:doh: If someone doesn't eventually accept Christ guess what? They have rejected him. Unless you believe in the fallacy of universal salvation.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
:doh: If someone doesn't eventually accept Christ guess what? They have rejected him. Unless you believe in the fallacy of universal salvation.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
i already have. Have you? You have given absolutely no evidence that you can even understand what is being said.
It says that the blessing was GIVEN BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN!
I have already said that the "time element" in the verse cannot be taken literally.
What doe the phrase "from the beginning" refer to in the following verse:
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess.2:13-14).
The "evidence" that I would give that supports my view that the word "beginning" is referring back to the beginning of creation is the following verse which also speaks of God "choosing":
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).
However, you indicated that you think that I am wrong. But you have not yet said to what the word "beginning" is pointing nor have you given any evidence that supports your view.
It is one thing to make assertions but it is an entirely different thing to actually give evidence to back up your assertions.
patman
Active member
Jay,
If you really believe this, then why would it be beyond God to forgive godrulz of his Open Theism that you say is so blasphemes? By that, I don't mean to look over a sin. By that I mean let him into heaven and accept his salvation.
So, let me ask again, if God can forgive anything a Christian can do and let him into heaven, then why don't you treat him more like a brother than an enemy?
For the record, Jesus said the only unforgivable sin as a result of the Pharisees saying Jesus had an evil spirit. If "God"rulz Lord is YOUR God, when what are you saying about God when you switch his name to "Idol"?
I am sure you have fun with that, but you should take things a little more seriously.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Thanks for your answer, Lon. Now since all things with God are simultaneous then it could be said that God chose us for salvation from the foundation of the world and at the same time it could also be said that e chose us when we believed. Isn't that right?
Now let us look at the verse where Paul speaks of us being chosen before the foundation of the world:
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).
John Calvin understood that the term "in Him" refers to the Body of Christ:
" 'In Christ.' This is the second proof that the election is free; for if we are chosen in Christ, it is not of ourselves. It is not from a perception of anything that we deserve, but because our heavenly Father has introduced us, through the privilege of adoption, into the body of Christ. In short, the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of their own; for when he says that we are chosen in Christ, it follows that in ourselves we are unworthy" (John Calvin, Commentary at Ephesians 1:4).
If Calvin is right then it is obvious that no one was chosen chosen "in the Body of Christ" before the foundation of the world since the Body of Christ did not even exist then. Therefore if Calvin is right then the "time element" in Ephesians 1:4 cannot be taken literally.
Do you agree with that?
Thanks!
Jay Walk
New member
As I have said only God knows if he is saved, but I don't consider him (or anyone in his anti-Calvinist God-hating group including ghost as another example) a christian or saved for the reasons I mentioned earlier. His doctrines of God being impotent should be rejected and avoid fellowship with. His constant moral depravity of lying, deception, etc.. should be exposed and rebuked. He can't even hold his lying tongue in this thread implying Calvinism teachs God coerces man against his will and desire to be saved. The Bible doesn't teach to buddy up with heretics, especially lying, deceptive fools. This is why I call idolrulz, idolrulz: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2772686&postcount=71
Even in this thread idolrulz can't resist propping up his idols (personal definitions of love/morality/responsibility). I take this very seriously, it isn't a name just for fun.
We both can say God is unconstrained by time but for different reasons. I would say that God is in time but unconstrained by it because God is omnipotent, he is all powerful. You would say that time does not constrain God because he is outside of it. How can God interact with us if we are in time and he is outside of it?
If God enters time he is no longer timeless.
If God spoke in sequence, created the world in sequence, incarnated into time and if sequence is time and time is a restraint that God cannot experience then God either could not have done anything in sequence and did everything all at once and Jesus is not God, or God is not timeless.
That God meets us in our time frame and he is outside our frame time at the same time is a contradiction. When God acts in time he is not timeless at that time.
--Dave
Young Jay, Grasshopper. There is a big difference between early heresies condemned by Paul and others that deny the person and work of Christ (true vs false gospel/God/gods) and theological debates and disputes, including in the early Pauline church that were doctrinal, nuanced, held by equally capable, godly believers trying to understand Scripture. There is a big difference between Christianity vs atheism, Mormonism, Islam, etc. and Christians who debate Calvinism vs Arminianism or cessationism vs continuationism, or women in ministry or OSAS or not, or modes of baptism, eschatological chronologies, etc.
You are taking the fun out of fundamental. You wrongly assume that Calvinism=Gospel=Christianity. This is no better than Catholics elevating their flawed and fallible system/leaders to the exclusion of the rest of the Body of Christ that is actually more biblical.
You are taking the fun out of fundamental. You wrongly assume that Calvinism=Gospel=Christianity. This is no better than Catholics elevating their flawed and fallible system/leaders to the exclusion of the rest of the Body of Christ that is actually more biblical.
patman
Active member
Mmmm.. I am going to just leave it at this:
You don't have to be best buddies, but you should be careful about where you substitute "God" with "Idol." You're 90% sure he's not saved, I take it, because you say he sins in different ways... I hope you re-read that about 20 times and imagine someone replacing his name with yours, and his sins with your sins.
