I was told you deny the Trinity
Man your slow.
I was told via pm
That means someone said you deny the trinity.
How many times do you need to read this before you answer that accusation bud?
Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists
- Thread starter BrianJOrr
- Start date
I was told you deny the Trinity
Man your slow.
I was told via pm
That means someone said you deny the trinity.
How many times do you need to read this before you answer that accusation bud?
Word based mystic
New member
you play games. stirring strife and arguments
your pm person is a liar and false accuser.
maybe you also if you prevaricate the way you do.
your pm person is a liar and false accuser.
maybe you also if you prevaricate the way you do.
All this strife over the false assumption that there is something God doesn't know yet.
Hmmm
Word based mystic
New member
ummm NO.
you intimate I dont believe in the trinity.
and don't reveal your source
you prevaricate taking only sections of my comments then link it to a different subject.
strife starting is not becoming of you .
Cross Reference
New member
Strife starting is the way of the conceited which compels them to be right regardless of knowledge grade level/base.
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
duplicate delete
Word based mystic
New member
if you cant prove something then don't bring it up.
you'd probably reply if someone started naming you an antichrist or in the spirit of.
time to ignore since you cant prove anything
you can apologize anytime.
otherwise will just ignore.
I asked you. Then let you know why I asked. All you needed was some humility.
Try asking me the same question and I'll show you how to respond.
Calm down
Obvious? Your argument has failed if you have to resort to arguing that it's obvious.
I was giving a summary of my belief. I have had other discussions on this forum about the nature of eternal punishment. I am not afraid to deal with any passage of scripture. You are hooked on orthodoxy. If you are so convinced by orthodoxy you would be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I already told you that if you want a debate then you need to leave your comfort zones. We've been through this before, why are you bringing it up again?
By the way, it's 'by-pass'.
The blood would be on your hands if you had the opportunity to share the Gospel with him but did not. Not the other way round.
I don't know how to make the point clearer: you seem to have a habit of making me work twice as hard always to correct your many misunderstandings. That's why I didn't respond to this post until now when you have specifically requested me to do so. If a person who has not heard the Gospel dies, he will be judged according to his deeds. At the time of meeting him, you do not know what his deeds are; you do not know if, like Cornelius, he was already pleasing in God's sight. And most importantly, you do not know if, though he might be a wicked person, your proclaiming the Gospel would presuade him to turn away from his wickedness.
But Cornelius is not exactly a good example because he already knew of the God of Israel. (Acts 10:22). You would have to say that the Bible doesn't give any examples of people who have not heard of God and yet are righteous. The Catholics have their view, the protestants have theirs. But whatever the truth is, it is your duty to spread the Gospel. So once again please stop this business of creating straw men you are so addicted to.
As I said, straw man.
If I have used a text which I have misinterpreted, then please say so. I don't allow you to use texts from scripture to support a view that in itself is incoherent. Otherwise you are implicitly claiming that the Bible supports incoherence. Are you claiming that? Yes or no?
I know for example that there are quite a few Christians who seem to delight in incoherence and revel when for example when their belief contradicts some popular scientific theory. And they go out of their way to get criticism from people in the world because they think that it makes them more acceptable to God. It is not the incoherence of your position that justifies it. We, as mature Christians, don't go there. So what is it to be? Are you going to justify why your position is coherent rather than just spew scripture passages in our faces that only serve to show that you delight in the incoherence itself? I made a point of logic. You, on the other hand, have uttered not a single word in defence of your position. If you can show that the concept of original sin is coherent I would be delighted to hear it. I would be the last person to object to your proof. I have looked for many years to find an explanation and have got nothing other than dogmatic scripture quoting from diehard Calvinists. Are you going to be the end of my search for an answer or are you going to continue the way you have so far just doing what the rest of them do? How can God be just in this???
Exactly right! It is out of context. It is clearly referring to the Jews who have been cut off from their inheritance because of their unbelief.
I don't understand your question. I already gave my view on the flood narratives and I wrote a whole post on it in my Big Picture thread.
Answered above.
I was referring Paul's sermon on Mars Hill. Heathens are just those who have not heard of the God of Israel or of Christ. It has nothing to do with what they have done or not done or whether they are wicked or just nice people.
