ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

Hilston has a dog-eared copy of 'The God who risks' by Sanders. He has a section dealing with figurative language, accommodation, anthropomorphism, communication, etc. It is worth reviewing since even figurative language must convey real truths about God and His ways.

Playing the figurative language loophole card every time the Bible disagrees with one's preconceived theology reminds me of Mormons who bear their testimony or say the Bible is mistranslated every time the Bible contradicts their ideas. Change your ideas, not the Bible. The Open view hermeneutic is able to take things at face value and recognize obvious figurative language. Jim makes things figurative, without warrant from the context, to match his deductive views.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

If God has already mapped out the future in every detail God does not "respond" or "react" to anything. What would appear to be a response is merely part of the plan.

Unless God can see how we will in the future, freely pray, and includes that in his plan. But I don’t believe God maps out every detail, as in making every decision himself, so then there can be a real response.

A personal being can change His mind.

Unless of course, you are so very capable as to make the right decision every time!

Your view requires you to make figurative verses that say God changes His mind.

Actually, I simply choose another meaning of the word “nacham”, as the NIV does consistently:

Genesis 6:6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth…

1 Samuel 15:35 And the Lord was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

You see, there is another acceptable meaning here, and I would choose that meaning, and this isn’t being figurative.

Context is the key. Open Theists affirm Numbers, in context…

And then say “God does indeed speak and not act, and he does promise, and not fulfill”?

God is a man. Remember Jesus? The Word became Flesh....

Well, certainly this means something, right? What does “God is not a man” mean? Jesus became Flesh, but did the Triune God become flesh? No, and thus God as the Trinity, is most definitely not a man.

And as Godrulz said, God is not fickle or capricious, and we can say more, I believe, that God is not (like we are) at times mistaken.

He is really quite brilliant!

Isaiah 31:2 … he does not take back his words.

But the OVT view says he does.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Unless God can see how we will in the future, freely pray, and includes that in his plan. But I don’t believe God maps out every detail, as in making every decision himself, so then there can be a real response.

So are you saying the future is at least partially open?


You continue...

Actually, I simply choose another meaning of the word “nacham”, as the NIV does consistently:

Genesis 6:6 The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth…

1 Samuel 15:35 And the Lord was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

You see, there is another acceptable meaning here, and I would choose that meaning, and this isn’t being figurative.

Repent, relent, grieve, sorry, are all acceptable meanings and all present the same equal problem for the settled view.

 

[Clete]

Jim, what an empty picture you paint of God.

I see God as REALLY interacting with us. Hearing in a real way our prayers and requests. Responding in a real way to our prayers and requests. Moving, shaping, shifting, working with us!

I see the things that God does in our lives as real victory! A true change in the course of events by the power of God.

I see a group of abortion protesters praying and witnessing to a lady headed in for an abortion and God's response is tugging, pulling, pushing the women's heart and working with those that are calling upon Him, giving them the right words and the boldness to say the most effective things to her. She warms her heart and changes her mind and saves her babies life! A true response, a true victory, a true change in the course of history has occurred through prayer.

You see Him as "responding" only via "linguistic accommodation". Ouch!

If you had to guess, in what ways, if any, do you think Jim believes God to be like man?

I mean what, do you suppose, does the the Bible tell us about God that isn't a figure of speech in Jim's view?

"For God so loved the world..."

Jim has affirmed that God does not act in a loving manner, but rather He is love (otherwise He wouldn't be impassible, right), so does God actually love us or is that just a "condescension and figurative way of describing the infinite God's interaction with finite man"?

What about God can we actually take the Bible as face value about? It seems the whole thing is one gigantic figure of speech!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Well, certainly this means something, right? What does “God is not a man” mean?

That when it was said God wasn't a man. Today it only means that God doesn't repent or change His mind like a man.

Jesus became Flesh, but did the Triune God become flesh? No, and thus God as the Trinity, is most definitely not a man.

God is one Lee. Each person exists together with the others. They cannot be seperated into distinct beings. Three persons, yet one God. God is a man, but God is not only a man. He is also Spirit, Truth (had to put that one in there), and Love. He is all these things, including man.