If grace can save a murderer and a blasphemer, I am sure it can save an anti-calvinist. Knowing about God is one thing. Loving him is the greater thing. Which is better, what you know (theology) or how you love?
I am all for sound theology and loving God. Too many are turned off God because of Calvinism's misrepresentation of Him and His ways. A fish does not see the water around him. A Calvinist also has a hard time seeing the error they are immersed in.
I love and respect many Calvinists and have many of their books. I can appreciate Lloyd-Jones, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Piper, Sproul, Packer, Bruce, etc. without agreeing with all of their assumptions/conclusions. Our fellowship is in Christ and His Word, even if we disagree on paradigms and details.
I suspect Jay is young, arrogant, myopic, sectarian, ignorant. I will cut him some slack, but if he is going to dish it out, he should be able to take it, especially when wrong.
patman
Active member
Yeah, I figured you weren't too worried about it. I am not trying to get in the middle here, I don't know the history you two have and you can stand up for yourself. I just saw a chance in his last post to say what I did. I want him to see God's grace and it's power, that it goes beyond theology and sin. Maybe if he begins to see his brothers as his own flesh, he'll find more graceful ways of discussing these things.
Jay, always pray for God's love 10 times more than you pray for his knowledge, friend
I don't know much about Jay (zeal without knowledge). My real history is with sozo/ghost. Jay is just a distraction, though I would like to engage him responsively. He just likes to jump on Open Theists in general. I believe love and truth are important (false religions can claim to love God, others, each other and not know God). As Christians, we should be hallmarked by love. When we elevate our pet view above discernment and love for fellow believers who disagree, then we do have a problem.
Thx for jumping in. I would expect rebuke if I was not judging others fairly.
Thx for jumping in. I would expect rebuke if I was not judging others fairly.
RSV 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago, 10 and now has manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
The word "world" does not appear in the Greek or in other translations. The phrase "προ χρονων αιωνιων" literally is translated "before the times of the ages"--Young.
This verse says that God's purpose, before Christ came, was a holy calling and this pupose was now being fulfilled/manifested. What do you think this verse has to do with time and God? God had a plan before hand that was now being fulfilled, that looks like time in God.
--Dave
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You overlook the fact that the verse says that God saved us by grace and this blesssing was GIVEN AGES AGO.
How could these first century Christians our even us receive that belessing before they were even in existence?
The fact is that they could not so we can know that the "time element" in verses which speak of God doing things in time cannot be understood literally.
That is the first step in coming to the understanding that the following verse does not prove a "settled" view, as the Calvinists maintain:
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).
The following verse uses similiar figurative language but it tells us exactly how we are saved:
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
In "time" no one is saved until he believes so the words in regard to be chosen before the foundation of the world cannot be understood in a literal manner. Since that is true the Calvinists can give no verses which prove a "settled" view.
Lon
Well-known member
You are saying God must act in sequential order as you and I. There is no scripture that I know of to make such an assertion, nor build a theology off of.
We can assume God can and does act within our timeframe but He has also given us plenty of verses (most already given in these 3 OV threads) that not only suggest He is unconstrained, but make it plain against the assertion.
You should not have a problem with God interacting in our time anymore than you have a problem occassionally putting your hand inside the fish bowl. You can enter into their world anytime you like, there is no contradiction.
Lon
Well-known member
As you said in the previous post, there is no 'before.'
When God is talking about time, it is literal in our reality. For us, there is before and after. It is only God's reality insomuch as He interacts with us in our created time frame. So, I would say it is taken literally for us, and God is relational to those communications. He isn't constrained by them and I agree they cannot apply where He is concerned.
Summary: You are correct concerning God's timelessness, but these truths are literal and applicable for us.
The scriptures tell us that God acts and speaks in sequence, SV or classic theism says that he cannot do this because then he would no longer be timeless.
When the word's came from heaven, "This is my beloved Son", God was speaking in sequence just like we do.
We both can say God is unconstrained by time but for different reasons. I would say that God is in time but unconstrained by it because God is omnipotent, he is all powerful. You would say that time does not constrain God because he is outside of it. How can God interact with us if we are in time and he is outside of it?
You did not comment on this from my last post because this is check mate. You have lost your argument here.
--Dave
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How could the time element in any verse that speaks of God doing something in "time" be understood literally?
Let us look at the following verse which uses figurative language because it shows the actions of God in "time":
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).
Surely the words "in Christ Jesus" refer to the Body of Christ because it is when we are baptized into the Body of Christ that we are identified with His death (see Rom.6:3 and Gal.3:27-28) and saved by grace. And since no Christians even existed before the world began and the Body of Christ did not exist at that time then it is evident that the "time element" at 2 Timothy cannot be understood literally.
