Hilston said:You mean man doesn't have to grab the Rope?
Do you agree with muzicman's analogy?
As I pointed out earlier, the analogy is flawed on many levels. A more biblical analogy would acknowledge that you're already dead when the Coast Guard gets there. Lu 9:60 Ro 6:13; 2Co 5:14,15 Eph 2:1,5,6; 5:14; Col 2:13. You couldn't grab the rope, because you're dead. In fact, you've been dead for days, and you stink. That's the analogy the Bible gives us in the story of Lazarus.
The biblical view is that Christ truly saves you from out of death. He regenerates you to life. The biblical teaching is that we were dead; completely unable to respond to God (Ro 8:7). Unable to see with dead eyes. Unable to hear with dead ears. Dead ears cannot hear. Lazarus could not have heard Jesus' voice when he was called out of the tomb unless God made Lazarus' ears work. Lazarus did not "grab a rope." God revived a dead man and restored all his faculties for him to respond and to come out of that tomb. The Biblical view is that we can truly thank God for saving us. He really did it. He didn't just provide a potential salvation for those smart enough to "grab the rope." He really saved us out of death, made us alive. He didn't just save us from dying. We died. He revived us. I can truly say "Jesus saved me." The Open Theist can only say, at best, "Thanks for the assistance."
The Open View teaches that men are their own Saviors. It is a works salvation. It is a self-absorbed, self-gloryifying, self-aggrandizing theology that exalts man and denigrates God (Job 40:8). The Open Theist worships the creature instead of the Creator (Ro 1:25), deifying Man to be His Own Savior, and humanizing god to be only a little higher than the angels (if that). The Open Theist wants the final word. And that's the bottom line: What good is Jesus' sacrifice? If it depends on you, then it's not sufficient. Jesus doesn't save. You do. It takes determination, tenacity, a strong-will to grab and hang on to that rope. Jesus' sacrifice doesn't save anyone. It's just a rope. A rope doesn't save.
What's the difference between the guy who doesn't take the rope and the one who does? The one who does is smarter, better, more reasonable, more thoughtful, more glorified. He has something to be proud of, a badge to wear on his chest, flowing robes, and trumpet to blast. "Great job, Open Theist! Way to go, man! You did it! You grabbed the rope! It's all you, baby! Sure, the rope was there, but what good is the rope if you don't grab it, right? You da man. You. Da. Man!!!" What about Jesus? Oh, Him? He's just a Rope.
How is your view any different than themuzicman's?
"Alittleoldladygotmutilatedlastnight; werewolves of London again",
Jim
I would suggest you are misrepresenting Arminianism or Open Theism.
The Spirit alone saves and regenerates. We cannot save or regenerate ourselves.
God initiates and provides salvation. The grounds (reason by which; objective provision) of salvation are grace and the person and work of Christ. The conditions (not without which) of salvation (subjective appropriation) are repentant faith and continuance in the faith. A condition is not a work, but a response and reception of what God has done (Jn. 1:12; 3:16, 36; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9, 10, I Jn. 5:11-13, etc.).
Repentant faith is man's response to the conviction and convincing of the Spirit. He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe. This would be unreasonable if it was impossible for man to respond to the drawing, persuading, wooing of the Spirit. Total depravity does not mean total inability. Reciprocal love relationships are not coerced nor caused. They must be freely entered into and maintained. Since God provides and initiates, salvation is not of man. We are the other party in reconciliation, so our will and intellect is involved. God gets the glory, but we are morally culpable/responsible/accountable if we reject Christ vs receive Him.
TULIP is a deductive philosophy that is not inherent in Scripture (without proof texting).
The historical narrative about Lazarus relates to Christ being the resurrection and the life. It is not a didactic passage about the nature of salvation. To make it so is eisegesis or sloppy exegesis.
Death is separation, not annihilation or non-existence. Study all uses of death. We have spiritually dead people who are alive; physically dead people who are alive, etc. You are pressing analogies with a wooden literalism. cf. born again is a metaphor for salvation...it is not identical to physical birth...so Calvinists who use it to argue to their doctrines with a wooden literalism go beyond the context or intent of Jesus.