ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Jerry Shugart]

It could be the Lord is trying to teach you something, He has blessed some of His people with the gift of teaching and He will bless you if you listen to them.

Pls don't take this wrong but I don't think you have that gift. If you keep "flash posting" I'm afraid you are going to have to "race" with someone else.

ChristisKing,

I hope that you do not take this wrong.I might not have the gift of teaching,but I would think long and hard before I would ever say what you said,that in order to be disciples of Christ we must hate our family.And please do not take this wrong,but you have lost all touch with reality when it comes to understanding the Scriptures.

And how in the world am I going to be blessed by the Lord by believing someone who would dare say that before a person can become a disciple of Christ we must hate our family?

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

 

[ChristisKing]

ChristisKing,

I hope that you do not take this wrong.I might not have the gift of teaching,but I would think long and hard before I would ever say what you said,that in order to be disciples of Christ we must hate our family.And please do not take this wrong,but you have lost all touch with reality when it comes to understanding the Scriptures.

And how in the world am I going to be blessed by the Lord by believing someone who would dare say that before a person can become a disciple of Christ we must hate our family?

Jerry,

You will be blessed by the Lord by believing someone who would dare believe Jesus Christ's commandment that we must hate our family before becoming a disciple and stop, reflect and think instead of "flash posting."

LUK 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

You mean you don't hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters and even your own life as Jesus commanded?

I asked you this before and you didn't answer because you were flash posting to fast?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Why are you flash posting,ChristisKing?

I answered the verse that you quoted already by citing a Greek expert as to the meaning of the word translated "hate".It can mean "to love less"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

In other words,in order to be disciples of the Lord we must love Him even more than we love ourselves and our family.

I love my family very much.Perhaps you can give me some advice as how I can muster up some hate for them.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

 

[ChristisKing]

Why are you flash posting,ChristisKing?

I answered the verse that you quoted already by citing a Greek expert as to the meaning of the word translated "hate".It can mean "to love less"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

In other words,in order to be disciples of the Lord we must love Him even more than we love ourselves and our family.

I love my family very much.Perhaps you can give me some advice as how I can muster up some hate for them.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

From Post #367 page 25: (Missed in the "flash")

"I confessed to you that I hate them in the context of how Christ meant hate here, not in the context of how God hated Easu. God hated Esau in a different context. Scripture records that God hated Esau with a hatred that would cause Him to "lay his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." God hated Esau with a hatred that when Esau said, "We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places;" that the LORD of hosts said, "They shall build, but I will throw down." God said that He hated Esau with such a hatred that Esau and his people would be known on earth as "The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever."

Christ was teaching that we should hate anyone that stands in the way of our coming to Him, not with the same hatred that God hated Esau, that is we should not "lay their mountains and heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness, destroy all that they built or be indignate against them forever." The hatred Christ spoke of us to have was to uterally despise the love of all these relations for us as they use that love to convince us not to come to Christ! For instance the Jews excommunicate a family member from their family if they embrace Christ, that Christian family member should embrace that excommunication!!

You are making the same error with the word "hate" that you are making with "all men." You think that these words all have the same meaning everywhere they are used in Scripture, and I have proven to you that they do not. That is a very naive and simplistic way to interpret Scripture and I'm afraid it has led you into the heresy of Open Theism."

Jesus said:

LUK 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

I hate my father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters and my own life like Christ commanded Jerry, do you?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[godrulz]

Sin is no more a substance than friendliness, goodness, or virtue are substances. If sin is a substance that can be transmitted physically, then virtue also must be a substance that can be transmitted physically. And what would be the result if all this were true? Why, sinners would beget sinners, and saints, of course, would beget saints!

Sin is not a substance, and we all know that sin is not a substance. Yet learned theologians still maintain the impossible dogma that sin, like some malignant disease, has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants. How ridiculous it is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. How foolish to speak of men being born sinners! Only in some fantastic science fiction novel might moral character be spoken of as being passed on physically in the bloodstream of man. Moral character, whether holiness or sinfulness, cannot be passed on physically. It is gross superstition to believe that it can be.[/i](A.T.Overstreet)

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

http://www.concentric.net/~fires/mbs.html

Overstreet's article (Calvinists do not like it).

I have been saying this over and over. Sin is not a substance that can be imputed or genetically passed on to the human race. I liked your quotes from Overstreet, but have not heard of him. He has been influenced by one of my favorite theologians, Charles Finney (the Pelagius accusation is a red herring). Finney, with his keen legal mind, refuted hyper-Calvinism, including the Augustinian doctrine of 'original sin'. His Systematic Theology is difficult and must be read fully to not misrepresent him. Just because it is a traditional view does not make it biblical.

