Where an omniscient God cannot exist...:think:Knight said:And the strawman followed Dorothy all the way to Oz.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
godrulz said:
Amen to that. I think reaction to OSAS has caused some to place undue emphasis on the question of one's salvation when sin is present. Maturity comes in realizing that intimacy with Christ and keeping in step with the Holy Spirit requires repentance and forsaking of anything that hinders that relationship. Refusing to do so is forsaking the relationship and leads to apostasy. If that isn't willful rejection of salvation, what is?
Correct, but when they do choose Christ God "sets them aside". God associates them with Christ's death on the cross and seals them until the day of redemption.sentientsynth said:
Their choices are now more limited (in a good way).
Likewise... when I said "I do" to my wife.... I limited my choices in a good way
(what was she thinking???)Limiting choices does not remove freewill.
Good question.:squint:Knight said:Likewise... when I said "I do" to my wife.... I limited my choices in a good way
Philetus said:
Believers are secure in Christ (Jude 24, 25). An 'unbelieving believer' is an oxymoron. Jn. 3:16, 36; I Jn. 5:11-13 Those who believe and continue to believe (Greek present, continuous tense) and those who are in the Son have eternal life. Nothing can separate us from the love of God. We are to walk in the light and Spirit, not the flesh and darkness. Unbelief is an unique sin in that it is a selfish state of rebellion and rejection of Christ and His finished work. Those who die in a godless state, whether they once believed or not, will be condemned.
I can't say that it is explicit, no. But I find it interesting that the passage about our being sealed by the Holy Spirit is worded the way it is and it seems clear that God is not the type to force someone who hates Him to stick around forever if the person doesn't want to. So while I do believe that this is the way it is and feel like I have good reason to believe it, I couldn't take a strictly dogmatic stance on it.godrulz said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Two things.godrulz said:
First of all, you are not a Hebrew and you need to keep that in mind when reading mail written to the Hebrews.
Second, you ignore the use of the term "earnest" in relation to the giving of the Holy Spirit (a strictly Pauline concept). If God does not save you after having given you an earnest payment on the transaction, He forfeits that earnest payment, which is clearly not going to happen. The only passages you will be able to cite that suggest otherwise will have been written to, for and about the Jewish believers who were never given any such earnest payment.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete said:
Robert Shank in 'Life in the Son' also exegetes Pauline verses that support conditional eternal security and your 'circumcision' verses that seem as unconditional as some Pauline ones. Apart from a dispensational concept, each verse/passage should be exegeted in context. It is interesting that both camps claim some of the same verses, so exegesis is in order (and it does not just come down to a Mid-Acts possibility in every case).
A literal payment metaphor should not be pressed into a wooden literalism. The pledge or earnest of the Spirit also requires careful understanding. It does not contradict other passages that warn about the possibility of falling away/apostasy. Reconciliation involves two parties. You are correct about God's faithfulness, but minimize the potential for man to change mind and will even after conversion. A post-Paul believer is no more a robot than any other saint (especially your post-resurrection Jewish believers in the same finished work of Christ).
The fact that you speculate about God not forcing people in the end to accept heaven or remain in Him makes me wonder why you think that is so impossible/unreasonable for fallible men with even less light in this life. It would be strange to be impossible to forfeit salvation in this life as a Pauline believer, yet get to the end of the road after death when it should be obvious what the truth is and still chose hell?! It is stoopid to reject one's first love and truth in this life. It would be unthinkable and moronic for the same class of people to do it after death or at the judgment?! If God can unconditionally keep a person in this life no matter how much they selfishly rebel, why could he not coerce them to remain faithful in the end. It seems something of your view does not make sense.
Well this thread is not about Acts 9 Dispensationalism and so I'll leave this be for now.godrulz said:
Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Do these verses mean what they say or not?Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
And these aren't the only verses that teach the principle of security for the believer. We are identified in Christ. Our life has been extinquished and it is He who lives His life through us. God cannoty deny us because He cannot deny Himself!
See above. This life is no longer an issue! It has been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. That which I do in this flesh has already been dealt with at the cross. But that which I do after I die is an altogether different issue.
I never said that such rejection of God on the day of redemption was likely but the fact remains that creatures (a third of the angels) who spent an unknown period of time in the direct presence of God decided to rebel against Him. I see no reason to believe that humans won't have the same ability.
Agreed!
