Originally posted by Hornet
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Believing or Not Believing Because of Evidence
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostHe always knew that certain men would never accept Him, yet He still allowed them to come into this world.
I agree those are good proof texts for Arminianism, yet the Calvinist can list text after text for his position too.
That is another good Arminian point. The Calvinist would say that that would just mean that we had to give all glory to God for our salvation. But let me ask you, if you find, in the end, that it was of all God and none of you concerning your salvation is that really going to upset you in the afterlife.
Short answer is probably more disappointment than anything....that I was so wrong after diligently studying Scripture."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo the question is, why is the Holy Spirit working in one man and not the other?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe question comes when we face a contradiction, if something contradicts Scripture then Scripture must win. For instance, if I believed that YEC was the case and evolution could not be reconciled with Scripture, I would take Scripture over Science - all day long...
In the case where there appeared to be clear evidence that contradicted the Bible on any given point, my first instinct would be to suspect that we had either misunderstood the evidence, or misunderstood the Bible, and not that the Bible itself was in error.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostSince one thing you and I absolutely agree on is that Scripture is the final authority, how do you back up that statement from Scripture.
Proof texts are that without context, I agree, but I don't believe mine are proof texts because of the context (which I didn't quote because of time and space) I've yet to see a Calvinist proof text that could not be explained under an Arminian Hermeneutic using the context of the chapter around it. Also, you probably don't know this (or remember it) but I was discipled as a new Christian in 3 - 4 point Calvinist church. My first true mentor (outside of my Dad who is also a 3 pointer) was a 4 point youth pastor. Years of study convinced me that it was the wrong hermeneutic. I'm an Open Theist which is more free will leaning than the standard Arminian...Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThere are claims to inspiration all through both Testaments, you either buy that or you don't.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut God knows that whether you believe in free will or not. He always knew that certain men would never accept Him, yet He still allowed them to come into this world.
And I have spent years as both a Calvinist and later an Arminian - and I just don't know who is correct. And BTW I have never heard a good answer for Romans 9:6-24 from the Arminian side...
To read Romans 9 with a deterministic/Calvinistic hermeneutic is IMHO very wrong on many fronts when we contrast them with other Scripture pointing to a God who IS Love, and loves us so much, he sent his only son to pay for our freedom.
So, first off, you shouldn't shorten the context as it's all relevant. Vs 1-5 sets up the topic that's to be addressed, and the final verses are a summary of his points...so, all of ch 9 is important to the context. Paul isn't talking about individual salvation here, (he's actually continuing the discussion from Chapter 8 on WHO is/are God's PEOPLE), not, who God individually elects to be his people...
So, the purpose of Romans 9 is to explain the statement Paul makes in vs 6, namely, "...has the Word of God Failed..." That is, has God’s promise to be the God of the Jews and to have them as his covenant people been rescinded? That's THE burning question of the Jewish believers in Rome....because, that seems to be what the natural conclusion is from Paul's' previous statements in Romans 8. If what Paul was preaching was true, that is, if salvation was available to anyone, including Gentiles, simply on the basis of their faith — then a person being Jewish, or how well they obeyed to the law didn't count for anything. Paul seemed to be telling them that the uniqueness of being Jewish and following the law was for naught...even worse, because now it seemed to be working against them. Because they strove for righteousness based on observance of the law (works) instead of faith, they are the ones who were now being hardened (as evidenced by the fact that so few believed in Jesus) (look at Rom 9:31-32 below). This meant that, if Paul’s Gospel was true, the very ones whom God made covenant promises to were now being hardened! Hence it looked like “the word of God had failed.” So, Paul in Romans 9, 10 and 11 is addressing this concern of God's faithfulness to Israel and on what basis God makes anyone a covenant partner.
So, in answer to this concern, Paul refutes the idea that God’s covenant promises had failed. He does this by showing that God’s covenant promises were never based on a peoples’ nationality or external obedience to the law. Rather, Paul argues, God had always exercised his sovereign right to choose whomever he wanted to choose (as a people). And to illustrate this point, he refers to God's choice of his covenant people with examples of Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau without any consideration for their works or nationality...this illustrates God's sovereign right to choose and defends his right to choose them by any means he chooses. Paul is putting forth the argument that the Jews shouldn't be shocked that God now chooses to enter into a covenant with Gentiles simply on the basis of faith, he's always done what he wants to do. Why Paul uses the illustrations he does speaks to the fact that they represent people groups not individuals, and that they are not individually saved or condemned. IOW, God was illustrating his choice of Israel (the descendants of Isaac and Jacob) over the Moabites (the descendents of Ishmael) and the Edomites (the descendents of Esau). Again, this didn’t mean that all Moabites or Edomites were eternally lost. It just means that these nations were not chosen for the priestly role in history for which God chose the Israelites. Paul is trying to get them to realize that God has always wanted Israel to be a nation of priests (Is 61:6) to show the "...light to all the nations..." Israel was to be the nation the all the other nations of the world would be blessed by, because salvation of the world was to come through the Jewish people. But, since the Jews rejected the Messiah, (As Paul says in Romans 11:11-32), that now God is going to use their blindness instead of their obedience to accomplish his will...
There's a lot more packed into those verses, the clay analogy that Paul uses, if read in the light of its Old Testament background, doesn’t imply that the potter unilaterally decides everything, as the deterministic reading of Romans 9 would suggest. No, instead, in the Old Testament passage that makes the most use of the potter-clay analogy, it has the exact opposite meaning. (Jer. 18) In that passage (that Paul was obviously alluding to) shows teh potter working on a pot that doesn't turn out right, so, he revised his plan and forms a different pot, just as God did with an Israel that rejects it's Messiah...So, the Lord said, since he is the potter and Israel is the clay, he has the right (and he is willing) to “change his mind” about his plans for Israel if they will simply repent (Jer. 18:4-11). In fact, the Lord announced that whenever he’s going to judge a nation, he is willing to change his mind if the nation repents. (Jonah comes to mind) On the flip side, whenever God announces that he’s going to bless a nation, he will change his mind if that nation turns away from him. (Israel time and again) In other words, the point of the potter-clay analogy is not God’s unilateral control, but God’s willingness and right to change his plans in response to changing hearts.
There's a lot more, but lets jump to the end. Whenever we are reading a complex section of scripture, it pays to pay close attention to the writers own summation of his reasoning's/arguments. When it come to Pauls writing, I think that's absolutely crucial. So, how does Paul begin his summary? He starts by asking in vs 30 "What shall we say, then" Why doesn't Paul start by saying something like..."God in his sovereign will has determined who will be the elect and who will not." No, he says:
This is very, VERY significant. Paul wraps up chapter 9 by explaining everything he's been talking about...by pointing to the morally responsible choices of both Jews and Gentiles (of having faith in Messiah) Because, THE one thing God has always looked for in a people is faith. Paul continues in Rom 10:3 that the Jews didn't seek the righteousness of God but they tried to invent their own. Therefore (Rom 11:20) they are broken off for their unbelief (as a nation) and that's why they were being hardened toward God.
The conclusion seems obvious to me, that a Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9 is both misguided and unfortunate as it has lead many down the wrong path toward determinism...and paints God not as loving God by sending Jesus Christ to die on a cross for us undeserving sinners, but with a picture of a God who goes against his own morality and creates certain people to be vessels of wrath only fit for eternal damnation and then punishing them for being that way. I believe Paul is affirming that God “has mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whomever he wants to harden.” I would simply add that the “whomever” he has mercy on refers to “all who choose to believe” while the “whomever” he hardens refers to “all who refuse to believe.” The passage demonstrates the wisdom of God’s loving flexibility, not the deterministic fate of individual people.Last edited by Littlejoe; 02-06-2019, 05:07 PM."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostI meant how do you back up the statement below with scripture (since I accept, as you do, Scripture as the final authority):
But God knows that whether you believe in free will or not. He always knew that certain men would never accept Him, yet He still allowed them to come into this world.
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJoe, first I will take more time to re-read your points on Romans 9 (did you write that yourself?). Second, I'm not clear on what you are asking here.
Paraphrased from my notes in a thread (which I'm not finding right now for some reason)that was similar to this very subject."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostWhat Scripture do you see that supports the statement that "But God knows that whether you believe in free will or not, He always knew that certain men would never accept Him, yet He still allowed them to come into the world." Is that based on Romans 8 and 9?