And as Godrulz said, God is not fickle or capricious, and we can say more, I believe, that God is not (like we are) at times mistaken.

He is not mistaken like we are. But He can genuinely be mistaken when He expects one outcome and another comes to pass (Jeremiah 3:7). The outcome was not what God thought would come to pass, which means He was mistaken. Is this demeaning to Him? Certainly not. It is demeaning to us because God always hopes for the good.

Isaiah 31:2 … he does not take back his words.

That interpretation contradicts the rest of scripture (Jeremiah 18). My view is that God is faithful regarding His word up to the point where circumstances require it to change due to His character. And this fits much more beautifully with scripture than yours.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Unless God can see how we will in the future, freely pray, and includes that in his plan.

How long has God had the plan? Was there ever a time God didn't have the plan, and then came up with it - or did God always have the plan and never came up with it Himself?

 

[Hilston]

Jim, what an empty picture you paint of God.

I know it seems that way to Open Theists, but that's only because they're so accustomed to thinking of God as a big human being, and less than God. The Adamic nature is driven to denigrate God and to raise man up. This is why Open Theism appeals so viscerally to the lowest common denominator. And when one spends a huge amount of energy trying to convince oneself (and succeeding) that God is less than the infinite God, and is more like finite man, then, when the true nature of God is presented as transcendent and essential, requiring figures of speech to analogize and condescend to the finite mind of man, the Open Theist recoils and wants nothing to do with a concept of God that transcends humanity and creation itself.

I see God as REALLY interacting with us. Hearing in a real way our prayers and requests. Responding in a real way to our prayers and requests. Moving, shaping, shifting, working with us!

I understand that. But such view is a strictly finite and humanistic conception of God, taking obvious figures and forcing them into a non-figurative humanistic demi-god theology.

I see the things that God does in our lives as real victory!

For example?

... A true change in the course of events by the power of God.

When have you seen this? And how do you know it was God and not just something that happened by chance?

I see a group of abortion protesters praying and witnessing to a lady headed in for an abortion and God's response is tugging, pulling, pushing the women's heart and working with those that are calling upon Him ...

You SAW God's response? Or you just assumed it? How do you know God was even there? How do you know God was doing anything?

... giving them the right words and the boldness to say the most effective things to her.

How do you know this? Do the "right words" become scripture? Because if those words are from God, then they're infallible and inerrant and they should be written down.

She warms her heart and changes her mind and saves her babies life!

What does God have to do with that? Perhaps it was not God's doing at all. Perhaps one or two people were especially persuasive and pulled the right heartstrings to get the woman to change her mind. Salespeople do this everyday. They're experts at getting people to change their minds. Why bother God with all this?

... A true response, a true victory, a true change in the course of history has occurred through prayer.

You're just assuming all this. What proof do you have that God was even in the same county?

... You see Him as "responding" only via "linguistic accommodation". Ouch! :nono:

No, that mischaracterizes my position entirely. God's action is real, meaningful and effective. We call it a "response" because we are finite and we need a linguistic means of communicating, which often requires figurative language especially when discusses the infinite God. God's "response," while not actually a response in the humanistic sense according to the grand scheme (i.e. the Script), nonetheless effects that for which it was decreed, bringing to pass exactly what He planned.

How long has God had the plan?

In logical order, since He decided to create the Body of Christ. Some plans were established in logical order preceding the decree to create the Body of Christ, and some plans were established, again in logical order, following the decree to create the Body of Christ.

Was there ever a time God didn't have the plan, ...

A time before time? The question is incoherent.

and then came up with it - or did God always have the plan and never came up with it Himself?

Again, the question is incoherent. God planned things in logical order, not in time.