It is not possible to coerce someone to love you, godrulz. You know that. Do you honestly beleive that God is going to force someone to stick around who doesn't love Him? Never mind forcing him to stick around, do you really believe that God is the sort of person who would even allow someone who hates Him to stick around in heaven from now on? I don't.
My view makes perfect sense although I'm not sure your understanding of it does.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete said:
Based on this brilliant insight, I see no reason why it only applies after death and not during this life. There are many examples in Church history of those who have shipwrecked their faith despite a strong and genuine start. I object to dispensationalizing away the clear warnings in Scripture about the possibility of falling away/apostasy for believers after the resurrection of Christ. Genetic Jew vs Gentile does not change the fundamental issues surrounding the plan of redemption and relationship (I find your view of salvation too metaphysical; perhaps you find mine too relational...open theism is relational theism/free will theism, not metaphysical nor determinism).
Ephesians 1 is a classic Calvinistic proof text passage (this should get your goat against me...peace bro). Ephesians is about Christ and the Church. Election is corporate. Certainly those who are in Christ are eternally secure and sealed. This is not in dispute. What is in question is if it is possible to be in Christ and then revert back to godless unbelief like a dog returning to vomit or a pig to the mud. Just as an unbeliever can change heart and mind to faith, I see no reason why a believer cannot change mind and will and become ensnared in false religion (Muslim, Mormon, etc.) or even atheism (Charles Templeton...former Billy Graham contemporary evangelist died agnostic or atheist). Some may return to the faith, but not all do. Some were never genuinely saved, but some were.
Eternal life is in the Son, not inherent in us. Faith requires continuance, not a punctiliar fire insurance. Those who reject the Son, whether they once believed or not, are not in the Son and are condemned with the rest of those outside His grace.
Those who are in the corporate body of Christ will share all the privileges of being in Christ, including eternal life. If an individual goes on to reject Christ and His church, I do not see how they are in the corporate elect. They forfeit their relationship and standing.
Paul addresses BELIEVERS and affirms their SECURITY. Other passages warn APOSTATES (falling away from truth, by definition) or those who are in a state of UNBELIEF (whether they once believed or not) that they have no such hope and need to come to or return to trusting Christ and His finished work alone.
If Hebrews warns genuine believers (at least you admit that they were Jewish Christians who could lose their faith...unlike Calvinistic commentators who must say they were never saved...despite the strong wording of the passage in Heb. 6:4-6; 10:29) against apostasy and losing eternal life, then why is it a stretch to think the same principles do not apply to those born to Gentile parents who left worship of Zeus for Christ, but then return at a later date to their former trust in paganism vs Christ? Surely this is possible and should not be glossed over or distorted due to a 'dispensational' framework that is not self-evident to most Christian scholars and readers of the Bible.
Oops...time to get off the bunny trail soap box...
Open theism...go for it (Open Theist John Sanders in "The God who risks" lays out reasonable arguments from a free will theism perspective why OSAS or POTS is not defensible...it still surprises me that TOL Open Theists adopt a view that I think is more consistent with Calvinism/determinism...secondary to Mid-Acts assumptions...new twist).
As an aside, the Gordon Olson "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism" book I am reading, is against Calvinism in many ideas and is also no friend of Open Theism (appendix dissing it). He must be moderate Arminian (mediate theology between Calvinism/Arminianism). I like many of his anti-Calvin ideas. He relies on foreknowledge in his election discussions (Wesleyan idea). Here's my point...He also believes that believers are eternally, unconditionally secure. He talks about God's preservation of the saints (Godward), not man's perseverance of the saints. I like the concept that God does preserve believers despite or inability to persevere on our own. However, just as the saving power and grace of God can be resisted by men, so the keeping grace and power of the Spirit can be resisted by believers (hence, do not quench, grieve the Spirit lest one's heart grows fatally hard and cold). The great passages of the security of those who believe and continue to believe must also be understood in light of the stern passages that warn about the possibility of falling away/apostasy (not confined to 'circumcision' books...Demas and others shipwrecked their faith...John also wrote years after Paul, so why relegate him to ignorance and an earlier supposed dispensation?).
Bob Hill
TOL Subscriber
Bringing this back to Open Theism, at one time I actually held to the view that God knew the whole future until I realized that I had no biblical basis for believing that. I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, from the theory of relativity.
Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does. It is when He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.
As some of you know, the Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God about 30 times. When I read God’s word and saw that He repented that many times, it affected me greatly. The passage that affected me at first was found in Deuteronomy, but I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
From this and many other passages with that Hebrew word, nacham, relating to God, I have drawn this conclusion. If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe: If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.
God always exists in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same in His wonderful character. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other time responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden. I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists.
In Christ,
Bob
Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does. It is when He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.
As some of you know, the Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God about 30 times. When I read God’s word and saw that He repented that many times, it affected me greatly. The passage that affected me at first was found in Deuteronomy, but I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” 11 Then Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: “LORD, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
From this and many other passages with that Hebrew word, nacham, relating to God, I have drawn this conclusion. If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe: If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.
God always exists in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same in His wonderful character. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other time responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden. I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists.
In Christ,
Bob
:thumb:Bob Hill said:
Mark 13:19-23 [jesus]"For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things."[/jesus]
Mark 13:32-37 [jesus]"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."[/jesus]
Because we have been sealed by they Holy Spirit. Did you miss that part?godrulz said:
The Spirit has been given as an earnest payment. That is, to put it in terms consistent with the idea of earnest payments on future transactions, the Spirit is given as God's guarantee that we will be carried through to see the Day of Atonement at which time the "deal", if you will, will be closed.
We cannot undo the deal because none of the terms of that deal are ours to fulfill. Once we entered into the deal, everything else is up to God and God alone and He cannot deny us because we are in Him via the Spirit of God and He cannot deny Himself. Our safe delivery to the Day of Redemption is as sure and secure as it the faithfulness of Jesus Christ Himself.
This is undisputed.
Who cares what you object too Godrulz? Not to be overly harsh or insulting here but it just doesn't make any difference what you like or dislike. The truth is the truth whether you object to it or not.
I'm sorry but this made no sense to me.
This sounds like you are suggesting that a believers eternal security is only as eternally secure as it their own ability to stay true to Christ. You will not be able to establish this doctrine without reverting back to the Dispensation of Law and thus turning your salvation into a faith + works (i.e. works = faith) based salvation. I'd love it if you'd try to prove me wrong.
This is classic Dispensation of Law teaching. You get this from focusing on the Gospels and the epistles written to the Jewish believers of that dispensation and by ignoring or explaining away the clear meaning of Paul's teaching in his epistles. You will simply not find any such teaching in any of the writings of Paul.
Further, if what you've said here is true then the following passages have no meaning.
Eph. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
II Corinthians 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
II Corinthians 5:4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 Who is the guarantee of our inheritance , to the praise of His glory.
II Corinthians 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, 22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
II Corinthians 5:4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
Ephesians 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 Who is the guarantee of our inheritance , to the praise of His glory.
What do you suppose the Spirit is a guarantee of if not our salvation.
That doesn't sound much like a guarantee to me. And again, you can find no such teaching in anything Paul taught.
None of those "other passages" are Pauline. One things for sure, Paul believed that once you were saved you were always saved.
I couldn't care less what "most Christian scholars and readers of the Bible" find to be self-evident. The teachings of Paul are inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. Paul was either teaching a different gospel or he was a deceiver and the Bible is compromised and therefore false and thus the entire Christian faith crumbles to pieces. Dispensational theology, and more specifically Acts 9 Dispensationalism, is the only possibly correct theological system because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
If you think that my view is at all consistent or even remotely compatible with Calvinism then you do not understand Calvinism or my view or both. They are near polar opposites. Calvinists don't believe in OSAS because of some guarantee that God has made by given believers His Spirit. They believe that those who will be saved cannot be lost because everything is predestined. The two views have almost nothing at all in common and no Calvinist anywhere could accept for even half a second that once we've been delivered safely to the Day of Redemption that any could possibly have any ability whatsoever to walk away from eternity with God. Calvinists don't even believe you have an ability to accept God in the first place! My view and Calvinism couldn't be any more different.
Look godrulz, you've got to get it into your head that I couldn't care less about what anyone thinks is Biblical. This Olson guy is as irrational as any other Arminian. He picks which passages he likes and explains the rest in light of those particular passages. He's no different that every other author who has written a book on any number of various theologically debated points. He takes his proof texts, says that they mean what they say and then either explains how his problems texts don't mean what they sound like they mean or else completely ignores them all together.
Paul taught that you could not lose your salvation and those who believe that you cannot point to his writings as their proof texts.
Peter, James and John taught that you could lose your salvation and those that believe you can, point to those writings as their proof texts.
Only Acts 9 Dispensationalists can consistently acknowledge both of the above two points and have their theology remain intact. Everyone else picks and chooses arbitrarily based on the latest book they've read or on some fuzzy feeling they get in the stomach or on the fear that what Paul taught will be a license to sin or God knows what.
The bottom line is that our theology must be Biblical, not popular or published. And passages in the Bible should be taken to mean what they seam to mean unless compelling reason is given why they shouldn't be. The books of the Bible were not written in some sort of code, nor where they written to people who had the benefit of a completed cannon of Scripture. They were written as letters from a specific persons to specific audiences and they must be interpreted in such a way as makes sense in that context. Meaning simply that James meant what he wrote just the way he wrote it as did Peter, John AND Paul. When the Bible is read with this clearly in view, the resulting theology will inevitably be Acts 9 Dispensationalism. The reason why the theology is not "self-evident to most Christian scholars and readers of the Bible", as you put it, is because they refuse to read the Bible in the context in which it was written. They read other people's mail as though it was addressed to them, which of course results in mass confusion, the evidence of which is ubiquitous and is the primary reason why this website exists.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Faith or continuance in the faith is not a work. I recently read a SDA article that emphasized grace and faith alone for salvation. They used to be much more legalistic and works oriented. They rightly pointed out that faith + works or law never saved anyone in any dispensation. They also affirmed the law as a means to convict of sin, as well as universal principles that believers will live up to (murder is wrong in any dispensation) by the Spirit. Your faith + works idea for the circumcision is refuted by Paul in Romans. A misunderstanding of James does not help (relationship between saving faith and subsequent works).
You do not like my references to other authors (Olson agrees with you, so I was surprised you took exception to his 'Arminianism'. He believes in OSAS, as you do). You underestimate the roots of Mid-Acts and the authors/churches that have invented this idea. Uncritically assuming it is biblical and other views must be wrong is a thinly veiled arrogance, in my mind. The view is not without problems and undue human influence. There is a time to be dogmatic (essentials of the faith) and a time to be teachable (variety of conflicting Mid-Acts views and other dispensational views...all claiming biblical support).
We should all remember that truth is objective, but our subjective, conflicting understandings are not always the truth. We should be careful to not always assume that anyone who views controversial subjects differently is rejecting the Word of God. We have all been wrong before, as have many capable, godly believers through the centuries.
Faith or continuance in the faith is not a work. I recently read a SDA article that emphasized grace and faith alone for salvation. They used to be much more legalistic and works oriented. They rightly pointed out that faith + works or law never saved anyone in any dispensation. They also affirmed the law as a means to convict of sin, as well as universal principles that believers will live up to (murder is wrong in any dispensation) by the Spirit. Your faith + works idea for the circumcision is refuted by Paul in Romans. A misunderstanding of James does not help (relationship between saving faith and subsequent works).
You do not like my references to other authors (Olson agrees with you, so I was surprised you took exception to his 'Arminianism'. He believes in OSAS, as you do). You underestimate the roots of Mid-Acts and the authors/churches that have invented this idea. Uncritically assuming it is biblical and other views must be wrong is a thinly veiled arrogance, in my mind. The view is not without problems and undue human influence. There is a time to be dogmatic (essentials of the faith) and a time to be teachable (variety of conflicting Mid-Acts views and other dispensational views...all claiming biblical support).
We should all remember that truth is objective, but our subjective, conflicting understandings are not always the truth. We should be careful to not always assume that anyone who views controversial subjects differently is rejecting the Word of God. We have all been wrong before, as have many capable, godly believers through the centuries.
I agree with you.Bob Hill said:
How would you define "continuance in the faith".godrulz said:
I don't know what SDA is but leaving that aside for now I would ask, what about sanctification? If salvation is realized through faith alone completely apart from works, which virtually all non-Catholic believers will affirm, then how is sanctification realized, in your view?
As I stated before it is true that even the Dispensation of Law was founded upon grace because no one could follow the law perfectly (at least I think I pointed that out before - I might be confusing two different threads). But that in no way implies that following the law was optional. It was not. If you stopped doing your best to following the law you stopped being saved.
The law is not to be used as a rule of life for the believer today. If you believe this you are a legalist. I'll try to establish this as time goes on if it becomes clear that this is what you believe.
No it isn't.
The book of James is probably the easiest book in the whole Bible to understand. It says that if you do not have good works that you do not have faith and that you are therefore not saved. That is the theme of the entire book.
I don't have a problem with referencing other authors. You misunderstood me. What I have an objection to is the insinuation that the agreement of other authors lends credence to a view that is irrational. If Olson is an Arminian then to that extent he is irrational and his position doesn't help your position or mine, either one. If some author who makes a sound Biblical argument is quoted then great! I quote such authors all the time because they are frequently able to articulate the point better than I. But I do not, nor do I believe any Christian should quote some author somewhere on theological issue as though his quotation is somehow authoritative by virtue of the fact that it is published. In matters of theology, I'm only interested in what is Biblical, not what is popular or published. That's all I was getting at with my objection.
Well if that is what I was doing then you would be right except that I don't even think it would be veiled at all. It would just be flat out arrogance. But this is not true of me. I understand that all theology is mans attempt to understand the Bible and so no theology is perfect. But I have been persuaded that Acts 9 Dispensationalism is the only logically possible theological system. I've not been persuaded by personality or some 'burning in my bosom" and I certainly haven't been persuaded by the vast multitudes of people who agree with it because there aren't any. What has persuaded me is the presentation of the Scripture with sound reason. If you want to persuade me away from it, you will only do so by those same means.
Which problems and undue human influence would that be exactly?
I believe that Acts 9 Dispensationalism is essential to the faith. Not that one has to be an Acts 9er to be saved but that all other views are irrational in one way or another.
Of course. No one has a theology that is flawless but whatever points of my theology that are in error, the fact that the Body of Christ began with the conversion of the Apostle Paul in Acts 9 and that Paul taught a different gospel message than had been taught before, is not one of them.
Of course! But the fact that everyone is wrong to one degree or another is no reason for me to lower my standards for what constitutes theological proof. In fact, it seems to be all the more reason to hold the bar as high as possible. The simple fact of the matter is that most people who author books about theology are not qualified to do so. They have no thought in their heads at all about being faithful to the Scripture except where that also means being faithful to their own theological point of view. In other words, the vast majority of authors do not argue from the Bible toward their theology but the other way around. They begin with their theology and argue back toward the Bible. This is why you have the endless procession of authors presenting their proof texts and ignoring or explaining away everything else.
Acts 9 Dispensational theology is the only theological system I have ever seen where there are no problem texts. NONE! Romans means what it says and so does James. Philippians means what it says and to does I Peter! Colossians means precisely what it sounds like it means and so does Matthew. I have no need to explain away countless Bible verses in order to maintain the Biblical integrity of my theology. Your theological system cannot say that, and neither can anyone else who is not an Acts 9 Dispensationalist. What stronger argument could be made for the Biblical soundness of a theological system than at? I don't know of one, do you?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Would you like to cheer for my Edmonton Oilers (they need help against the Sharks)?
The Greek present tense is usually a continuous tense, a habitual tense..."I eat...and I am eating or continue to eat...not I ate, and no longer am eating..."
Many verses about belief and faith and eternal life are in the present tense. It is not that we believe one time at a Billy Graham crusade and then revert to godless atheism at a later date. Faith continues or persists if it is not unbelief, the antithesis. This is similar to 'abiding' or 'remaining' in Him. Our relationship is from conversion to eternity. Continuing in the faith is contrasted with ceasing to believe, renouncing Christ and His finished work, returning to Islam, etc., becoming godless, apostate, falling away from truth, etc. One is either a believer or an unbeliever. A 'believing unbeliever' is a contradiction in terms. If someone no longer loves, serves, trusts, believes in, embraces, worships, etc. Christ (whether they once did or not), they are not believers, but unbelievers. Unbelievers are neither saved nor unconditionally have eternal life (Jn. 3:16, 36; I Jn. 5:11-13). Faith is not a work, but a response to God and truth. Continuing in relationship with Christ in His power is not self-salvation nor self-righteousness. Saving faith continues. It also bears the fruit of works (that do not save us). It is more than a one time intellectual assent to Christianity. It is an ongoing trust in Christ and His work without defiantly returning to a godless state.
Justification and regeneration are the works of God based on Christ and His finished work. Not everyone is saved (universalism). Reconciliation involves two parties and is not unilateral nor causative (TULIP). Repentant faith and continuance in the faith are conditions for subjectively appropriating His objective work. Without a response from man, salvation does not occur (or God would automatically save everyone unconditionally). Sanctification has two aspects in that we are set apart by God when we are justified as holy unto Him. The other aspect is has a progressive element where we yield more and more and obey increasing light as we grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. He does not just make us positionally holy, but works the character, attitude, and nature of Christ in us (Gal. 5 fruit of the Spirit= practical). Not all believers are equally mature nor live up to all the light they have. Not everyone deals with the issues that the Spirit puts His finger on immediately. New believers can struggle with old temptations. Some believers seem very carnal, worldly, and fleshly, while others radiate the holiness and love of Christ, victorious in their walk with God.
We are to continue to walk in the Spirit vs flesh (Paul in Rom. 6). We are to walk in the light as He is in the light (I John 1). We are to be holy as He is holy, as OBEDIENT children, self-controlled, not conforming to evil desires, ...be holy in all you DO (I Peter 1:13-16). We are to purify OURSELVES....perfecting (ongoing) holiness (2 Cor. 7:2). 2 Peter 1:3-11= we are to make every effort to add character qualities in ever increasing measure since His divine power has given us everything we need. Salvation involves faith, but like justification, it is not unilateral nor foisted on us (or we would all be equally mature at the moment of conversion). The exhortations and commands in Scripture, including Pauline epistles, makes it clear that we are to cooperate with and yield to the Spirit. He gives us a new heart and mind, but does not remove our wills and make us sock puppets (Eph., Col., Rom., Cor., etc.).
SDA= Seventh Day Adventists...they used to be very legalistic. Like Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, both groups are moving to an emphasis on grace and faith, not works nor legalisms.
The Greek present tense is usually a continuous tense, a habitual tense..."I eat...and I am eating or continue to eat...not I ate, and no longer am eating..."
Many verses about belief and faith and eternal life are in the present tense. It is not that we believe one time at a Billy Graham crusade and then revert to godless atheism at a later date. Faith continues or persists if it is not unbelief, the antithesis. This is similar to 'abiding' or 'remaining' in Him. Our relationship is from conversion to eternity. Continuing in the faith is contrasted with ceasing to believe, renouncing Christ and His finished work, returning to Islam, etc., becoming godless, apostate, falling away from truth, etc. One is either a believer or an unbeliever. A 'believing unbeliever' is a contradiction in terms. If someone no longer loves, serves, trusts, believes in, embraces, worships, etc. Christ (whether they once did or not), they are not believers, but unbelievers. Unbelievers are neither saved nor unconditionally have eternal life (Jn. 3:16, 36; I Jn. 5:11-13). Faith is not a work, but a response to God and truth. Continuing in relationship with Christ in His power is not self-salvation nor self-righteousness. Saving faith continues. It also bears the fruit of works (that do not save us). It is more than a one time intellectual assent to Christianity. It is an ongoing trust in Christ and His work without defiantly returning to a godless state.
Justification and regeneration are the works of God based on Christ and His finished work. Not everyone is saved (universalism). Reconciliation involves two parties and is not unilateral nor causative (TULIP). Repentant faith and continuance in the faith are conditions for subjectively appropriating His objective work. Without a response from man, salvation does not occur (or God would automatically save everyone unconditionally). Sanctification has two aspects in that we are set apart by God when we are justified as holy unto Him. The other aspect is has a progressive element where we yield more and more and obey increasing light as we grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. He does not just make us positionally holy, but works the character, attitude, and nature of Christ in us (Gal. 5 fruit of the Spirit= practical). Not all believers are equally mature nor live up to all the light they have. Not everyone deals with the issues that the Spirit puts His finger on immediately. New believers can struggle with old temptations. Some believers seem very carnal, worldly, and fleshly, while others radiate the holiness and love of Christ, victorious in their walk with God.
We are to continue to walk in the Spirit vs flesh (Paul in Rom. 6). We are to walk in the light as He is in the light (I John 1). We are to be holy as He is holy, as OBEDIENT children, self-controlled, not conforming to evil desires, ...be holy in all you DO (I Peter 1:13-16). We are to purify OURSELVES....perfecting (ongoing) holiness (2 Cor. 7:2). 2 Peter 1:3-11= we are to make every effort to add character qualities in ever increasing measure since His divine power has given us everything we need. Salvation involves faith, but like justification, it is not unilateral nor foisted on us (or we would all be equally mature at the moment of conversion). The exhortations and commands in Scripture, including Pauline epistles, makes it clear that we are to cooperate with and yield to the Spirit. He gives us a new heart and mind, but does not remove our wills and make us sock puppets (Eph., Col., Rom., Cor., etc.).
SDA= Seventh Day Adventists...they used to be very legalistic. Like Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, both groups are moving to an emphasis on grace and faith, not works nor legalisms.
- Status