No but if you want to read that into what I said, then go ahead since you are in the habit of reading into my words what is not there and making a straw man, I guess another instance won't make any difference.
Yes, and if you had bothered to read what it says, you would have seen that it is talking about people who deliberately distort the truth when they know full well what the truth is. It's right there in verse 18.
<sup class="versenum">18 </sup>αποκαλυπτεται γαρ οργη θεου απ ουρανου επι πασαν ασεβειαν και αδικιαν ανθρωπων των την αληθειαν εν αδικια κατεχοντων
It is only your assumption that this verse is referring to all people everywhere. Nothing, I repeat nothing in this passage says that all men everywhere are unrighteous wicked people deserving damnation. That's your delusion.
I think Paul is making a general point but of course it was the Jews who were supposed to be in possession of the truth. Paul makes this explicit in the next chapter when he expressly criticises the Jews.
Just give it up, OK?
You mean, all the straw men you have constructed specially so that it looks like my theology doesn't make sense to someone like you with your Calvinist presuppositions?
Your position is incoherent. You have done nothing to justify it. You need to distort a scripture or 25 to convince yourselves of your position. It is only yourselves you are convincing. Other people are not convinced any more.
Last edited:
BrianJOrr
New member
You still have an inconsistency that makes your position quite untenable. If you cannot see this in your own words, then I don’t know how else to point it out.
In your latest response, you said:
However, it still does not clear up the objection I raised previously, when you stated:
Do you see the problem? I will restate:
1. <b>The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity</b>.
But then you said:
2. <b> if a person has not heard the gospel, he will be judged according to this deeds</b>
How am I making a straw man? These are your words. Unless you are implying babies are judged as well? I take this to mean that those who have never heard the gospel, their destiny is the same as babies who die before maturity. Is that destiny to be with Christ as the babies are? That is my assumption.
Don’t you see the dilemma and the reason why I asked the question about choosing not to preach to anyone? How can a persons blood be on my hands, if I never preach to them, when you said that their destination is the same as babies who die before maturity? I am doing that person a favor because his destination is the same as babies, according to your words.
In your latest response, you said:
However, it still does not clear up the objection I raised previously, when you stated:
Do you see the problem? I will restate:
1. <b>The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity</b>.
But then you said:
2. <b> if a person has not heard the gospel, he will be judged according to this deeds</b>
How am I making a straw man? These are your words. Unless you are implying babies are judged as well? I take this to mean that those who have never heard the gospel, their destiny is the same as babies who die before maturity. Is that destiny to be with Christ as the babies are? That is my assumption.
Don’t you see the dilemma and the reason why I asked the question about choosing not to preach to anyone? How can a persons blood be on my hands, if I never preach to them, when you said that their destination is the same as babies who die before maturity? I am doing that person a favor because his destination is the same as babies, according to your words.
I have thought about this and I have a slightly different take on it than Desert Rain.
Those that have never heard the gospel are not discussed at all in scripture. There is nothing in scripture upon which to form an informed opinion. My only answer is that God is infinitely just and He will deal with those people accordingly.
This answer is amazingly unsatisfying to a great many people as it seems to leave a gaping hole in our understanding of who is saved and who is not. It does. So what. We either trust God or we do not. I trust God and am perfectly content to let the matter rest there.
musterion
Well-known member
Yup. The Judge of all the earth shall do right.
Word based mystic
New member
the (Word) in being in this material world limited His foreknowledge in order to facilitate true relationship and love responses both towards (ALL) created children and men responding in true love and passions (not puppet string, programmed responses) back to their creator.
The Father being Spirit has all knowledge only, and works to bring a bride for His Son.
Not a robot bride programmed to worship.
plenty of examples of limited foreknowledge as the Creator/Son/Word interacts with men and (desires) all men to come to Him.
Why else would God/Word (desire) anything if He already Knew all things and their outcomes.
Being angry at the created children He made is illogical if He programmed the children to do the things that angers God in the first place.
creating children/souls so they may go to hell and be tormented forever for the very way that they were created is ridiculous.
your doctrine does not allow for repenting, believing or receiving.