Feet on the Rock, name on the Roll,
Jim

 

[Delmar]

I know it seems that way to Open Theists, but that's only because they're so accustomed to thinking of God as a big human being, and less than God. The Adamic nature is driven to denigrate God and to raise man up. This is why Open Theism appeals so viscerally to the lowest common denominator. And when one spends a huge amount of energy trying to convince oneself (and succeeding) that God is less than the infinite God, and is more like finite man, then, when the true nature of God is presented as transcendent and essential, requiring figures of speech to analogize and condescend to the finite mind of man, the Open Theist recoils and wants nothing to do with a concept of God that transcends humanity and creation itself.

I understand that. But such view is a strictly finite and humanistic conception of God, taking obvious figures and forcing them into a non-figurative humanistic demi-god theology.

For example?

When have you seen this? And how do you know it was God and not just something that happened by chance?

You SAW God's response? Or you just assumed it? How do you know God was even there? How do you know God was doing anything?

How do you know this? Do the "right words" become scripture? Because if those words are from God, then they're infallible and inerrant and they should be written down.

What does God have to do with that? Perhaps it was not God's doing at all. Perhaps one or two people were especially persuasive and pulled the right heartstrings to get the woman to change her mind. Salespeople do this everyday. They're experts at getting people to change their minds. Why bother God with all this?

You're just assuming all this. What proof do you have that God was even in the same county?

No, that mischaracterizes my position entirely. God's action is real, meaningful and effective. We call it a "response" because we are finite and we need a linguistic means of communicating, which often requires figurative language especially when discusses the infinite God. God's "response," while not actually a response in the humanistic sense according to the grand scheme (i.e. the Script), nonetheless effects that for which it was decreed, bringing to pass exactly what He planned.

In logical order, since He decided to create the Body of Christ. Some plans were established in logical order preceding the decree to create the Body of Christ, and some plans were established, again in logical order, following the decree to create the Body of Christ.

A time before time? The question is incoherent.

Again, the question is incoherent. God planned things in logical order, not in time.

Feet on the Rock, name on the Roll,
Jim

Without of time no event can precede another.

 

[RobE]

Rob: The fact that Bob believes that God changed His mind from what He would do in the future; to what He knew He would do in the future after repentence; relies on foreknowledge of the future to achieve.

Clete: I'm sorry Rob but this is simply idiotic. If a person has a particular course of action in mind and then decides later to go in another direction then that is a change of mind. In Christian parlance its called repenting.​

Clete we must acknowledge that the point exists on an even more basic level than this. The reply....

No, I wouldn't say there was any doubt at all. God knew factually that He would destroy Nineveh if they did not repent and He knew factually that if they did repent that He too would repent of the harm He said He would do. This is precisely how God Himself declared He would react in such situations in Jeremiah 18 and so no, there was no doubt in God's mind at all.​

.....shows us that God declared these actions prior to the event. Without foreknowledge how could this be possible. It goes back to simple actions and foreknowing their effects. We're arguing about how intelligent the Creator actually is.

The future actions of agents with a will cannot be known. Nearly everything else can be, including but not limited to one's own intentions.

I agree. I remember, however, that creation was one of God's intentions and the outcomes from His intentions, according to this statement, might be known.

Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating a universe were some things happen in an unpredictable way?

No. God is capable of anything which is possible. What I'm saying is that God is incapable of creating a chaotic universe where He would be unable to understand how His own design would work. In other words, God is unable to create another being which is greater than Himself.

There are at least three ways in which God could create a universe in which certain events are predictable to one degree or another but not absolutely knowable.

1. If the variables affecting a particular outcome are infinite in number, scope or complexity.
2. If any one set of variables can have more than one possible effect.
3. If both 1 and 2 are true

There may be many other possibilities of which I am unaware but those are the two I've come across myself.

Something which is predictable is knowable. Prediction is based upon logic of past and present events leading to results in the future. Unless the outcomes are chaotic then things which are predictable are in fact knowable with enough information. How much understanding does our Lord have of His own actions and intentions based upon His knowledge of the present?

Rob

 

[RobE]

A man throws a rock at someone's head. That person is killed. According to this logic you use, that man is not guilty of the other's death because after the rock left his hand, he wasn't in control of it.

The analogy is wrong because the rock didn't decide to leave the man's hand of its own accord and kill a person.

