Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

musterion · Apr 3, 2015

For Brian Orr...

In Romans 9, is Paul speaking of a temporal, national election, or his he speaking of an eternal, personal election unto salvation?

Mods, please pardon my posting the whole chapter but it's necessary to answer his question.

I want to state up front that if Romans 9 can be made to support the assumptions of reformed theology, which are stated quite clearly in Orr's question, then there are two places above all in this chapter where we should see that stated by Paul: in the cases of the men he mentions by name. It's not enough to assume that's what was in Paul's mind, as the reformed do. Let us see if Paul actually SAID so, or if he did not...

[FONT=&quot]9:1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9:3[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [/FONT]

Paul, as a Jew, is here speaking of Jews as a whole. He longs to see them all come to Christ, as they must do individually if they’re to do it at all, but he’s laying the groundwork for why Israel as a whole was even then being set aside in blind unbelief, as that’s the question (which Paul anticipates) any Jew was bound to ask.

[FONT=&quot]9:6[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But not as though the word of God hath come to naught. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9:7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9:8[/FONT][FONT=&quot]That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:9[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, by our father Isaac-- [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]for being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:12[/FONT][FONT=&quot]it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [/FONT]

The context here is the adversarial nations these men fathered (a conflict which impacts us even today), for Esau never personally served his brother. If Paul was speaking of the men themselves, the prophecy is false and Paul was not correct. But as a ex-pharisee, Paul knew better.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]9:13 [/FONT]Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot] Here anticipating another false objection a self-righteous Jew was sure to raise...[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

9:14[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9:15[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For He saith to Moses, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

God's mercy as found in the Gospel is to ALL, without distinction or exception (Calvinism notwithstanding). But that is not Paul's point here.

Now Paul begins to shift to other examples of God’s sovereign use of nations.

[FONT=&quot]9:16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.

Esau came to claim his father’s blessing and ran to help secure it (by fetching food), then bawled and begged his father to change his mind re: Jacob, but it made no difference. In the purposes of God, the people Esau would father in his rejection were necessary. Esau, at least, attempted to repent. Israel did not; they didn't see the need. Instead they were seeking righteousness by faithless works of the Law (Rom 9:32).

But did Paul make either Jacob’s or Esau’s soul salvation in Christ the issue here?

[/FONT]NO.

[FONT=&quot]9:17[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth. [/FONT]

Pharaoh represented all of Egypt. His refusal to obey -- remember, he hardened himself before God did -- and possibly God literally "raising him up" [healing him from the plagues] sealed the fate and made an example of the whole nation.

[FONT=&quot]9:18[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So then He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will be hardeneth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
God offered mercy to Pharaoh by giving him repeated opportunities to obey. When he refused and hardened himself against God, God hardened him even more to make an example of Egypt for all time.[/FONT]

But did Paul make Pharaoh’s soul salvation the issue here?

Again, NO.

[FONT=&quot]9:19[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He still find fault? For who withstandeth His will?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This is Paul anticipating the dishonest objection of a self-righteous Jew (“O man,” Romans 2:1) who now sees Paul’s point: just as God justifiably made examples of faithless Esau, who contemptuously sold his birthright for stew, and unrepentant Pharaoh, who hardened himself against God before God did so, Israel nationally was now coming under impending judgment for rejecting Christ, as the sign of tongues was warning them on top of the warnings they’d received from Peter and Stephen.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9:20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?[/FONT]

God NOWHERE says this of individuals because NOWHERE does Paul say God makes any individual reject Him, as Reformed theology asserts or implies (depending on which Calvinist you ask). But He has and will again do so with nations. To extend that to individuals is a denial of the Gospel of the grace of God and makes Him a liar. Hence the blasphemy inherent in TULIP.

[FONT=&quot]9:21[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?[/FONT]

Absolutely He does! And the vessels Paul has been speaking of are nations.

[FONT=&quot]9:22[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: [/FONT]

God extended more than one chance for Pharaoh to repent. And He was being more than patient with stiffnecked Israel.

