Theology Club: A Question for Open Theists

[musterion]

I can, if need be. In a nutshell: To save you. Romans 9:22,23

No. Romans 9 deals with the objection that self-righteous Jews were sure to raise upon being informed that they as a nation were at risk being set aside by God. Thus the chapter focuses on God's historical use of nations for His own purposes...starting with Abraham...then Jacob and Esau, representing the nations they'd father, Gen 25:23...then unrepentant Pharaoh representing Egypt, dashed to pieces to demonstrate God's power...then a timely reference to Isaiah's warning to Israel. The chapter is not about individuals chosen, or not chosen, to soul salvation. That's called eisegesis; for if you are correct, then Rom 9:33 not only makes no sense but is a lie, unless you're willing to dip your toe in the rank puddle of the gnostic's secret knowledge of God's reprobative will. But I think you already said you're not willing to go there.

Ask Mr. Religion has answered it here on TOL as well, if I remember rightly.

No. As I recall, he was offended that it was even asked but didn't address it.

Nor have you.

 

[Stripe]

I can, if need be. In a nutshell: To save you. Romans 9:22,23

It is a question that has been asked before so the answer is readily available. The longer version might need to be catered to your specific need without a long treatise, but long version links are available too.

Ask Mr. Religion has answered it here on TOL as well, if I remember rightly.

What was the question?

 

[musterion]

What was the question?

Yeah, Lon didn't really address it either:

If I secretly compel you to perform an act, then publicly condemn you for performing it as if YOU CHOSE to do it (which you did not because you didn't HAVE the power of choice), what words would describe me and my actions in this illustration?

Or to put it back in Bore's terms:

How does God remain just for condemning those who refuse to breathe when He chose in eternity past that they would never receive lungs?

The mic is yours, Lon. And please don't say "Well, I don't personally subscribe to that aspect of Calvinism." You said you'd answer it, so please do or don't. But don't claim you did when you did not.

 

[BrianJOrr]

What was the question?

Stripe, see underlined portions.

How is God just if there are those who die as sinners and go to hell that never got a chance to hear the gospel? Unless . . . you don't believe that we are all by nature sinners and under God's wrath for our sin.

How would that be any different? If God elected a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation according to his divine purposes (Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Peter 1:1-3; Rev. 5:9b) and only saving those any different than God not revealing his gospel to parts of the earth where people have never heard it and die in there sins?

Either way you slice it, he elected someone. Either he left a group to perish in sin, or he chose a group to be "be holy and blameless before him" (Eph. 1:4). I think the Scriptures more clearly demonstrate that God pro-actively elected a people unto salvation. It is obviously hard to grasp this, so we have to look at what the Scriptures show us and leave the 'why' up to God. Man is guilty for his sin and Christ is the only way. (John 14:6; Romans 1:20-32; 6:23)

But if we just assume that those who never hear the gospel receive an automatic pardon from God, then it seems that it would be logical that we should never share the gospel with anyone. Think about it, what better way to ensure salvation than to not share the gospel with anyone!

However, we have the Holy Spirit in us, guiding us to reach those whom Christ died for that have been scattered out abroad to be called into fellowship with him (John 11:52). God's purposes will come to fruition, for no one can thwart his plans.

Look, allow me to intervene. I'll do you a deal: I will answer your direct question. Within 24 hours of my answering it, you will answer Musterion's question. Directly and without 'flipping it'. No coming back to me with some discussion of what I said. No asking for clarification or complaining or other tangents.

Is that a deal?

Sure!

For information I would remind you that your reputation for avoiding questions goes before you, as in the exchange I quote below for example. So now is your chance to set the record straight.

So you are suggesting that if no one had misunderstood the Old Testament, then there would have been no need for a New Testament?

Please answer directly as I feel your response is crucial.

Or are you suggesting that the Old Testament was inherently incomprehensible?

And if you are suggesting that, then why were the Jews considered blameworthy for not understanding it?

