I was planning on getting to that. But it's off topic.What would that even mean?
More importantly, you are off topic.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Biblical words can be misused. Were you aware of that? Simply using a word that is found in the Bible doesn't make the use of the word appropriate.
He has been open view for as long as I've known. What makes you think he is anything else? Because he believes in eternal security? Most of the OVers here do. You, Philetus and muzicman are the only ones I know who don't.
Please don't do that again. I thought Jay had hijacked your account, there for a moment. It was scary.:shocked:
Mystery
New member
He doesn't understand one single biblical doctrine concerning salvation.
Mystery
New member
:freak:
The same holds true when misunderstanding the use of a word when it is appropriate.
So, even though you agreed with me that I was right about this a few weeks ago, you are disagreeing with me now? :think:
Congratulations! You have completely killed this thread.
Mystery
New member
I thought I was using it in a different, and appropriate context. I guess not.
Both. A conclusion that I had already come to during the identical conversation with Mystery.
The point is that He could have done otherwise. Please try to keep your eye on the ball here. I don't understand what makes you guys think that I disagree with the gospel message and that presenting it somehow argues against my position. On the contrary, it supports my position which is why I am the one who brought it up!
Why is this subject so difficult for you guys to keep focused on? The whole point is that righteousness is not EVER divorced from willful action! Without willful action, righteousness is meaningless.
But that death is not applied without repentance.
This is not so. People are condemned to Hell because of their sin and Jesus died to save them from that deserved condemnation.
John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 , that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
Resting in Him,
Clete
:squint:
And I'm accused of being a dualist?
He didn't do otherwise, because He was already righteous, apart from the acts of righteousness.
I don't think you disagree. In fact, I don't disagree with you that He could have done otherwise.
Such as faith without action? Like, if you say you can walk on water like Peter did, but you never even try, it means nothing? Is that how you mean this?
His righteousness is not applied without repentance. the forgiveness of sins is different. Salvation is not the forgiveness of sins. Salvation is His life. The forgiveness was offered when He died. But salvation [His life] is only applied if you accept it.
This clearly states that they are condemned for not believing. It does not say they are condemned for their deeds, only that they are afraid to come to the light because they don't want those deeds exposed.
Philetus
New member
This issue (much more so than foreknowledge IMO) is at the heart of the debate between an Open vs. Settled future.
The Spirit is at work in the world (on/in ALL people) for the purposes expressed above, and even though the Spirit is at work thus, some (the 'dead' and lost specifically) are able to resist/reject His work and remain dead and lost. That freedom to exercise their 'will' in resisting/rejecting the convincing/convicting of the Spirit is the primary contingency on which the future remains open. (The rest is just pudding; mostly mundane (though not without consequences) choices.
) Once in Christ, His righteousness (Spirit) is the Guarantee that at least that part of our future (where we will spend ‘eternity’) is settled/secure. Would you agree?
Mystery
New member
In regards to how one is saved, yes. However, there is evidence by what one believes, whether or not salvation has actually occured. The gospel is so seldom presented that most people have religious experiences, but have never accepted Christ. I do not believe that someone can be saved and maintain that salvation can be lost. Those people have never been saved. I don't believe that someone can say that salvation is maintained by the will. Those people are not saved. I don't believe that someone who is saved will deny the Once for ALL sacrifice of Jesus by claiming that they are still sinners. Those people are not saved. The fruit of someone who is saved is in what they believe. Faith is the evidence. A great many people who say they believe in Jesus, have no faith at all.This issue (much more so than foreknowledge IMO) is at the heart of the debate between an Open vs. Settled future.
The Spirit is at work in the world (on/in ALL people) for the purposes expressed above, and even though the Spirit is at work thus, some (the 'dead' and lost specifically) are able to resist/reject His work and remain dead and lost. That freedom to exercise their 'will' in resisting/rejecting the convincing/convicting of the Spirit is the primary contingency on which the future remains open. (The rest is just pudding; mostly mundane (though not without consequences) choices.
Would you agree?
Philetus
New member
No! Not because he was dualistic - separating the spirit and the flesh, but because Christ didn't sin! (And don't even speculate as to whether or not he could have. It's irrelevant to the issue here.) Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh - one whole person. Your dualistic view messes with the ontological arguments and borders on gnosticism. And your earlier comment to Clete makes it obvious to everyone you don't understand 'dualism'.
And another thing while I'm at it: I believe in eternal security as long as one continues in the faith. In Christ one can only forfeit their salvation intentionally! Blaspheme the Spirit, reject the Gospel, walk away from and turn their back on God and renounce their savior. (It isn't done by just sinning; actual or imagined, so don't go there.) It is done by an act of the will and it is the most asinine thing a child of God could do. But, I believe that when we come to Christ we don’t check our brains or our wills at the door. God continues to respect both.
Philetus
Philetus
New member
Isn't it possible to witness the convicting work of the Spirit in an unbeliever even as he resists it?
I don't think that salvation is maintained as a matter of will either or else the very work of the Spirit is negated. But, will does play a role in both coming and remaining in Christ.
elected4ever
New member
Not human will. God did not leave us subject to such a fickle thing.
elected4ever
New member
blaspheme of the spirit cannot occure in a righteous spirit.
Mystery
New member
None of my business.
An essential of salvation is the end of the will. That is what you are surrendering. A Christian no longer has a will (in respect to who they are or whose they are).
When Adam ate from the tree, he surrendered his will to death. When we come to Christ we surrender our will to life.
I know! I don't like the "both/and" thing much either and the only reason it works in this case is because for a being that has always existed there is no first act, no moment in time when He became righteous. God has both always been righteous and always acted righteous, neither came before the other.
Exactly! It was theoretically possible for God to have done otherwise. This is what makes God's action meaningful. If God isn't free then who cares what He does or doesn't do? There is no virtue in an unchosen action.
No. I mean that the when someone says that you are righteous, there is a righteous action which makes it so, whether that actions is in thought, word, or deed. To be righteous means that one chooses to act in the best interests of others. That's what the word means and so if you divorce the word righteous from willful action (whether in thought or deed) then you strip the word of its meaning. Thus God is righteous because He chooses to act in the best interests of those in relationship with Him. At one time this selfless relationship existed only within the Trinity but since creation it has multiplied to include the whole of that creation.
There is no such creature that exists who's sins are forgiven who is not also both righteous and saved.
Don't ignore the context of the passage in order to force it to say something that it doesn't intend to say. The whole theme of the Bible is about God providing a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins Lighthouse! How in the world does one get to a point where they cannot see that?
In fact, I am not even going to debate this with you. Its asinine. If you end up in Hell its because of your own sin. If you think otherwise then you need to put on the brakes and say wait just a damn minute. How in the crap did I get so far off track that I could except that God would send anyone to Hell for any other reason other than their own sin? The Bible is not written in some sort of code. It's really easy to understand if you just read it and make even the smallest effort toward staying on the same page as the Author. When you get to a place where your theology is so convoluted and complex that you find yourself arguing about such simple to understand principles, use it as a red flag to signal that something has gone terribly wrong.
It's as simply as this. You are guilty of sin that you yourself chose to perform. Christ died and redeemed the whole human race from Adam's sin and so no one will be punished for the sin of their father's but your own sin will not be washed away by Christ's blood unless you humble yourself and ask God to do so acknowledging your need for a savior. If you do that then God will quickly forgive you of your sin and you will be declared righteous on the basis of Christ's action on your behalf. But if one fails to do that then God will not apply to sacrifice to their sin and they will be made to pay their own debt - their own SIN debt.
That's the gospel and that's it. Take it or leave it. I will not debate it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Philetus
New member
I think it is the business of at least an evangelist to be aware of the reconciling work of God in Christ through the Spirit convicting and convincing the lost with whom we are sharing the gospel ... not in an invasive or manipulative way, but at least as co-laboring witnesses. Maybe that old residual Calvinistic thinking is why the Gospel is rarely preached as you put it. Since the lost have nothing to do with their salvation then neither should we. I’m not convinced that is the case.
I was under the impression that a surrender of the will was a daily thing for followers of Jesus. I understand ‘living’ sacrifice as an on going process. Yes, the initial surrender is made in confession and repentance unto salvation. Subsequent surrenders of our will are also necessary for obedience. Our salvation doesn’t hang in the balance, but our usefulness and fruitfulness in the kingdom of God does.
2Peter 2:8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
- Status