If someone makes something for a purpose, and that purpose is achieved, the creator is responsible for achieving that purpose.

That's correct.

If I make a web page to earn money and make a million dollars (I can dream can't I?) and I make the money, then I am responsible for making the money.

Yes.

Clockwork. God creates Satan knowing he will fall. God sends him to earth knowing he will talk to Eve. God puts the tree in the garden knowing it will cause death to all men. God makes Eve knowing she would give Adam the deadly fruit. With future knowledge, everything that happened was planned and OK'd by God. It is the great clock, each part doing its purpose.

Yes, but these things were not God's ultimate purpose. They are just steps towards that purpose.

Just as it would if you were to wind your watch backwards then forward, it will act the same every time, the hands will move together according to the gears and how they were setup by their maker.

Nothing is free

According to your interpretation, not mine.

, everything is all apart of the predetermined "best" creation plan in which everything in the future is set because of the past and because God liked it that way.

God perfected it that way through His decrees.

This is all so tragic. To believe God wanted things to turn out like this? It is God's worst nightmare Rob! He hates how things turned out, he didn't plan this at all. Hence, his sorrow for ever creating man.

Patrick, the world is a wonderful place. Creation is a miracle and the future is something I'm able to look foreward to; knowing that the suffering and pain will be no more. God didn't coerce the free will agents within His design to bring sin, evil, and pain into His creation; even though He foreknew of its occurrance. Creation will yield His purpose which all these events will ultimately bring about. God's will and purpose are the same.

Rob

 

[RobE]

How, on your view, does a person get "renewed by the Holy Spirit"?

God regenerates the man to a point where He is able to accept or reject the truth. It is my view that God does this with all men. God doesn't coerce anyone (which would destroy a man's free will such as in the case of Jonah/Nineveh) to acceptance of Himself. His knowledge of who will accept/reject His sufficient gift doesn't affect His offer because of impassibility. Justice is served through the sufficiency offered and rejected/accepted by His enemies.

The term "sufficient" means that nothing else needs to be added. It is enough. Do you believe God's grace is enough to save all mankind?

Yes. Did Jesus Christ suffer and die for those who would reject God? The answer to this question is 'yes' from one perspective and 'no' from another.

Many would say that Christ specifically suffered and died for those who will ultimately accept Christ as their saviour because they are the only ones whos sins and transgressions will be forgiven. The sins of the reprobate will not be forgiven so Christ did not in reality suffer and die for those individuals, otherwise they would not be found guilty at judgement.

Others would say that Christ generally suffered and died for All His enemies and atoned for all sin simultaneously. That death was defeated and the gates of hell were thrown open to allow those who would heed His voice and follow the shepherd into eternal life.

My own personal belief and the reason I answered 'yes' to your question is that Christ died for all his enemies removing the sting of death for mankind and applies His lordship over death conditionally; while at the same time, He suffered and died for those who He foresaw as accepting that condition specifically.

We have to ask if Grace is truly sufficient to save all mankind is it truly sufficient when some will suffer eternal torment despite its sufficiency?​

As we know, this has been debated for centuries and will continue until we understand how God's purposes are accomplished. From my perspective Jesus Christ is God's purpose making Him the omega of creation. I digress.

Grace is truly sufficient, but acceptance of Grace is contingent.

Rob

 

[godrulz]

Mr. Hilston still confuses Open Theism with finite godism/process thought. The only way we humanize God is to affirm the incarnation of the Word (God) made flesh.

The eternal God is not a mere man, but He did become man. When we talk about His transcendent qualities, we are not humanizing Him, but we are understanding them from a biblical vs philosophical point of view (e.g. there is more than one way to view sovereignty; omnipotence does not mean God can do logically impossible/contradictory things; the future is not settled exhaustively so it is known as such).

 

[RobE]

I see a group of abortion protesters praying and witnessing to a lady headed in for an abortion and God's response is tugging, pulling, pushing the women's heart and working with those that are calling upon Him, giving them the right words and the boldness to say the most effective things to her. She warms her heart and changes her mind and saves her babies life! A true response, a true victory, a true change in the course of history has occurred through prayer.

You see Him as "responding" only via "linguistic accommodation". Ouch! :nono:

I see God as putting creation into motion. Giving man free will. Him seeing a lady headed in for an abortion on her own accord. Him decreeing that someone will be outside trying to thwart her free will actions. That God's response is to tug, pull, push the woman's heart and to try to convince her to make the right choices. That God sent those men who are calling upon His name through foreordination even though they themselves decided to cooperate with His will. She warms her heart and changes her mind, not through man's action outside of God's will; but through God's will and man's cooperation - Her's and theirs.

What if the opposite occurred and the woman killed her child. Would our Lord simply not try to save her, or the child, or the pro-lifers. What is the just response? Would it be to give them a fair chance through His actions. When the pro-lifers are not there then who is? God allows the woman to do what she does whether any other entity is in attendance. Has anyone in the o.v. ever asked or considered the answer to the question of "Why does God allow evil?"? Isn't it to accomplish the greater purpose of love in their opinion? This love which must be attained through the allowance of evil. Why is Hilston's assertion that God authored(willed) evil in an attempt to achieve a greater purpose any different? Isn't the o.v. God saying that God allows(wills) evil in an attempt to achieve a greater purpose?

Or, according to the o.v., does God require a man to be involved before He will act? Is this 'goodness'? From my position God acts without man being neccessary.

Rob

 

[Hilston]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your reply. My rejoinder is below.

God regenerates the man to a point where He is able to accept or reject the truth.

You seem to misunderstand the doctrine of individual regeneration (new birth). Biblical regeneration is the quickening of the dead spirit of man to life. A regenerated man cannot reject the truth.

It is my view that God does this with all men. God doesn't coerce anyone (which would destroy a man's free will such as in the case of Jonah/Nineveh) to acceptance of Himself.

It is neither appropriate nor germane to this discussion use the word "coerce" in reference to what God does with or to men. No one here, as far as I've seen, claims that God compels people against their will to do His bidding. What is the relevance of your reference to Jonah & Nineveh?

His knowledge of who will accept/reject His sufficient gift doesn't affect His offer because of impassibility.

Please explain.

... Justice is served through the sufficiency offered and rejected/accepted by His enemies.

Sufficiency, if it is truly sufficient, depends NOT on whether or not an offer is accepted or rejected. Sufficiency is truly that: Sufficient. If Christ's death was sufficient, then acceptance or rejection adds or detracts nothing from it.

Hilston asked: The term "sufficient" means that nothing else needs to be added. It is enough. Do you believe God's grace is enough to save all mankind?

Yes.

Then all mankind will be saved. You can't have it both ways, Rob. Either Christ's death was sufficient and all men will be saved, or Christ's death was sufficient and all the elect will be saved.

... Did Jesus Christ suffer and die for those who would reject God? The answer to this question is 'yes' from one perspective and 'no' from another.

There are lots of "perspective" questions that could be asked. "Did you make a lot of money last year?" "Does this skirt make my butt look big?" This, however, isn't one of them.

Many would say that Christ specifically suffered and died for those who will ultimately accept Christ as their saviour because they are the only ones whos sins and transgressions will be forgiven.

This is out of order. The ones whose sins are forgiven (past tense) = those who accept Christ as their Savior because Christ suffered and died specifically for them.

The sins of the reprobate will not be forgiven so Christ did not in reality suffer and die for those individuals, otherwise they would not be found guilty at judgement.

If the word "so" = "because," then I agree, although it is so roughly stated.

Others would say that Christ generally suffered and died for All His enemies and atoned for all sin simultaneously. That death was defeated and the gates of hell were thrown open to allow those who would heed His voice and follow the shepherd into eternal life.

If all Christ did was throw open the gates of hell, as long as there are people still going to hell, then Christ's work is not sufficient.

My own personal belief and the reason I answered 'yes' to your question is that Christ died for all his enemies removing the sting of death for mankind and applies His lordship over death conditionally; ...

Do you believe those who reject Christ had the sting of death removed for them?

... while at the same time, He suffered and died for those who He foresaw as accepting that condition specifically.

Foresight and foreknowledge are figures of speech in scripture referring to God decrees. He knows and sees the future because He has exhaustively and meticulously planned it.

We have to ask if Grace is truly sufficient to save all mankind is it truly sufficient when some will suffer eternal torment despite its sufficiency?​

As we know, this has been debated for centuries and will continue until we understand how God's purposes are accomplished.

So has the Trinity and the Rapture. Just because something has been debated for centuries does not mean we can't have the answer right here and right now.

Grace is truly sufficient, but acceptance of Grace is contingent.

If Grace is truly sufficient, and if anyone ends up in hell, then that grace cannot apply to all men. What is "acceptance of Grace" contingent upon?

FOTR, NOTR
Jim

 

[RobE]

You seem to misunderstand the doctrine of individual regeneration (new birth). Biblical regeneration is the quickening of the dead spirit of man to life. A regenerated man cannot reject the truth.

Then a man who is once saved is always saved. I believe that our disagreement is over when regeneration occurs. We agree that Grace is the cause of regeneration. We simply don't agree about which order the regeneration occurs in.

My belief is this:

Grace is sufficiently offered for all--> God gives man the ability to reject/accept contingent salvation in general(start of regeneration process) --> Grace becomes effecacious towards salvation if a man so chooses(complete regeneration).​

In my view, the regeneration isn't complete until man allows the Holy Spirit to complete the work. The initial 'phase' is just to give the man the ability to open the door to the Holy Spirit and create an avenue for complete regeneration. Knocking on doors and the such. God's foreknowing that man will reject His attempt doesn't mean that God won't make the attempt for the sake of justice.

Calvin's belief is this(I believe):

Grace is sufficient and effecacious to begin with ------> Some men are provided with Grace(complete regeneration) while others are not according to God's desire.​

Calvinism puts the emphasis on foreordination as selection.

Open Theism:

Grace is only sufficient in a general sense. Man is completely regenerated after He accepts Christ.​

Open Theism claims that God is unable to know the outcomes of His own acts where free will agents exist so man is able to save himself by beginning self-regeneration which is followed by the Holy Spirit finishing man's initial work.

Hilston's position(I believe):

_______________________???

It is neither appropriate nor germane to this discussion use the word "coerce" in reference to what God does with or to men. No one here, as far as I've seen, claims that God compels people against their will to do His bidding. What is the relevance of your reference to Jonah & Nineveh?

It would appear on the surface that Jonah was compelled to go to Nineveh.

Rob: His knowledge of who will accept/reject His sufficient gift doesn't affect His offer because of impassibility.

Hilston: Please explain.​

God makes His offer to all to satisfy the decree that his desire is for all to be saved. The reprobate is unable to say that God didn't provide sufficient Grace to him, so therefore God is unjust. Jesus died for all did He not? Even though, many will perish. I'm not saying that man's sense of justice has any bearing on God's true justice. I'm saying that God's true justice would provide men with more than a sufficient chance of salvation per His decreed will.

Sufficiency, if it is truly sufficient, depends NOT on whether or not an offer is accepted or rejected. Sufficiency is truly that: Sufficient. If Christ's death was sufficient, then acceptance or rejection adds or detracts nothing from it.

Yet Christ attained worthiness to receive all power over life and death. His only stated requirement for entering into communion with Him is belief in Him and acceptance of what He has done. This isn't saying that Grace was insufficient. It's saying that as master Christ requires an act from man's own initiative to become effecacious. Sufficient grace only makes this possible, not neccessary.

Hilston asked: The term "sufficient" means that nothing else needs to be added. It is enough. Do you believe God's grace is enough to save all mankind?

Hilston stated: Then all mankind will be saved. You can't have it both ways, Rob. Either Christ's death was sufficient and all men will be saved, or Christ's death was sufficient and all the elect will be saved.​

Christ's death was sufficient in that Christ was proven worthy and was given the power and authority of the Father through His actions. Christ made the condition of salvation that man freely choose Him which is a different issue than grace itself. The Giver, receiver, and gift are different parts of the same transaction. Christ's death was sufficient in its purpose to provide a means into eternal life; through the mitigation of sin at judgement for those who have the right counselor. The vine and branches so to speak. Christ's authority is complete and He has decreed that those who believe in Him will be saved while those who reject Him will be lost. This system of acceptance/rejection must reside with the receiver of grace, otherwise, it's not freely accepted/rejected.

Foreknowledge is a different issue. God knowing the outcome doesn't mean that God acts unjustly towards those who would reject Him. In fact, to my way of thinking, justice requires the playing field to be at least even for condemnation to occur. God doesn't make bad pots, they make themselves.

Rob​

 

[RobE]

If Grace is truly sufficient, and if anyone ends up in hell, then that grace cannot apply to all men. What is "acceptance of Grace" contingent upon?

It is when you consider that Grace is only dispensed by Christ who alone has authority to dispense it. What did Jesus say it was contingent upon in the scriptures?

Lee, Clete, Godrulz, Patrick, Knight;

What's your take on this?

Rob

 

[godrulz]

It is when you consider that Grace is only dispensed by Christ who alone has authority to dispense it. What did Jesus say it was contingent upon in the scriptures?

Lee, Clete, Godrulz, Patrick, Knight;

What's your take on this?

Rob

Grace is the grounds (reason for/by which) of salvation. It is based on the person and work of Christ. It is Godward. God alone initiates and provides salvation.

The conditions (not without which) of salvation are repentant faith and continuance in the faith. This is the manward side (reconciliation is not caused, coerced, unilateral...it is a reciprocal love relationship involving two parties).

The objective provision must be subjectively appropriated. It was intended for all men (unlimited atonement), but not all men receive Christ. Many reject the convincing and convicting ministry of the Spirit. Grace is not irresistible.

TULIP is simply a poor understanding of the biblical evidence.

Repentant faith precedes regeneration, not the other way around (Calvinism).

Faith is not a work. It is a response to the ministry of the Spirit. Responding to God does not mean we initiate or provide salvation. Receiving a free gift does not mean we earn it or get the glory. Hyper-sovereignty is not the way God has revealed Himself. Elect vs non-elect would make God's love and holiness arbitrary.

Hilston will disagree, according to God's decree, of course

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No, that mischaracterizes my position entirely. God's action is real, meaningful and effective. We call it a "response" because we are finite and we need a linguistic means of communicating, which often requires figurative language especially when discusses the infinite God. God's "response," while not actually a response in the humanistic sense according to the grand scheme (i.e. the Script), nonetheless effects that for which it was decreed, bringing to pass exactly what He planned.

Exactly.

That's my point to a "T" regarding your view of God.

I will never be able to view God as the mastermind behind the holocaust, 9-11 or any other terrible event that happens. I believe God is righteous and not evil, I DO NOT believe God planned or even wanted those events to take place. I believe God truly grieves when we hurt one another. I believe God truly responds to us when we ask Him.

Psalms 107:1 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It is when you consider that Grace is only dispensed by Christ who alone has authority to dispense it. What did Jesus say it was contingent upon in the scriptures?

Lee, Clete, Godrulz, Patrick, Knight;

What's your take on this?

Rob

Grace is available to all men (and it's ultimately it's God's grace that provides a way for salvation in any dispensation - but that's a topic for another show). Grace is God's "standing" offer.

Not all men choose to avail themselves to God's standing offer. God desires that all men choose Him (1 Timothy 2:4) but all men do not choose Him therefore man must have a will of his own that isn't always inline with God's will.

Throughout the Bible we see examples of man rejecting God's "standing offer".

Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

The settled viewer must view the above verses as God's will being thwarted intentionally by God's will. :hammer:

 

[godrulz]

Knight for President of TOL...wait a minute, he already is...

In addition, Luke 7:30 where the Pharisees rejected God's purposes for themselves.

Hyper-sovereignty is incorrect.