I shall answer these. However, shall I expect you to go back through my questions and do the same?

1) No. I am suggesting that the New Testament enables us to see the proper context of God’s plan of redemption. Because of the NT we are able to better understand the OT. The Jews failure to understand the OT is quite prevalent all through the NT, particularly in Christ’s interaction with them.

2) It was not imcomprehensibe; rather, the Jews failed to connect it with Christ, what he came to do, and the Abrahamic covenant (Paul had to spell it out in Romans 4). If they were of God they would have realized the Scriptures spoke about him (John 8:42-43; 7:28). Romans 10:2; Luke 24:44-49; John 5:39; Acts 13:27

3) I point to: Romans 11:7-11; 1 Peter 2:4-10; [again cf. Luke 24:44-49; John 5:39; Acts 13:27] not to mention they delivered up their Messiah to be crucified.

And by the way, this offer is open until your next post to this thread. It's a question of dignity I hope you understand. It's been a long time since Musterion first asked you his question and of course it's been quite a while since I asked you mine quoted above (and others that went unanswered or discussions left unfinished) so I and I daresay other open theists here would not want to be seen to be being soft or liberal about their beliefs. Our beliefs are serious and we expect you to take them seriously or not at all.

I have nothing to hide nor do I intend to avoid anything.

 

[musterion]

Originally Posted by Stripe
What was the question?

How is God just if there are those who die as sinners and go to hell that never got a chance to hear the gospel?

You think you're sly, lying cultist, but we've dealt with your brand of subterfuge and deception before.

God condemning those who never hear was NOT the question.

The question was about your cult's depicting the holy, just and righteous God of the Bible as damning for unbelief those you claim He predestined to be unbelievers.

THAT is the issue NONE of you on TOL will address.

You might want to consider finding a board with opponents down on your level. You can't cut it here. We know your doctrines at least as well as you do, probably better.

 

[Nang]

You think you're sly, lying cultist, but we've dealt with your brand of subterfuges before.

God condemning those who never hear was NOT the question.

The question was about your cult's depicting the holy, just and righteous God of the Bible as damning for unbelief those you claim He predestined to be unbelievers.

THAT is the issue NONE of you on TOL will address.

Time you found a board with opponents down on your level. You can't cut it here. We know your doctrines at least as well as you do, probably better.

Keep it up Musty . . .

Brian Orr is on TOL to find out about the OV, and you are giving him the information he seeks. He is asking the questions, not you.

You are only making an intellectual fool out of yourself and showing your true colors. :nono:

 

[BrianJOrr]

No. Romans 9 deals with the objection that self-righteous Jews were sure to raise upon being informed that they as a nation were at risk being set aside by God. Thus the chapter focuses on God's historical use of nations for His own purposes...starting with Abraham...then Jacob and Esau, representing the nations they'd father, Gen 25:23...then unrepentant Pharaoh representing Egypt, dashed to pieces to demonstrate God's power...then a timely reference to Isaiah's warning to Israel. The chapter is not about individuals chosen, or not chosen, to soul salvation. That's called eisegesis; for if you are correct, then Rom 9:33 not only makes no sense but is a lie, unless you're willing to dip your toe in the rank puddle of the gnostic's secret knowledge of God's reprobative will. But I think you already said you're not willing to go there.

No. As I recall, he was offended that it was even asked but didn't address it.

Nor have you.

You lack of exegesis fails to see the broader, redemptive context of election.

I also posted in another thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4262402&postcount=90) demonstrating that Romans 9 is not about nations. And you failed to interact with anything I said, which tells me, that you are not up to the task.

 

[musterion]

I quit reading your postings when you made it clear you wouldn't discuss the analogy of lungs/faith, which YOU initially brought up. Do so, then I'll be happy to instruct you on why you're wrong on Romans 9.

 

[BrianJOrr]

I quit reading your postings when you made it clear you wouldn't discuss the analogy of lungs/faith, which YOU initially brought up. Do so, then I'll be happy to instruct you on why you're wrong on Romans 9.