It can be said that God gave us salvation before the world began because with God all of His actions are simulatenous and therefore the same moment when we believe and are saved with God can be the same moment which was before the world began. However, that thought only belongs to the "divine, eternal" sphere and not to the "mortal time-bound" sphere. In "time" no one is saved until they believe.
Calvinists Martyn Loyd-Jones said that it is dangerous to exaggerate the the "time element":
"God is altogether above and beyond and outside it, so that when we are thinking of the purposes of God, it is always dangerous to exaggerate this time element. God Himself, being eternal, is right outside it. To Him a thousand years are but as one day and one day as a thousand years. In other words, He does not live at all in the realm, or in terms of, the time process" (Martin Loyd-Jones, God and Time).
John Wesley understood that any verse which speaks of God predestinating anything cannot be understood literally:
"The sum of all is this: the almighty, all-wise God sees and knows, from everlasting to everlasting, all that is, that was, and that is to come, through one eternal now. With him nothing is either past or future, but all things equally present. He has, therefore, if we speak according to the truth of things, no foreknowledge, no afterknowledge...It is merely in compassion to us that he speaks thus of himself, as foreknowing the things in heaven or earth, and as predestinating or fore-ordaining them. But can we possibly imagine that these expressions are to be taken literally?" (John Wesley, "Sermons on Several Occasions," 1771, Second Series, On Predestination, Sermon #58; Christian Classics Ethereal Library).
Do you agree with this Lon?
Thanks!
Lon
Well-known member
No. I'll repeat to infinity I guess: God is relational to and unconstrained by time.
I will answer Jerry here so you will get more of the gist:
Because when God acts, it is realized in a literal time frame. God can and does interact in our lives and times. Because it is real to us, it is real to God. His creation's limitations do not limit Him in any possible way. More explanation below.
Well, literally for us, it is our reality. Perhaps if I state that what God makes, is real, that would clear up matters. My paradigm is strongly: He is relational to time, unconstrained by it (much in the same way He is relational to us, but we restrain Him not at all). In that sense, time is real for God as part of His creation. It relates to Him as He interacts with us. You are correct to say God doesn't have 'days.' He created the morning and night.
Well, yes, but I'd again point out this is said for our understanding and benefit. You seem to acquiesce the point in saying there is no 'fore' (before) knowledge.
For us, it is a literal before that God has made so it is correct to say 'before' in relation to what we understand. These things happened 'before.' As you rightly said, there is no 'before' for God other than as it relates to His genuine interactions with us.
I would liken this to my analogy to Dave concerning his fish. Of course I'd agree Dave is wholly outside of his fishes' bowl, yet he is genuinely wet when he reaches in to clean it. This isn't a constraint on Dave, it is a relational choice.
God, similarly experiences our time, but I'm in agreement He is apart from His creation.
Mostly. Westly is correct that God has no beginning (no before) EXCEPT as it relates to His interactions with us (which I think is his point). Because He is interested in us and loves us, He does experience our before's and after's with us to the degree of His complete involvement (it is constant unlike Dave with his fish). So I would say God does experience our before and afters but they don't wholly apply to Him. Another way of saying He is relational yet unconstrained by time, is to say He is relational to us, but it isn't His only reality. Nothing in His creation can contain Him, He is outside of it, including time. He is not c'ompletely' outside of creation, however, His hand is involved with us, so He would experience our experiences, including time. My whole point is that He is much more than what we know and experience as is Dave from His fish. They have no idea when he goes to work or out socializing. Dave is there for his fish when they need him. God is there for us, in our time, when we need Him so experiences what is our parameters and limitations. Experiencing is in no way the same as saying He is constrained to it.
-Lon
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Lon,
I quoted the following verse and then I made the following comments:
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).
Surely the words "in Christ Jesus" refer to the Body of Christ because it is when we are baptized into the Body of Christ that we are identified with His death (see Rom.6:3 and Gal.3:27-28) and saved by grace. And since no Christians even existed before the world began and the Body of Christ did not exist at that time then it is evident that the "time element" at 2 Timothy cannot be understood literally.
To this you said:
I quoted the following verse and then I made the following comments:
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim.1:9).
Surely the words "in Christ Jesus" refer to the Body of Christ because it is when we are baptized into the Body of Christ that we are identified with His death (see Rom.6:3 and Gal.3:27-28) and saved by grace. And since no Christians even existed before the world began and the Body of Christ did not exist at that time then it is evident that the "time element" at 2 Timothy cannot be understood literally.
To this you said:
How can it be said that it is a REALITY that before the world began Christians were saved by grace and this blessing was given in the Body of Christ SINCE NO CHRISTIANS EVEN EXISTED AT THAT TIME AND THE BODY OF CHRIST DID NOT EVEN EXIST AT THAT TIME?
If I had been attempting such a thing you might be worth listening to, but I was doing no such thing. I don't deny God is sovereign, so why would I attempt to disprove or discredit it?
You have chosen your name well, for you are just as stupid as the people he interviews in that segment.