Paraphrased from my notes in a thread (which I'm not finding right now for some reason)that was similar to this very subject.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo, I assumed that we both agree that God has foreknowledge.
OK..."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostWell, yes God knows what you believe or don't believe in, but...No, as an Open Theist, I believe that God doesn't always know the free will decisions of people. There's lot of instances of that both in the Old Testament and New. It's certainly a tough concept for most people to embrace. (I don't expect you to find it convincing though.)Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI understand Open Theism, I read Greg Boyd years ago. But even there, God would certainly know that there would be people He created that would be lost.
Second, what if Calvinists are correct, that God elects some and passes other by. Are we saying God is obligated to save rebels?
With open theism, how would Christ know that before the rooster crowed Peter would deny him me three times?"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Originally posted by Littlejoe View PostDoes God know that there are people He created that will be lost? Sure, but it's a stretch to say that the Bible supports the notion that God knows before He created them that they would, indeed, refuse His free gift. If God is a God of His Word, (and we both believe He is) then God must give each person a chance to accept His Son as the payment for their sins, otherwise, it's a false promise. Limited Atonement is unsupportable from Scripture.
If by this do you mean do I believe in Universal Salvation? If so, then no I do not. Is God obligated to save those that stay in rebellion to him? No. It's a common saying among Calvinist that God is not obligated to save anyone...that's not true, God was not obligated to before Christ came, but afterward, His promise now reigns supreme. He promised He would save all who trust in His Son Jesus. God doesn't break His promise.
Before I give you an explanation, I would ask if you understand Open (View) Theism (OVT) then how do you think they would answer the question? Do you believe that while on earth, Christ was Omniscient? If so, then show why you believe that. If not, why do you credit this with proving absolute foreknowledge (Omniscience) and not his power, (Omnipotence)?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not sure what you mean Joe, most of humanity, for most of history never heard the Gospel. How did they have the opportunity to receive Christ?
Where does the Bible say that God PROMISED to save everyone?
I said that God promised to save "everyone who trusts in His Son" . I never said He promised to save everyone.
I believe it was possible that Christ was not omniscient on earth, but God the Father always was, and Christ was in constant communication with the Father. BTW - I don't think Open Theists have a good explanation. Lucky guess?
There are several different ways this could have happened without Omniscience (absolute foreknowledge). Omnipotence would do it, i.e. God says this is going to happen and He just....makes it happen.
Another more nuanced way would include Jesus knowing Peter better than Peter knew himself and the whole point of this "predictions" was to bring Peter to a point that he would recognize he was actually a coward at heart and was only brave when Jesus was around doing miracles etc. Jesus who knew the time was short, (Judas was already in the process betraying him) also, He knew Satan was going to attack Peter. "...Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to have you, (past tense) that he might sift you like wheat..." Notice that Bible Gateway footnotes that in vs. 31 "you" is plural...IOW, Jesus is talking to ALL of them (the disciples) but in vs. 32, Jesus shifts to a singular "you". Speaking only of Peter. So, Jesus knew all the disciples hearts and knew that Peters faith was so weak that he would deny him if push came to shove. Next, It would not have been anything to convince Peter to follow Jesus to the courtyard. Peter had been traveling with Jesus for over 3 years and was pretty well known. That a juicy piece of gossip would be in the works when Jesus is hauled into court in the middle of the night would have had anyone curious as to why. Seeing someone who had been his disciple for over 3 years there, it would be a natural question would it not? Hey! Your one of his disciples, what's going on? No, I don't know him. Are you sure? I know I've seen you with him. See, simple for God to see how this was going to go. To give you a simple example, if I offer my oldest son a choice between a bowl of Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream OR a bowl of steamed broccoli, I can tell you without even asking him which one he will choose one million times out of one million. He loves Mint Chocolate chip ice cream and absolutely HATES broccoli. If I being a mere mortal can make a determination like that, how much more can God who is infinitely more intelligent than I am.Last edited by Littlejoe; 02-10-2019, 11:11 PM."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
39 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-16-2024, 03:47 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
184 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-27-2024, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
341 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
364 responses
17,323 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 03:12 PM
|
Comment