I have given responses, from Scripture, on the work of the Spirit in making one born-again already. I am not going to go back for you and dig them up.

You are just making excuses now.

 

[musterion]

I have given responses, from Scripture, on the work of the Spirit in making one born-again already. I am not going to go back for you and dig them up.

Because they don't exist.

You are just making excuses now.

Prove me wrong, here and now. Explain how God can be just for condemning the unbelief of those He intended to be unbelievers before they ever existed, and doing so as if they chose unbelief (which they didn't).

Go.

 

[BrianJOrr]

Once Desert Reign responds (as I agreed to), I will answer your question . . . again. But I will try to be more specific.

And I would ask that you answer my question I just posted.

 

[musterion]

You first. Then I will.

Just to make sure we're clear on the question:

Can a just, non-lying God not give "lungs" to those He reprobates, then damn them specifically for refusing to "breathe?"

 

[Lon]

Because they don't exist.

Prove me wrong, here and now. Explain how God can be just for condemning the unbelief of those He intended to be unbelievers before they ever existed, and doing so as if they chose unbelief (which they didn't).

Go.

There are double-pred and single-pred Calvinists. On this, Beloved or Nang might shed more light. You did ask that I not say that, but I think it important to make sure you understand that we Calvinists aren't all caste from the same di. It is important.

That said, you asked that I address it in a manner that answers the question. As such, I've tried to take the Double-pred position and explain it (to the best of my understanding):

First, we are all born in sin. We choose according to that inclination and nature, it is a nature against God.

Analogy: If there were a contagious disease that had no cure, and was 100% fatal, would it be a sin to destroy the whole village that is infected with napalm?

Jesus' analogy, parable, the Wheat and the Tares:

Mat 13:24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,
Mat 13:25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
Mat 13:26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
Mat 13:27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?'
Mat 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?'
Mat 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"


Now, in the Garden, an enemy had done this as well. "You will not surely die." The damage was forseen, yet God set the world in motion. Why? Specifically, because Jesus saves. The person born that way, does he/she have a choice? No. Like the analogies both mine and our Lord Jesus Christ's: it is clear God has a sovereign right over His creation, without being culpable for wrong-doing. Regardless of what it looks like, regarding your and my sense of justice, you and I are the fallible creatures. God can never be. The Calvinists (all together for this answer), trusts God's goodness and righteousness AGAINST our conceptions of what fallible creatures demand to be right and wrong. IOW, if God says it is right, whether I understand or not, God is right.

Back to Romans 9. I understand why people go to 'group' dynamics, but this doesn't matter because individuals make up groups, therefore, such is simply a placating of the mind. What that means is, it is really a distraction for the mind to not have to dwell on the uncomfortable. We all do it, we don't want to dwell on the disturbing and make escapes for our minds, most specifically here, because we love God and don't want to have our conscientious objection to hinder our relationship with Him. It is a crisis of right and wrong morality and the good that we understand to be preserved. BUT in my mind, saying "nation" for Romans 9 is merely a distraction. It pushes the path out a ways so you can't see where the end of the reasoned road is, but it is right smack back to individuals and God's exclusive uncontested right to make some for noble and some for ignoble purposes. The dissonance for that, is immediate: "How can God be good then???!!!" My answer comes back to my first analogy: It is not desirable to wipe out a whole village, but the good of the noble creatures outweighs the problem of the infected village. God is about saving His people. He WILL save all that can be saved - You and me. We may worry about the fate of the unbeliever, and what we declare to be 'fair' but 1) Your and my idea of fair, isn't. and 2) We don't own unbelievers. God does. Are we really so demanding and presumptuous as to demand to be a part of His business which is really no business of your or mine, at all?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

There are only two options:

1. Deny all are born in the sin of Adam and therefore possess some "seed" of grace (prevenient grace as the Romanists and Arminians assert) such that the person can actually participate in their re-birth (synergism)

or

2. Recognize the original sin of all Adam's progeny, being dead in their state of sin, requiring God the Holy Spirit, through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel, to regenerate those God the Father has purposed to regenerate such that they will possess the moral capacity to do nothing but believe the Gospel (monergism).