Choosing this day is irrelevant.
that neither lines up with a fathers character or Gods Justice.
Brian, you are taking what I said out of context. Your claim that I said X and then said Y is misleading because I didn't say Y until a long time after I said X and it was in a different post. You strung these two quotes together and did your usual trick of dividing by zero after first applying Fourrier transformations and matrix manipulation and getting the wrong answer. Your getting the wrong answer was an absolute certainty when you use such methods.
All you had to was to read what it said
The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity.
Nowhere did I say that the career of those who have never heard the Gospel was the same as that of babies. I explained my statement right then and there in the part that you conveniently forgot to include in your second cite.
That is the position I was referring to. Look at what you wrote again! You first gave the exact quotation of mine which was of course pulled up by the system so it is exact but when you copied and pasted it a few lines later you just ignored the part that you either didn't understand or was inconvenient to you.
Now can I please ask you to quit this subterfuge and once again ask you to answer the question: explain why your doctrine of the inherited sinfulness of man is not incoherent and why your doctrine of man's inherent sinfulness is not unjust? You say that because man is born in sin, then everyone deserves judgement. This is a key doctrine of Calvinism. That is your rationale for asserting that God shows us mercy by predestinating some to salvation. Again, quit stalling and answer this.
Last edited:
CM, I think you will find that it is not my view that you have a slightly different take on but rather the distortion of my view that Mr. Orr has kindly published.
I don't think of the issue as a gaping hole though. It is more a red herring. Calvinism has a much greater issue to answer for. We all know that the God of all the earth will act justly so what happens to babies or to the heathen who perhaps do good is bound to be satisfyingly answered by this one principle. But the idea that we are all by nature born in sin and as a result are considered already damned unless God shows a predestinating mercy is a far greater slur on God's justice and good character.
BrianJOrr
New member
DR,
It is from the same post:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4274385&postcount=172
You said:
"The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity."
And further down you said:
"So when God judges those who have not heard the Gospel, his judgement is against all those who commit wickedness. There is no disputing this. We are all agreed on it. All those who have committed sin will be punished according to their deeds."
So what is it? Those who have not heard the gospel are judged, or do they share their eternal destiny with babies who die?
Your statement regarding that the Bible does not say anything on that subject is beside the point, for you those who never hear the gospel are with infants.
It is from the same post:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4274385&postcount=172
You said:
"The position regarding the career of those who have never heard the gospel is the same as babies who die before maturity."
And further down you said:
"So when God judges those who have not heard the Gospel, his judgement is against all those who commit wickedness. There is no disputing this. We are all agreed on it. All those who have committed sin will be punished according to their deeds."
So what is it? Those who have not heard the gospel are judged, or do they share their eternal destiny with babies who die?
Your statement regarding that the Bible does not say anything on that subject is beside the point, for you those who never hear the gospel are with infants.
BrianJOrr
New member
Romans 5:12-21 gives us our doctrine of original sin. I will work through this to show the parallel relationship between what Adam imputed to us and Christ imputed to us.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
- sin came into the world through the one man Adam’s sin, producing death
- all die because <i>all sinned</i>
- There is a causal inference here.
The Bible is clear that all people without exception sin (except Christ) (Romans 3:23). As Adam’s progeny we are all under the power of sin. While we will answer for each sin, our judgment remains because of Adam’s sin, for Adam’s sin is imputed to us. This will be more apparent in verse 18-19. We are all separated from God. That is why Christ did not come from Adam, so he would not be in sin by virtue of Adam’s imputation of sin to all his posterity.
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
- sin was in the world before the law. Why? Because of Adam’s sin.
- though sin was not counted before the law, people still died. Why? By virtue of entering the world in a state of death, all humans sinned. Adam’s transgression meant condemnation for all (see vv.18-19)
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
- Again, ‘yet’ death reigned from Adam to Moses, explaining why people died though they did not have the law.
- Adam was a type, being head of humanity, as Christ is head of the new humanity
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
- Christ’s free gift was his perfect life of obedience to God, his offering for reconciliation, leading to eternal life and fellowship with God—which is not like Adam’s trespass.
