when He speaks of the Lord from heaven being the second man then he is speaking of the Lord having a spiritual body.

But for our purposes, we need to determine the differences between a man and God.

The first thing you mention is that God cannot die but man can. We will remain "men" when we put on our new bodies and from that point on and those bodies are described as "immortal." So, as "men" will be subject to death? Of course not and the body which the Lord Jesus had before He came down to earth was a heavenly body, a spiritual body which is also immortal.

At this point I see that we will not agree on this subject so can we just agree to disagree and go back to what we were speaking about earlier.

I said that men are constrained by time. We cannot go into the future and we cannot know who in the future will believe the gospel. we cannot even know if someone will even be alive tomorrow, much less know in advance who will believe and be saved.

On the other hand, the LORD knows these things so it is obvious that He is not constrained by time and therefore His existence is outside of time. Let us look at this verse where Peter explains how the elect or chosen and what means the LORD uses to save them:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

We know that salvation is in regards to "individuals" (Ro.1:16) so therefore we can know that the choosing of 1 Peter 1:1-2 is speaking of choosing "individuals" for salvation according to God's "foreknowledge."

If I made an error in my reasoning in regard to what these passages are saying then please tell me where I am in error.

Thanks!

 

[jamie]

The first thing you mention is that God cannot die but man can. We will remain "men" when we put on our new bodies and from that point on and those bodies are described as "immortal."

:thumb: Yes, humans were created in the image of God to be created in his likeness through the Holy Spirit. And God is neither male nor female.

 

[Derf]

I believe that Hebrews 13:8 is referring to the same thing spoken earlier by the author of Hebrews:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail" (Heb.1:10-12).​

Here a "contrast" is being revealed, the contrast between what the earth and heavens were when they were created and the nature of the Lord Jesus when He created them. According to this the earth and the heavens will perish while He remains the same. Therefore, since He remains the same as He was at the time of the creation and He is MAN now that means He was a MAN before He came down to the earth. And what is said here about Him by the Apostle John we can know that He did come down from heaven as MAN:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).​

Here John says that "no man hath ascended up to heaven BUT..."

The word "but" means "except for the fact." So John is saying that no MAN has ascended into heaven except for the fact that He (the MAN Jesus Christ) has. Then John identifies that MAN as the MAN who came down from heaven, the Lord Jesus.

And after He died on the cross, He was a dead man. Was He a dead man from all eternity, since He was dead at one point in time? You never really answered how He could retain scars on His body even after the resurrection if He was already a man in heaven and just had a temporary earthy body.

You said:



It doesn't matter about the title because John is speaking about an "exception" to the idea that no MAN has ascended into heaven except the MAN Jesus Christ who came down from heaven. You completely ignore the meaning of what John is saying. I also quoted this verse and told you its meaning:

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).​

Here Paul is explict when He identifies the Lord Jesus as "man." And the meaning of the Greek word translated "from" denotes "origin--the point whence action or motion proceeds" (Strong's Definitions).

Therefore, we can understand that the place from which the MAN Lord Jesus came from is heaven.​

To this you said:



If Paul was speaking of the Lord Jesus as MAN now in heaven he would have said the "Lord in heaven," not the "Lord from heaven." And I have already explained what John meant there when he used the "Greek word translated "from" in that verse. Please tell me why you think that I am in error in regard to how I used the meaning of that Greek word.

I did that already. The reason you are in error is that you have taken your personal interpretation of the scripture and used it to understand what the passage is saying.

You also said:



I have already explained to you what is being said in these verses but for some reason you cannot seem to grasp what Paul is saying. The verses which you cited can only be understood by this verse which precedes the verses which you quoted:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor.15:46).​

Paul is using these things to illustrate the principle that our first body is an earthly, natural body and we will be resurrected into a heavenly, spiritual body.

So when Paul speaks of the first man being of the earth he is referring to the kind of body belonging to Adam. Then when He speaks of the Lord from heaven being the second man then he is speaking of the Lord having a spiritual body.

I don't disagree with you, but the Lord's body was not one that He had had for all eternity--nothing in the passage mandates it, and this one and plenty of others are definitely against the idea.