[FONT=&quot]9:23[/FONT][FONT=&quot]and that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory,
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9:24[/FONT][FONT=&quot]us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:25[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As He saith also in Hosea, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] I will call that my people, which was not my people; [/FONT]
And her beloved, that was not beloved. [FONT=&quot]
9:26[/FONT]And it shall be, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there shall they be called sons of the living God.

[FONT=&quot]9:27[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]9:28[/FONT]for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short.

[FONT=&quot]9:29[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And, as Isaiah hath said before, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, [/FONT]
We had become as Sodom, and had been made like unto Gomorrah.

Recall Matthew 11:24.

[FONT=&quot]9:30[/FONT][FONT=&quot]What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, the righteousness which is of faith: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:31[/FONT][FONT=&quot]but Israel, following after a law of righteousness did not arrive at law.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:32[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Why? Because not by faith but, as it were, by works. [/FONT]

Precisely where Israel failed nationally, and the whole point of this chapter.

[FONT=&quot]They stumbled at the stone of stumbling; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9:33[/FONT][FONT=&quot]even as it is written, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Behold, I lay in Zion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offence: [/FONT]
And he that believeth on Him shall not be put to shame.

[FONT=&quot]10:1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Brethren, my heart's desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
10:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]10:3[/FONT][FONT=&quot]For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.[/FONT]

Paul desires to see ISRAEL saved but boils it down so there's no mistake and no further possible argument: Where exactly did Israel fail? Answer: They refused to repent nationally. They’d been called to do so by Peter, they were indicted by Stephen, and were now being provoked to jealousy by saved Gentiles, but it wasn't working. We, looking back, NOW know Israel, nationally, never repented, but that had not yet happened as Paul wrote this. At the point he wrote Romans, he still held out hope for the nation that God's signs and wonders through Gentile "dogs" would provoke them to believe. But they didn't. Thus the door closed in Acts 28. That is why we see no references to Israel being dealt with or even acknowledged as Israel in Paul’s later epistles.

Conclusion

The context of Romans 9 is God’s dealing with and sovereign using nations, not the salvation from sin of individuals (or damnation of individuals) on the basis of what they do with the Gospel, much less on the basis of the Calvinistic gnosticistic concept of individual election/reprobation. To read such into this chapter is exactly that: the polite word for it is eisegesis. The reality is, adding to the Word of God.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Nang · Apr 3, 2015

Lon said:
Naw, you are fine. Analogies break down, don't let the break-down ever be the hook against you.

In this case, the problem isn't an imperative ("Breathe!"). The problem is the inability i.e. unless you breathe, you are dead. We are born dead, in your analogy. Babies have to cry to live. A doctor or nurse stimulates the child.

Without Christ, we are totally unable to live. Christ is the met condition to live, for believers.

Romans 1 says every man is culpable, 'because' they know they are sinning. We are born, not with 'good' intact, but a 'good/God indicator' intact.

The analogy question is: Is God just for with-holding ability to breath, in Christ?

No, He didn't cause the malady. Furthermore, not freewill, but a good/God indicator, that knows the difference, makes us culpable for doing that which we ought not, and living as we ought not. Whether Christ provided the remedy for all or a few, is completely beside the point.
The nonCalvinist will object and say it is the point. :nono:

We all are responsible for ourselves alone. It is really none of their business. They are demanding God's blood be shed for all. That is literally, none of our business. If scripture portrays 'all' we need to deal with that in a logical manner, but that too is none of their business. They are responsible for what they believe, alone, regarding a doctrinal stance that is God's alone. As a body, we have to share the gospel, so it is important as a body, to discuss evangelism, but it doesn't change anything. We water, sow, and God gives increase.

In the analogy of the wheat and tares, the Arminian will have Christ's work raining on the just and the unjust. In the Calvinist camp, it would be more akin to God fertilizing only the wheat, knowing the difference, and concerned with His wheat not being choked out by weeds, thus being careful not to cause harm. The rain would fall on the just and the unjust which is Christ's sustaining power (Colossians 1:17). This is very much the way Israel functioned in the land, under judgment. Those around weren't invited in, but converts did come including a whole nation.