- Many died through Adam; Many are made alive through Christ (his act of righteousness)
- Though all die through Adam, the ‘many’ are those who are in Christ. (Unless you are a universalist)
16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
- The free gift results in life; Adam’s sin resulted in death (for all, the many included).
- Key point: <b>judgment followed the one trespass, bringing condemnation</b>
- The free gift, Christ’s act of righteousness, brought justification for many trespasses (does not include all).
17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
- Death reigns because of one man's trespass (to all and many); righteousness reigns because of One Man's righteous act (only to the many)
What is the relationship between us and Adam? Why do all without exception sin? (18-19 explain)
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
- Because of Adam’s trespass, death reigned through him, <i> leading to condemnation for all men</i>. Clear as day!
- Because of Christ’s act of righteousness, justification and life is given to all men (those in Christ)
- Verse 19 shows us what Christ’s gift does for the many, <b>who were made sinners by Adam’s disobedience</b>—they, the many, are made righteous.
According to this Paul’s contrast:
Did we do anything to earn righteousness on own individual efforts? No
Did we do anything to earn condemnation by our own individual efforts? No
However, after the fall of Adam:
Our nature in Adam is corrupted and can do nothing but sin, so we are judged by our works.
And after the resurrection of Christ:
Our nature in Christ is restored and we can now live righteously.
One disrupts Paul’s point if one dismisses his argument about Adam. Because if one does, then one also has to reject his argument about Christ. If you don’t get the sin from Adam, then you don't get the righteousness from Christ.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
- sin came into the world through the one man Adam’s sin, producing death
- all die because <i>all sinned</i>
- There is a causal inference here.
The Bible is clear that all people without exception sin (except Christ) (Romans 3:23). As Adam’s progeny we are all under the power of sin. While we will answer for each sin, our judgment remains because of Adam’s sin, for Adam’s sin is imputed to us. This will be more apparent in verse 18-19. We are all separated from God. That is why Christ did not come from Adam, so he would not be in sin by virtue of Adam’s imputation of sin to all his posterity.
13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
- sin was in the world before the law. Why? Because of Adam’s sin.
- though sin was not counted before the law, people still died. Why? By virtue of entering the world in a state of death, all humans sinned. Adam’s transgression meant condemnation for all (see vv.18-19)
14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
- Again, ‘yet’ death reigned from Adam to Moses, explaining why people died though they did not have the law.
- Adam was a type, being head of humanity, as Christ is head of the new humanity
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
- Christ’s free gift was his perfect life of obedience to God, his offering for reconciliation, leading to eternal life and fellowship with God—which is not like Adam’s trespass.
- Many died through Adam; Many are made alive through Christ (his act of righteousness)
- Though all die through Adam, the ‘many’ are those who are in Christ. (Unless you are a universalist)
16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
- The free gift results in life; Adam’s sin resulted in death (for all, the many included).
- Key point: <b>judgment followed the one trespass, bringing condemnation</b>
- The free gift, Christ’s act of righteousness, brought justification for many trespasses (does not include all).
17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
- Death reigns because of one man's trespass (to all and many); righteousness reigns because of One Man's righteous act (only to the many)
What is the relationship between us and Adam? Why do all without exception sin? (18-19 explain)
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
- Because of Adam’s trespass, death reigned through him, <i> leading to condemnation for all men</i>. Clear as day!
- Because of Christ’s act of righteousness, justification and life is given to all men (those in Christ)
- Verse 19 shows us what Christ’s gift does for the many, <b>who were made sinners by Adam’s disobedience</b>—they, the many, are made righteous.
According to this Paul’s contrast:
Did we do anything to earn righteousness on own individual efforts? No
Did we do anything to earn condemnation by our own individual efforts? No
However, after the fall of Adam:
Our nature in Adam is corrupted and can do nothing but sin, so we are judged by our works.
And after the resurrection of Christ:
Our nature in Christ is restored and we can now live righteously.
One disrupts Paul’s point if one dismisses his argument about Adam. Because if one does, then one also has to reject his argument about Christ. If you don’t get the sin from Adam, then you don't get the righteousness from Christ.