The other issue is distinguishing physical depravity and moral depravity. Sin is a choice/lawlessness, not a substance. We are born with physical depravity, not moral depravity (not inheritable).

Refresh my memory, Jerry. We seem to disagree on many things. Are you an Open Theis (I am). Do you agree with Enyart? Are you Mid-Acts? Are you Calvinistic? Arminian? I would be surprised if you agree with Finney on many things? Is this the only doctrine you agree with Finney, but subscribe to other views in other areas?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Sin is not a substance that can be imputed or genetically passed on to the human race.

Certainly! Theology people have held that a morally depraved nature is passed on, not sin as such, but the propensity to sin. Do babies need instruction in selfishness? No, they don't...

We are born with physical depravity, not moral depravity (not inheritable).

Then righteousness could have come through the law, through simply choosing not to ever sin, the righteousness of the law could work for some.

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,


Certainly! Theology people have held that a morally depraved nature is passed on, not sin as such, but the propensity to sin. Do babies need instruction in selfishness? No, they don't...


Then righteousness could have come through the law, through simply choosing not to ever sin, the righteousness of the law could work for some.

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

Blessings,
Lee

Babies are not selfish to want sleep, food, drink, a diaper changed, love, etc. In time, one develops mental and moral capacity to know better than to make one's bodily needs the supreme reason for living. For a baby, it is innocence to want needs met. For an adult, it is sin to live for Self supremely rather than the glory of God who meets our needs.

We do have a propensity to sin and everyone, without exception, eventually sins by choice. No one choses God always. We all sin in motive, thought, deed, etc. We all fall short of the glory of God and His perfection. We could not have saved ourselves. We are responsible for our own sin, not that of Adam.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

For a baby, it is innocence to want needs met. For an adult, it is sin to live for Self supremely rather than the glory of God who meets our needs.

I'm just saying that selfishness is not taught, though, it is not an acquired characteristic, it comes with the baby.

Romans 13:8 for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

So then being selfish about our needs, even innocently, breaks the law, it is a sin.

We could not have saved ourselves. We are responsible for our own sin, not that of Adam.

Yes, and yet, if babies are sinless, then could not some be righteous apart from Christ? All who die before they first sin, actually?

Then I must ask again, why wouldn't that also mean that babies are immortal, that is, they actually couldn't die, if they were sinless?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Hi Godrulz,


I'm just saying that selfishness is not taught, though, it is not an acquired characteristic, it comes with the baby.

Romans 13:8 for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.

So then being selfish about our needs, even innocently, breaks the law, it is a sin.


Yes, and yet, if babies are sinless, then could not some be righteous apart from Christ? All who die before they first sin, actually?

Then I must ask again, why wouldn't that also mean that babies are immortal, that is, they actually couldn't die, if they were sinless?

Blessings,
Lee

I think there is an element where a baby acquires selfishness. As a one year old, they are created dependent on parents by God. Parents are responsible to meet their needs. It is not selfish to cry because one is hungry or tired. The baby does not know the law, and there is nothing lawless about crying for food. At this point, there is not moral and mental capacity to formulate selfish choices and motives. King Baby eventually learns these self-centered patterns. When his conscience and mental/moral capacity increases, he will find it easy to continue to be self-centered. He will now be accountable/culpable since he has mental/moral capacity.

Babies are innocent, starting with a clean slate, except some of the consequences of the Fall. I would not say they are righteous. They are saved based on their non-rejection of Christ. A fetus does not have capacity to sin or receive Christ. There is provision for their souls. If they are truly sinful at birth, then babies should go to hell. This leads to the specious doctrine of original sin and infant baptism.

Babies are not immortal because we are all under the consequences of the Fall relating to PHYSICAL depravity. Even Christians die, though they are in Christ. Physical death is passed to the whole human race. We live in a sin-cursed, fallen world. We have a hope of resurrection and glorification, but being righteous in Christ or an aborted fetus does not make us immune to death. We will not experience spiritual or eternal death if we are in Christ. In contrast, MORAL depravity is not inherited (sin is not a substance; it is a wrong moral choice). We all become morally depraved as we become sinners as we sin. There is no need to presume that we are sinners at birth and this is why we sin. We have a propensity to sin since we are in the flesh/body that has cravings that are used to being met from a young age. This does not mean there is a nebulous, causative sinful nature back of the will, the seat of choices, with the mind. We are culpable/accountable because we all chose to sin with our wills. If we were born unable to help it, God would get the blame for making us that way.

Skim the link about original sin. I believe it has merit to avoid traditional confusion in this area.

 

[justchristian]

We are culpable/accountable because we all chose to sin with our wills. If we were born unable to help it, God would get the blame for making us that way.

While I agree with much of what you said the doctirine of original sin states Adam ruined it for us...God originally created Adam without sin and original sin was from the Fall. A original sin doctrine would ultimately hold Adam accountable not God.

But original sin was explained to me as being spiritualy dead. This state inhibits an independant communion with God. It was the fall - the choice of Adam - that doomed man with this state. God chose to set things right through Christ whos human self was the second Adam, born without original sin and so from birth was in communion with God. He was tempted as Adam was but was without sin. And so sent his spirit to all who would believe in Him to make them spiritually alive (spiritual baptism) and able to commune with God through Christ. (it is also through this same spirit we recieve justification, and redemtion)

 

[godrulz]

Original sin did not exist for Lucifer and Adam. They both sinned and fell. We do not need the Augustinian doctrine of original sin to explain why man sins. Its origins were later in Church history and relies on a few proof texts or assumptions that have an alternate, cogent understanding (e.g. Ps. 51).

 

[justchristian]

Is the distinction then Adam and lucifer fell, we start fallen?

 

[godrulz]

Is the distinction then Adam and lucifer fell, we start fallen?

I do not see why we start morally fallen. Babies are born innocent with a blank moral slate. They do not have the mental or moral capacity with their first breath to have motives or lawless choices. What they do have is physical depravity from the Fall. We all die, live in a sin cursed world, have a propensity to sin, etc. We do not have moral depravity as a fetus, since this is in the realm of choices (morals), not substance (metaphysics). Morals are not imputable or inheritable from Adam. Physical consequences to creation from Gen. 3 are inheritable, but do not damn us to hell apart from our later rejection of Christ and volitional sins.

Adam and Lucifer were prototypes who show that the will is all that is needed to Fall. We all fall individually by misusing our will and intellect and body.

 

[justchristian]

Do you think it possible for any man besides Christ to live a life without sinning?

 

[ChristisKing]

Refresh my memory, Jerry. We seem to disagree on many things. Are you an Open Theis (I am). Do you agree with Enyart? Are you Mid-Acts? Are you Calvinistic? Arminian? I would be surprised if you agree with Finney on many things? Is this the only doctrine you agree with Finney, but subscribe to other views in other areas?

He is thinking.

 

[godrulz]

Do you think it possible for any man besides Christ to live a life without sinning?

No. No man is perfect. Inevitably, everyone will have a wrong thought, motive, or deed. Rom. 1-3 is clear that no one is righteous and all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We need a Savior. We cannot save ourselves. The issue is whether we sin because we are born sinners (unnecessary assumption) or whether we are sinners because we sin (more defensible). Regardless of which view one holds, the important thing to know is that we are all sinners. Since the 10 commandments all involve our will, intellect, and emotions, I see no reason to think that lawlessness is innate. It is a choice to obey or disobey God's moral law of love vs selfishness.

 

[justchristian]

So then you hold Christ was only able to live without sin because of his divinity?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you think it possible for any man besides Christ to live a life without sinning?

justchristian,

I believe that man is created with a free will in regard to whether or not he will sin.But all men choose of their own accord at some time to go their own way and not the way that they know is right.

Nothing in their nature forces them to do wrong,but instead they choose to go their own way.

In His grace,--Jerry
"Dispensationalism Made Easy"
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-..._made_easy.html

 

[ChristisKing]

Do you think it possible for any man besides Christ to live a life without sinning?

Yes, that is exactly what godrulz and Jerry believe. It is the fruit of both their and Open Theism doctrine. It certainly is possible for a man not to sin under their doctrine. Man is born without sin and has the potential to lead a sinless life. To take it a step further they also believe that God does not know, or want to know?!? :chuckle: , whether any more people will sin. You see, He leaves it up to their "free will."

So Christ is just a "contingency plan" in case anyone else sins. Ohh...the beautiful consistency of Open Theism!!! :thumb:

 

[justchristian]

So why then is Christ the only man in history to pull it off? Was Christ able to die for our sins because he was sinless or because he was God? If God created us as we are and our inclination to sin isnt a result of the fall then did God create us with an inclination to sin. And dont say we dont have an inclination to sin...history has definately proven that.