A question, or two, Lon . . .

What nation are you referring to? I am totally unaware that God ever converted an entire family, nation, or even a visible church.

When Christ walked the earth, He did draw all men to Him.

"All men" in a universal sense, or "all races of men" according to election? IMO, John 12:32 cannot be properly interpreted or understood, apart from the latter context of John 12:37-41.

Many turned away.

Only because they were never called by God to seek and believe. (Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:16, 18; John 6:44)

John 3:16 doesn't say Christ's blood or death, at that point. At that point, Jesus is alive and speaking of Himself. The Calvinist isn't saying Jesus is limited only to the elect, but that atonement is limited.

How do you see Election differs with Atonement? They are distinct doctrines, that are not theologically different. Both uphold the principle of salvation being particular to only a remnant called out of all the nations.

Only those made right with God (limited) are atoned (made right). That is how I came to limited atonement. I resisted this particular for a very long time, so understand that resistance and empathize.

My endeavor here, is to try and bridge understanding. I understand those who reject it, just trying to ensure that everything is as clear as possible.

-Lon

Lon · Apr 3, 2015

Nang said:
A question, or two, Lon . . .

What nation are you referring to? I am totally unaware that God ever converted an entire family, nation, or even a visible church.

Joshua chapter 9. Their grace was not to intermix with Israel, but they were available to the court of gentiles.

Nang said:
"All men" in a universal sense, or "all races of men" according to election? IMO, John 12:32 cannot be properly interpreted or understood, apart from the latter context of John 12:37-41.

In context, of course it wasn't every man. All here was referring to all types.

Nang said:
Only because they were never called by God to seek and believe. (Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:16, 18; John 6:44)

Yeah, these wanted loaves and fishes and left when that wasn't available.
Food that perishes couldn't address their need for a Savior.

Nang said:
How do you see Election differs with Atonement? They are distinct doctrines, that are not theologically different. Both uphold the principle of salvation being particular to only a remnant called out of all the nations.

Limited Atonement or Limited Election? Both? Only those who are Christians are atoned for, so it is limited. Only those who are elected are elect. I am currently reading the Canons of Dordt. I'm still working on understanding the extent of Limited Atonement.

Nang · Apr 3, 2015

Lon said:
Joshua chapter 9. Their grace was not to intermix with Israel, but they were available to the court of gentiles.

Joshua made a treaty with these neighbors, but I do not see a genuine national conversion on the part of the Gibeonites. (e.g. Hosea 9:9)

In context, of course it wasn't every man. All here was referring to all types.

Yeah, these wanted loaves and fishes and left when that wasn't available.
Food that perishes couldn't address their need for a Savior.

Limited Atonement or Limited Election? Both? Only those who are Christians are atoned for, so it is limited. Only those who are elected are elect. I am currently reading the Canons of Dordt. I'm still working on understanding the extent of Limited Atonement.

The Canons of Dordt are an extremely important read and the very historical foundation of the five Doctrines of Grace. God bless your study!

Lon · Apr 3, 2015

Nang said:
Joshua made a treaty with these neighbors, but I do not see a genuine national conversion on the part of the Gibeonites. (e.g. Hosea 9:9)

We agree. That wasn't my point. Rather I was saying individuals and a nation was blessed by the presence of Israel. There seem to be exceptions, like Melchizedek and Balaam.

Nang said:
The Canons of Dordt are an extremely important read and the very historical foundation of the five Doctrines of Grace. God bless your study!

Thank you. There is a lot written on Limited Atonement that makes precision a difficult and daunting task.

Word based mystic · Apr 3, 2015

Lon said:
Naw, you are fine. Analogies break down, don't let the break-down ever be the hook against you.

In this case, the problem isn't an imperative ("Breathe!"). The problem is the inability i.e. unless you breathe, you are dead. We are born dead, in your analogy. Babies have to cry to live. A doctor or nurse stimulates the child.

Without Christ, we are totally unable to live. Christ is the met condition to live, for believers.

Romans 1 says every man is culpable, 'because' they know they are sinning. We are born, not with 'good' intact, but a 'good/God indicator' intact.

The analogy question is: Is God just for with-holding ability to breath, in Christ?

No, He didn't cause the malady. Furthermore, not freewill, but a good/God indicator, that knows the difference, makes us culpable for doing that which we ought not, and living as we ought not. Whether Christ provided the remedy for all or a few, is completely beside the point.
The nonCalvinist will object and say it is the point. :nono:

We all are responsible for ourselves alone. It is really none of their business. They are demanding God's blood be shed for all. That is literally, none of our business. If scripture portrays 'all' we need to deal with that in a logical manner, but that too is none of their business. They are responsible for what they believe, alone, regarding a doctrinal stance that is God's alone. As a body, we have to share the gospel, so it is important as a body, to discuss evangelism, but it doesn't change anything. We water, sow, and God gives increase.

In the analogy of the wheat and tares, the Arminian will have Christ's work raining on the just and the unjust. In the Calvinist camp, it would be more akin to God fertilizing only the wheat, knowing the difference, and concerned with His wheat not being choked out by weeds, thus being careful not to cause harm. The rain would fall on the just and the unjust which is Christ's sustaining power (Colossians 1:17). This is very much the way Israel functioned in the land, under judgment. Those around weren't invited in, but converts did come including a whole nation.

When Christ walked the earth, He did draw all men to Him. Many turned away. John 3:16 doesn't say Christ's blood or death, at that point. At that point, Jesus is alive and speaking of Himself. The Calvinist isn't saying Jesus is limited only to the elect, but that atonement is limited.

Only those made right with God (limited) are atoned (made right). That is how I came to limited atonement. I resisted this particular for a very long time, so understand that resistance and empathize.

My endeavor here, is to try and bridge understanding. I understand those who reject it, just trying to ensure that everything is as clear as possible.

-Lon

wow
someone who does a good job of trying to bridge and codify the tension between all the scripture on this subject.

nicely done.

so many ignore or rearrange the meaning of certain scriptures.
:juggle:

musterion · Apr 3, 2015

Curiously, I was driving home a few minutes ago when the radio broadcast of this church came on. The preacher started in on "Arminians" and went into Romans 9. He said one of the biggest objections non-Calvinists like to bring up is that God desires none to perish (2 Peter 3:9). He dismissed that right out and said "Arminians" take this verse out of context (but didn't explain how). He said it doesn't actually say what Peter said. The preacher claimed the reason it doesn't is, and I quote,

"If God wanted everybody to be saved, everybody would be saved."

That is a flat denial of Scripture. Peter said God desires none to perish, which Paul made abundantly clear too. But Mr. Calvinist says what all Calvinists believe but few are willing to say out loud. This guy, to his credit, has the guts to. But even now, to hear it said...hoo boy.

Do click their Gospel link on their home page. Check out how much they say one needs to do to be saved.

And they claim to proclaim the Grace Gospel. Absolutely no.

Word based mystic · Apr 3, 2015

the main concern i have for much of calvinists is how they frame their arguments or framed the discussion

but in doing so have ignored the main theme of scripture
Gods desire for relationship
Gods desire To express His love to His created children
(and receive worship and love) in a freedom response not a programmed one.
Gods desire for all His created is that He would that all would be saved.

relationship
Fathers love for all His created children
Bride to the bridegroom.
God is Love and the maturity and comprehension comes in the Love.

not in speculative doctrinal positions on the perfect understanding of this or that. knowledge shall pass and puffs up distracting us from the Love comprehension.

that comment on while He walked the earth He drew all men to him is cessationist in nature an implies He no longer draws All men presently to him.

musterion · Apr 3, 2015

Word based mystic said:
not in speculative doctrinal positions on the perfect understanding of this or that.

"Brethren, become not children in the understanding, but in the evil be ye babes, and in the understanding become ye perfect"

Lon · Apr 3, 2015

musterion said:
The preacher claimed the reason it doesn't is, and I quote, "If God wanted all to be saved, all would be saved."

That is a flat denial of Scripture.

But Mr. Calvinist says what all Calvinists believe but few are willing to say out loud. This guy, to his credit, has the guts to. But even now, to hear it said...hoo boy.

Can you explain that? Could God have created a universe where it was impossible to sin? Is there any way God could have saved all? Iow, could He do so by sheer power alone?

Maybe the answer is "No" but I'm trying to understand that. I would have answered "Yes." Thanks. -Lon

musterion said:
Peter said God desires none to perish, which Paul made abundantly clear too.

I agree. He doesn't desire that. For this consideration, there is a difference between God's decretive and prescriptive will.

musterion said:
Do click their Gospel link on their home page. Check out how much they say one needs to do to be saved.

And they claim to proclaim the Grace Gospel. Absolutely no.

No? I think you are getting caught up on the extra information. The Bible is huge. There are a lot of good instructions there. Reread the one page link: Believing and calling on the Lord is basically it. I would correct wording on about every page though, as well as include more scripture references. They do give Romans 10:13 as a simple statement.

musterion said:
"Brethren, become not children in the understanding, but in the evil be ye babes, and in the understanding become ye perfect."

Good verse. Amen.

(its hard figuring out how to link these nothing-but-quotes links, but I got it!

)

musterion · Apr 3, 2015

You've begun to lack focus, Lon. I like you but it's part of the reason I don't reply to you as often as I used to. I'll go with this for now...Romans 10:13 is not the Gospel of the grace of God. It is the proper response to it.

Can you explain that? Could God have created a universe where it was impossible to sin? Is there any way God could have saved all? Iow, could He do so by sheer power alone?

*sigh*

Asking all the wrong questions. You still just don't get it.

Word based mystic · Apr 3, 2015

true

we definitely need to study to show ourselves approved
and to rightly divide the word

but that perfect doctrinal understanding is unlikely in some and many situations

illiterate, low I.Q. deaf and or blind.
etc.

even the above can be mature if their actions are based in and around agape love. and the fruits of the Spirit.

I would not be here on this site if I didn't think scriptural understanding and perfection of doctrine is not important.

I learn a lot here. and get a good broad perspective of many thought processes and doctrines.

Lon · Apr 3, 2015

musterion said:
I don't reply to you as often as I used to

Understood and expected, with mutual appreciation. Some of this is rhetorical in the sense of trying to help the thread along. On this, I only wanted clarification with a bit of commentary accompanying.

musterion said:
I'll go with this for now...Romans 10:13 is not the Gospel of the grace of God. It is the proper response to it.

Absolutely.

musterion said:
*sigh*

Asking all the wrong questions. You still just don't get it.

That's fine, I'm trying to paint a bit with the other brush. I know of course why this disagreement exists. Somebody has to accurately report why the war is going on, while the war is going on. I try to fulfill the commentator role in these, with clarifications, if can give them.

If not, like here, I understand that miss. Baseball has 9 innings. Sometimes I strike out. Here I don't bat 1000 either. Thanks.
-Lon

(sorry if metaphors and similes distract, that isn't my intent but rather to attach further meaning)

patrick jane · Apr 3, 2015

Word based mystic said:
robot making God doctrine is even more of a human reasoning to explain the tension between The (Fathers) omniscience and the human activity that God responds to.

God puts in place the repent, believe, receive principles validating Gods desire for true relationship. not puppet string response to self worship

Main theme in scripture is relationship empowering, by Jesus's sin sacrifice allowing right relationship between man and God.

relationship not robotic response or slavery commands. But rather Love, passion, worship and praise. All given with relational response.

tie some puppet strings to your future wife

or put an obedient chip in your future spouse and see how that turns out.

Jesus used parables for explaining heavenly principles.
The words of our testimony are used to defeat the enemy.

parables and stories are jumping off points for those not understanding the fullness of Gods love, but rather focus on perfect knowledge and doctrine as a way to be mature.

look at ephesians 3:16-19 How do we become mature.
comprehending = defined as (experiencing) Gods love in all it's depths. not in perfect knowledge.

i've seen a trend in a few posts from you referring to wives, future wife/spouse, relationships and maturity. just an observation, but i certainly agree with experiencing, comprehending, "feeling" God's Love in countless ways, in harmony with Prayer, learning, studying; knowing - knowledge. IMO, folks can't grow in Christ/God/Love, WITHOUT Knowledge. no person has or will have "perfect" knowledge, nobody here pretends to. i see folks equating knowledge of scripture as only that, with no spirituality, prayer or worship, no regard for law and sin. folks accuse MAD of that because we have "knowledge" of Paul's Gospel which is Christ's

Nang · Apr 3, 2015

This thread has gone off topic from the O.P. :help:

musterion · Apr 3, 2015

Nang said:
This thread has gone off topic from the O.P. :help:

That's Orr's call, not yours. If he has a problem with it, he'll let the mods know.

intojoy · Apr 3, 2015

Word based mystic said:
the main concern i have for much of calvinists is how they frame their arguments or framed the discussion

but in doing so have ignored the main theme of scripture
Gods desire for relationship
Gods desire To express His love to His created children
(and receive worship and love) in a freedom response not a programmed one.
Gods desire for all His created is that He would that all would be saved.

relationship
Fathers love for all His created children
Bride to the bridegroom.
God is Love and the maturity and comprehension comes in the Love.

not in speculative doctrinal positions on the perfect understanding of this or that. knowledge shall pass and puffs up distracting us from the Love comprehension.

that comment on while He walked the earth He drew all men to him is cessationist in nature an implies He no longer draws All men presently to him.

Here's the checkmate:

There are races of people who lived, died and not once did they hear of the name of Messiah. Not all men have been drawn since this is fact.

Word based mystic · Apr 3, 2015

patrick jane said:
i've seen a trend in a few posts from you referring to wives, future wife/spouse, relationships and maturity. just an observation, but i certainly agree with experiencing, comprehending, "feeling" God's Love in countless ways, in harmony with Prayer, learning, studying; knowing - knowledge. IMO, folks can't grow in Christ/God/Love, WITHOUT Knowledge. no person has or will have "perfect" knowledge, nobody here pretends to. i see folks equating knowledge of scripture as only that, with no spirituality, prayer or worship, no regard for law and sin. folks accuse MAD of that because we have "knowledge" of Paul's Gospel which is Christ's

yeah I try to hit a story type or scenario that people can relate
marriage is a good example

Often scripture uses marriage and bride/bridegroom scenarios
as well as song of solomon as a base.

Jesus gave earthly parables to bring a beginning launching off point to think on a subject for heavenly expansion.

maybe i shouldn't go down that path.

I have been married 28 years and we grow together in understanding and Love.

plus both daughters are married 2 years now and in july i will be a grandpa for the first time.

so i think in these terms lately

BrianJOrr · Apr 4, 2015

Nang said:
This thread has gone off topic from the O.P. :help:

Yes, it has. I am waiting to see if Desert Reign plans to respond to last two posts, for it has some semblance of the OP. I think I would like to make the Romans 9 post as a new thread.

Cross Reference · Apr 4, 2015

BrianJOrr said:
Yes, it has. I am waiting to see if Desert Reign plans to respond to last two posts, for it has some semblance of the OP. I think I would like to make the Romans 9 post as a new thread.

Which greatly reveals salvation to be a heart issue, doesn't it? This makes the gospel but an 'explanation' of the soul of man. I am in agreement with Wbm in his opening remarks on post #256 that support what I am trying to convey.

Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

Well-known member

TOL Subscriber

Well-known member

TOL Subscriber

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

BANNED

TOL Subscriber

Well-known member

BANNED

New member

New member

New member