The first thing you mention is that God cannot die but man can. We will remain "men" when we put on our new bodies and from that point on and those bodies are described as "immortal." So, as "men" will be subject to death? Of course not and the body which the Lord Jesus had before He came down to earth was a heavenly body, a spiritual body which is also immortal.

Let's see it this will help. If Jesus had a spiritual "man" body in heaven, and then came to earth in an "earthy" "man" body, and then ascended back to heaven in His spiritual "man" body (the same one that He had from all eternity, and that would not be affected by anything that had happened to His "earthy" "man" body), how is it that there were scars on His spiritual body? Did something happen to the changeless body? Os was that just a figment of the disciples' imagination?

At this point I see that we will not agree on this subject so can we just agree to disagree and go back to what we were speaking about earlier.

I said that men are constrained by time. We cannot go into the future and we cannot know who in the future will believe the gospel. we cannot even know if someone will even be alive tomorrow, much less know in advance who will believe and be saved.

On the other hand, the LORD knows these things so it is obvious that He is not constrained by time and therefore His existence is outside of time. Let us look at this verse where Peter explains how the elect or chosen and what means the LORD uses to save them:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

The words in "bold" are speaking of the way which "individuals" are saved, according to what Paul says here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

We know that salvation is in regards to "individuals" (Ro.1:16) so therefore we can know that the choosing of 1 Peter 1:1-2 is speaking of choosing "individuals" for salvation according to God's "foreknowledge."

If I made an error in my reasoning in regard to what these passages are saying then please tell me where I am in error.

Thanks!

Jerry, I appreciate the reminder to get back on topic, so I'll try to answer this some time tomorrow in a different post, although I don't know that I have anything new that I haven't already brought up about it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And after He died on the cross, He was a dead man. Was He a dead man from all eternity, since He was dead at one point in time? You never really answered how He could retain scars on His body even after the resurrection if He was already a man in heaven and just had a temporary earthy body.

The Lord Jesus was not already in heaven while He remained on the earth. The words at John 3:13 are the words of John and not those of the Lord Jesus (no matter what the Red Letter Bibles indicate).

And yes, the Lord died on the Cross. A physical death is the separation of the body from the soul. However, the "inner man" of which Paul speaks does not die. For some reason you just can't seem to grasp the idea of which Paul speaks, the idea that we were "clothed upon" by our present body and we will be "clothed upon" with our body which is from heaven.

The body of the Lord Jesus which bore scars from the Cross is not the same body which He is now clothed upon in heaven because flesh and blood bodies cannot enter the heavenly sphere (1 Cor.15:50).

I appreciate the reminder to get back on topic, so I'll try to answer this some time tomorrow in a different post, although I don't know that I have anything new that I haven't already brought up about it.

I don't think that we have discussed the meaning of what is in "bold" in the following two passages:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied"(1 Pet.1:1-2).​

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

I believe that this would be a good place to restart our previous discussion. What is the meaning which you would place of the words in "bold"?

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It explicitly tells us that Paul and Barnabas are speaking BOLDLY.

Yes, and it explicitly tells us exactly of what Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly, and nothing is said about your fairy tale that they "commanded" the Gentiles to eternal life.

Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual understanding knows that the only Person in existence who can ordain people to eternal life is the LORD.

 

[themuzicman]

Yes, and it explicitly tells us exactly of what Paul and Barnabas spoke boldly, and nothing is said about your fairy tale that they "commanded" the Gentiles to eternal life.

You mean other than the fact that the passive verb has no indirect object, and that by exegetical rule, the actor is the active agent in the context? You know, doing the real work of exegesis?

Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual understanding knows that the only Person in existence who can ordain people to eternal life is the LORD.

That may be so. But this passage doesn't support that thought.

Maybe you should learn the difference between exegesis and systematic theology.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You mean other than the fact that the passive verb has no indirect object, and that by exegetical rule, the actor is the active agent in the context? You know, doing the real work of exegesis?

There is nothing found in the context that even hints that Paul was the active agent.

Of course the active agent is the LORD. Only the LORD can ordain people to eternal life.

In fact, it is ridiculous to even entertain the idea that Paul could "command" the Gentiles to eternal life.

Besides that, I see no evidence that the Greek word translated "ordained" at Acts 13:48 means "commanded." Who is your authority about that?

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

And yes, the Lord died on the Cross. A physical death is the separation of the body from the soul. However, the "inner man" of which Paul speaks does not die. For some reason you just can't seem to grasp the idea of which Paul speaks, the idea that we were "clothed upon" by our present body and we will be "clothed upon" with our body which is from heaven.

The body of the Lord Jesus which bore scars from the Cross is not the same body which He is now clothed upon in heaven because flesh and blood bodies cannot enter the heavenly sphere (1 Cor.15:50).

It's not so much whether I can grasp it as much as whether I agree with it. Job seems to think he's going to stand before his redeemer in his flesh and see Him with his eyes, Job 19:26-27. Flesh is ever used to indicate the earthy or carnal side of things. If both Christ (before His ascension) and Job are to resurrected first to their physical bodies, and then be separated from their physical bodies, that would indicate that they would experience a second death, according to your definition of death. We are promised better than that.

Plus, Jesus physically rose in the disciples' sight while still in His physical body--the one with the scars. And John talks about "a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders." (Rev 5:6) What was John seeing that made him think the lamb had been slain?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's not so much whether I can grasp it as much as whether I agree with it. Job seems to think he's going to stand before his redeemer in his flesh and see Him with his eyes, Job 19:26-27. Flesh is ever used to indicate the earthy or carnal side of things. If both Christ (before His ascension) and Job are to resurrected first to their physical bodies, and then be separated from their physical bodies, that would indicate that they would experience a second death, according to your definition of death. We are promised better than that.

Plus, Jesus physically rose in the disciples' sight while still in His physical body--the one with the scars. And John talks about "a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders." (Rev 5:6) What was John seeing that made him think the lamb had been slain?

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the Lord Jesus in heaven now with a flesh and blood body, despite what is said at 1 Corinthians 1:50?

The body which a person will be clothed with, even after the catching up of the saints, will be one which is suitable to the particular environment which is his destination. When the saints are caught up they will put on a spiritual, heavenly body because at that time their destiny will be heaven. When the saints will return to the earth with the Lord Jesus their bodies will be of a kind which be suitable for the earthly sphere.

 

[Derf]

Let me ask you a question. Do you think that the Lord Jesus in heaven now with a flesh and blood body, despite what is said at 1 Corinthians 1:50?

The body which a person will be clothed with, even after the catching up of the saints, will be one which is suitable to the particular environment which is his destination. When the saints are caught up they will put on a spiritual, heavenly body because at that time their destiny will be heaven. When the saints will return to the earth with the Lord Jesus their bodies will be of a kind which be suitable for the earthly sphere.

I think you mean 1 Cor 15:50.

Of course there will be a difference between what we are today and what we will be in heaven. But what is that difference? How does one describe a spiritual body? You've hinted at it with your last statement--that our bodies will be suitable for the environment. But you seem to think that we will receive another new body after the spiritual one. Is that something scripture substantiates? Or is "spiritual" referring to something else.

I pointed out that Jesus was raised from the dead, never to die again. And you pointed out the same will be true for us. I don't know exactly what Jesus body is like in heaven, but Jesus' body wasn't entirely spiritual after the resurrection, was it? His body had a physicality to it that allowed His disciples to touch Him, that still showed scars, that was able to eat food, although scripture never said He was hungry after the resurrection. Those are all indications of physicality--as opposed to His being a spirit--Lu 24:39.

That same body was taken up into heaven, whatever it might be like. Jesus showed us what the spiritual body would be like--it would be like the physical body, but not corruptible. I don't know what that will be like, and I dare say you don't either. Paul said we would be changed when caught up, and the dead be raised incorruptible.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. [1Co 15:50-54 KJV]​

But there's still a one-to-one correspondence with our body here on earth, else it's not really a "resurrection". And Jesus showed us a glimpse of that.

To say that Jesus, as He rose into the air, changed His body, and that we will do likewise, into a spiritual body that is then not fit for a future time on earth, where we then have to change bodies one more time, is not in the scriptures anywhere, and it is opposite to what Jesus showed us in His resurrection and ascension.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I don't know exactly what Jesus body is like in heaven, but Jesus' body wasn't entirely spiritual after the resurrection, was it?

The Lord Jesus is now in heaven which is described as eternity (Isa.57:15). In our natural bodies we are not equipped to see things which are eternal in nature:

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:16-18).​

In the very next verse Paul makes it plain that the heavenly body which we will put on is "eternal" in nature:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor.5:1).​

That same body was taken up into heaven, whatever it might be like. Jesus showed us what the spiritual body would be like--it would be like the physical body, but not corruptible. I don't know what that will be like, and I dare say you don't either.

I know that it will not be a body which can be seen so that rules out the idea of that body being "physical."

But there's still a one-to-one correspondence with our body here on earth, else it's not really a "resurrection". And Jesus showed us a glimpse of that.

The Greek word translated "resurrection" means "raised to life again." Those who sleep in Christ are in heaven now disembodied (because their physical bodies are in the grave) but when the Lord descends from heaven they will be "raised" in new bodies (1 Thess.4:14-16). Paul denotes the condition of being "disembodied" as being "naked" and "unclothed" (2 Cor.5:3,4).

Now perhaps we can return to our previous discussion concerning whether or not the LORD exists in "time." I don't think that we have discussed the meaning of what is in "bold" in the following two passages:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet.1:1-2).​

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

This would be a good place to restart our previous discussion. What is the meaning which you would place of the words in "bold"?

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

The Lord Jesus is now in heaven which is described as eternity (Isa.57:15). In our natural bodies we are not equipped to see things which are eternal in nature:

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:16-18).​

In the very next verse Paul makes it plain that the heavenly body which we will put on is "eternal" in nature:

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor.5:1).​

I know that it will not be a body which can be seen so that rules out the idea of that body being "physical."



The Greek word translated "resurrection" means "raised to life again." Those who sleep in Christ are in heaven now disembodied (because their physical bodies are in the grave) but when the Lord descends from heaven they will be "raised" in new bodies (1 Thess.4:14-16). Paul denotes the condition of being "disembodied" as being "naked" and "unclothed" (2 Cor.5:3,4).

You've misread what "not seen" means. "Not seen" is explained quite well in the famous faith definition passage: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [Heb 11:1 NASB]

I don't know that I expect you to understand this, as you think all things happen at the same time, but Heb 11:1 talks about things that haven't happened yet, rather than things which can't be seen because they are invisible. The same is true of 2 Cor 4:16-18.

Now perhaps we can return to our previous discussion concerning whether or not the LORD exists in "time." I don't think that we have discussed the meaning of what is in "bold" in the following two passages:

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied" (1 Pet.1:1-2).​

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

This would be a good place to restart our previous discussion. What is the meaning which you would place of the words in "bold"?

Thanks!

I would say that it means that God wants everyone to be saved as in [1Ti 2:3-4 NASB] 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And what He does for all men that agree with Him (that we are sinners and need saving to avoid the penalty of ultimate death and sanctifying to hit His mark) is to bring them into obedience and belief in the truth by setting us apart (making us different than the world) through the Holy Spirit. God knew from the beginning that we would need to be saved, and so He planned a way for that to happen, which is the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You've misread what "not seen" means. "Not seen" is explained quite well in the famous faith definition passage: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [Heb 11:1 NASB]

That verse means what it says. One of the things revealed in the gospel, that Christ died and was raised from the dead, is not something which we actually see. Instead, we have the conviction that this "thing not seen" is true because the gospel comes in much assurance, in power, and in the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5).

There is nothing at Hebrews 11:1 which even hints that the "things not seen" are actually seen with our eyes. But you want us to believe that the things "not seen" are actually seen with our eyes!

I would say that it means that God wants everyone to be saved as in [1Ti 2:3-4 NASB] 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And what He does for all men that agree with Him (that we are sinners and need saving to avoid the penalty of ultimate death and sanctifying to hit His mark) is to bring them into obedience and belief in the truth by setting us apart (making us different than the world) through the Holy Spirit. God knew from the beginning that we would need to be saved, and so He planned a way for that to happen, which is the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

That makes no sense. First you say that it is those who agree with Him who the LORD brings to "the belief in the truth" by the Holy Spirit. But how can anyone agree with Him prior to 'believing in the truth"?

Until a person believes the truth he is described in this way:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​

According to your idea a person agrees with God before he even has the knowledge of the truth. Now let us look at these verses again:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

Notice that in the second quoted verse of these two the phrase "through sanctification of the Spirit" is tied to "salvation" so common sense dictates that the phrase has the same meaning in both verses which are speaking of being chosen or elected. In both of these verses the Greek word translated "through" means "of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished...by means of, by (through)" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

So we can see that being chosen to salvation is through the instrumentality of the sanctification of the Spirit. One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "separation to God...1 Pet.1:2" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

Therefore, we can understand that being chosen or elected to salvation is through the instrumentality of the Spirit when He separates a person to God. That happens when a person is baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit:

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Cor.12:13).​

Since being saved and being baptized into the Body of Christ is in regard to "individual" salvation the we can know that when this verse speaks of election the reference is to "individual" salvation:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

So a person is elected or chosen to "individual" salvation according to the "foreknowledge" of God.

If I made an error in regard to the meaning of the phrase "through sanctification of the Spirit" then please tell me exactly where I am wrong.

Thanks!

 

[Derf]

That verse means what it says. One of the things revealed in the gospel, that Christ died and was raised from the dead, is not something which we actually see. Instead, we have the conviction that this "thing not seen" is true because the gospel comes in much assurance, in power, and in the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5).

There is nothing at Hebrews 11:1 which even hints that the "things not seen" are actually seen with our eyes. But you want us to believe that the things "not seen" are actually seen with our eyes!

Sure there is. You just disagree with it. And of course that verse means what it says, but it doesn't mean what you say it means. It isn't saying that everything that we hope for will be invisible when we receive it.

Christ resurrection was not invisible: 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. [1Jo 1:1-3 NASB]

That makes no sense. First you say that it is those who agree with Him who the LORD brings to "the belief in the truth" by the Holy Spirit. But how can anyone agree with Him prior to 'believing in the truth"?

Can't a man agree with one thing without knowing everything? If God tells us that we need to believe in Jesus to be saved, do we also need to fully understand the Trinity, the Virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection of the saints, the second death, hell, the apocalypse, etc. before we can believe? If so, then none of us are saved--our salvation then depends on something besides the blood of Christ.

The first thing we have to agree with Him on is that we are sinners and need to repent. And if we are willing to do that, there is much more God will do for us than just justification--our whole lives can be transformed by the sanctification of the Spirit. Our understanding can grow, so that we are made into the likeness of Christ. I can guarantee you that being made into the likeness of Christ is not an instantaneous thing for most of us. But from what you said, our understanding has to be complete before we believe. It doesn't seem to work that way in practice.

Until a person believes the truth he is described in this way:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​

According to your idea a person agrees with God before he even has the knowledge of the truth. Now let us look at these verses again:

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).​

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

I think the first example gives plenty of evidence that the obedience is what God elected us to by the sanctification of the Spirit, along with the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. But that is what He wants everyone to do--obey and believe in Christ. What you're saying is that he doesn't really want some people to obey, which means He is not only electing them to death, but at odds with Himself, when He says He desires that all men . And a kingdom divided cannot stand.

So we can see that being chosen to salvation is through the instrumentality of the sanctification of the Spirit. One of the meanings of the Greek word translated "sanctification" is "separation to God...1 Pet.1:2" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

What I think you're saying is that we have to be saved before we can be saved, is that correct? In other words, we are saved by belief in Jesus Christ, but before we can believe in Jesus Christ, the Spirit has to change us, to make us OK in God's eyes, because those that are not OK in God's eyes, cannot believe. So you've managed to set the blood of Christ to the backburner, making election the primary means of salvation, and Christ's blood the secondary means. Are you sure that's what you want to do?

Logically that means that by the time we believe in Jesus, we are already sanctified by the Spirit, and therefore we don't really need the blood of Christ, do we? After all, Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous. And if the Spirit makes us righteous without Christ, we don't need Christ.