AMR

 

[intojoy]

Does God ever learn anything?

 

[Lon]

Does God ever learn anything?

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me.

1 John 3:20 God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

 

[patrick jane]

Does God ever learn anything?

He just did, about YOU. God knew you were gonna do that too:doh:

 

[patrick jane]

There are only two options:

1. Deny all are born in the sin of Adam and therefore possess some "seed" of grace (prevenient grace as the Romanists and Arminians assert) such that the person can actually participate in their re-birth (synergism)

or

2. Recognize the original sin of all Adam's progeny, being dead in their state of sin, requiring God the Holy Spirit, through the ordinary means of the preaching of the Gospel, to regenerate those God the Father has purposed to regenerate such that they will possess the moral capacity to do nothing but believe the Gospel (monergism).

AMR

did you add something to monergism ? because someone else defines that word, i disagree slightly, although i lean towards aspects of monergism. "through the ordinary means" ? "of the preaching of the gospel". this pre-supposes everyone has a chance to "hear". but simply hearing isn't enough, imo. believing isn't enough. faith isn't enough. WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING.


i remember before "i got it" - i would hear phrases, "just believe" - "confess with your lips" - "faith" etc. - folks that don't "know" or seek understanding can't really latch onto that, it sounds too easy. understanding is so crucial that good "teachers" are needed more than good "preachers", IMO.


what of a man born in the wild, raised by wolves, bla bla bla, can God's Spirit Permeate that man, obviously yes, but how, if one never hears of Christ, or worse, they "hear" bits and pieces but never completely understand ? does anyone ? i find it difficult to imagine God expects us to "find out" on our own even while so many doctrines, beliefs, wise and holy folks tell us "how" to think.


i have no doubt in my Salvation, however, i feel a need to get "regular" folks interested. the more i read and study "great theologians", i realize i've had the same lines of thought, not all, but i understand, and it's helpful now. so many folks don't "have the time" to grow In Christ, for so many reasons. i know if everyone realized how "fascinating" Jesus Christ Is; they could never get enough - atrol:

 

[Nang]

did you add something to monergism ? because someone else defines that word, i disagree slightly, although i lean towards aspects of monergism. "through the ordinary means" ? "of the preaching of the gospel". this pre-supposes everyone has a chance to "hear". but simply hearing isn't enough, imo. believing isn't enough. faith isn't enough. WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING.


i remember before "i got it" - i would hear phrases, "just believe" - "confess with your lips" - "faith" etc. - folks that don't "know" or seek understanding can't really latch onto that, it sounds too easy. understanding is so crucial that good "teachers" are needed more than good "preachers", IMO.


what of a man born in the wild, raised by wolves, bla bla bla, can God's Spirit Permeate that man, obviously yes, but how, if one never hears of Christ, or worse, they "hear" bits and pieces but never completely understand ? does anyone ? i find it difficult to imagine God expects us to "find out" on our own even while so many doctrines, beliefs, wise and holy folks tell us "how" to think.


i have no doubt in my Salvation, however, i feel a need to get "regular" folks interested. the more i read and study "great theologians", i realize i've had the same lines of thought, not all, but i understand, and it's helpful now. so many folks don't "have the time" to grow In Christ, for so many reasons. i know if everyone realized how "fascinating" Jesus Christ Is; they could never get enough - atrol:

Did you just say something?

What?

 

[patrick jane]

You lack of exegesis fails to see the broader, redemptive context of election.

I also posted in another thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4262402&postcount=90) demonstrating that Romans 9 is not about nations. And you failed to interact with anything I said, which tells me, that you are not up to the task.

demonstrate here, i don't like forced labor - atrol: